Climate Change Report

[jvol1]

Nuclear waste is difficult to get rid of because of regulations. Most high-level nuclear waste is self-protecting, and thus not a terrorism-related concern.

Whether you can use it for fission or not, radiation and radioactive material in and of itself is a problem. You know, like a dirty bomb.

 

[0nelilreb]

Nuclear waste is extremely toxic and difficult to dispose of, also terrorism concerns, and the Japanese experience can attest that melt downs are ugly.

Why knock the Germans for paying heed to science so you can provide weak support for the fossil fuels economy which is close to being superseded by cheaper electricity?

Do tell exactly what is close to superseding fossils fuels ? I don’t knock the Germans for “paying heed to science “ I knock the Germans for shutting down their energy sources , talking Sh!t about Putin bad , Putin’s a killer , Russia Russia Russia at their little elitist get together then getting their energy supplies met through a pipeline suppling “ FOSSIL FUELS” to them from ... that’s right , you guessed it , PUTIN .

 

[Roustabout]

It impacted trees over a 2000 km area. The blast force was downward, and from ~5 miles above the surface; where as a volcano is generally directed upward, which explains why MSH did not do as much damage to trees. However, MSH lost the top 1000 feet of the entire mountain, which included lots of ice and snow, and is far more material than the estimated size of this asteroid. This was sent, along with ash and rock, to over 100,000 feet into the atmosphere.

So, you seriously want to debate a volcanic explosion to one a meteor impact?

Go for it. Again, the article is a theory and the theory has to do with the upper most parts of the atmosphere.
But you make a great point. Volcanoes do damage to the environment. Maybe you should protest their impact on climate.

 

[Weezy]

Whether you can use it for fission or not, radiation and radioactive material in and of itself is a problem. You know, like a dirty bomb.

Stop Letting Your Ridiculous Fears Of Nuclear Waste Kill The Planet

Nuclear waste is managed. If you believe in climate change, then you shouldn't let fears of things that have never happened stop the one energy source that works.

 

[Grand Vol]

I could see them wanting to shut down the reactors in old East Germany (if they hadn't already) since Soviet inspired nuclear safety was dubious at best.

However, the reasoning behind shutting them down over Fukushima is even more dubious. It's not like the Germain reactors were built on known fault lines and were in danger of cracking open because of a tsunami. If it was to transition to green energy, okay, say that. Don't give an unrelated excuse.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I could see them wanting to shut down the reactors in old East Germany (if they hadn't already) since Soviet inspired nuclear safety was dubious at best.

However, the reasoning behind shutting them down over Fukushima is even more dubious. It's not like the Germain reactors were built on known fault lines and were in danger of cracking open because of a tsunami. If it was to transition to green energy, okay, say that. Don't give an unrelated excuse.

It still amazes me how people look at Fukushima as a failure. I see a 50+ year old reactor set that withstood an onslaught of sheer human stupidity for multiple days before succumbing to the laws of thermodynamics. Pure alpha engineering. Kudos to GEs engineers on that one.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I'm surprised the weather will be that warm. That's great.

Probably won't be, but, at least they aren't showing days on end of being below freezing during the daytime highs. I am sure there will be a couple of cold snaps, just hoping for some decent weekends. Got a lot of work to do before summer/boating season!

 

[82_VOL_83]

So, you seriously want to debate a volcanic explosion to one a meteor impact?

Go for it. Again, the article is a theory and the theory has to do with the upper most parts of the atmosphere.
But you make a great point. Volcanoes do damage to the environment. Maybe you should protest their impact on climate.

So are we now using volcanic explosions and meteor impacts instead of star ratings on players?

 

[Wafflestomper]

So, you seriously want to debate a volcanic explosion to one a meteor impact?

Go for it. Again, the article is a theory and the theory has to do with the upper most parts of the atmosphere.
But you make a great point. Volcanoes do damage to the environment. Maybe you should protest their impact on climate.

I'll take this response as a tacit acknowledgment that you have no further evidence to back this theory up, and that my dismissal of it as implausible was warranted. Maybe you should stick to what your PhD was in--*****ing about abortion.

 

[Wafflestomper]

It still amazes me how people look at Fukushima as a failure. I see a 50+ year old reactor set that withstood an onslaught of sheer human stupidity for multiple days before succumbing to the laws of thermodynamics. Pure alpha engineering. Kudos to GEs engineers on that one.

Except for putting the emergency diesels 30 ft. above sea level. They sort of f***ed that up. And providing a way for hydrogen to go from one containment building to another. That wasn't good either.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Except for putting the emergency diesels 30 ft. above sea level. They sort of f***ed that up. And providing a way for hydrogen to go from one containment building to another. That wasn't good either.

So I’m not sure the diesel placement was actually the GE engineers fault first off. And I believe if auxillary power had been maintained the hydrogen buildup would have been mitigated?

I found an old IEEE issue that dissected the whole thing from a technical perspective when I was cleaning up the man cave a while back. Like I said I was pretty impressed how well 50+ old reactor design held up.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Whether you can use it for fission or not, radiation and radioactive material in and of itself is a problem. You know, like a dirty bomb.

Yes, I wasnt assuming a terrorist organization had the technology or engineering to make a bomb. The high-level waste that could be used to irradiate people is mostly self-protecting, meaning that it would likely kill them as they tried to steal/weaponize it. It's true that a crude dirty bomb could be made from low level radioactive material, however the worst damage this would do is scare the public and increase a few peoples' lifetime risk of getting cancer.

Why go to all this trouble when you can kill many more people with chemicals that are readily available?

 

[Roustabout]

I'll take this response as a tacit acknowledgment that you have no further evidence to back this theory up, and that my dismissal of it as implausible was warranted. Maybe you should stick to what your PhD was in--*****ing about abortion.

Ad hominem much:
I pointed out the facts presented in the article.

 

[theFallGuy]

Stop Letting Your Ridiculous Fears Of Nuclear Waste Kill The Planet

Nuclear waste is managed. If you believe in climate change, then you shouldn't let fears of things that have never happened stop the one energy source that works.

The whole premise is based on fear

 

[Wafflestomper]

Ad hominem much:
I pointed out the facts presented in the article.

What facts? The article is backed up by practically nothing other than a timeline of when we started seeing changes in climate (which, by the way, is also around the time industrialization started).

As far as the ad hominem goes: don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

Volcanoes do damage to the environment. Maybe you should protest their impact on climate.

That’s about as bad as your Tylenol analogy.

 

[LouderVol]

so seems like there are some people who know their nuke stuff in here.

I have a couple questions regarding the waste:
1. Why can't we use the same material for pretty much forever? It is still radioactive, so can it just no longer perform fission at some point? Its my understanding that all of the uranium/whatever isn't all used up in the fission process.
2. Could the waste be re-enriched? after it has gone through the fission process? Again it is my understanding that we have to treat radioactive materials to get them to the point where we can use them.
3. I know fusion is still a pipe dream of sorts but can the material that has been fissioned be fused back? It is difficult for me to imagine that a still radioactive material can't be useful. I can get it being less efficient, but its hard to accept that its useless afterwards.

 

[AM64]

Nuclear waste is extremely toxic and difficult to dispose of, also terrorism concerns, and the Japanese experience can attest that melt downs are ugly.

Why knock the Germans for paying heed to science so you can provide weak support for the fossil fuels economy which is close to being superseded by cheaper electricity?

As far as I can tell Germany, unlike Japan, isn't often subject to earthquakes and tsunamis. Germany is subject to some brutally cold weather from time to time and often limited sunshine. Putting all your eggs in wind and solar energy is risky business unless you have dragged enough firewood into your cave.

 

[AM64]

N. of Clarksville.

Maybe since it's gonna be warm, KY can see fit to patch the potholes on I-24 around there.

 

[Roustabout]

What facts? The article is backed up by practically nothing other than a timeline of when we started seeing changes in climate (which, by the way, is also around the time industrialization started).

As far as the ad hominem goes: don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

If you actually refute something and want to say “azzhole,” You’ll never hear a peep from me.
The Tunguska asteroid is event is a fact. Whether it had any impact on the environment is a theory and I’m just as curious about that as anyone. You are the one that compares it to MSH.

 

[Wafflestomper]

so seems like there are some people who know their nuke stuff in here.

I have a couple questions regarding the waste:
1. Why can't we use the same material for pretty much forever? It is still radioactive, so can it just no longer perform fission at some point? Its my understanding that all of the uranium/whatever isn't all used up in the fission process.

When fission takes place it splits the uranium atom into pieces so you don't have uranium anymore. Eventually you'll run out of the necessary quantity of uranium to sustain a chain reaction.

It depends on the reactor design, and I'm really only familiar with PWRs which use highly enriched uranium. When this type of fuel is "spent" it is still pretty highly enriched and can be down blended and reprocessed for use in another application.

2. Could the waste be re-enriched? after it has gone through the fission process? Again it is my understanding that we have to treat radioactive materials to get them to the point where we can use them.

Again, I'm not very familiar with most new commercial reactors (almost all of which use low-enriched uranium), but probably so. Weapons-grade plutonium used to be one of the main isotopes sought from fuel reprocessing. This has died down in recent years with all the non-proliferation concerns.

3. I know fusion is still a pipe dream of sorts but can the material that has been fissioned be fused back? It is difficult for me to imagine that a still radioactive material can't be useful. I can get it being less efficient, but its hard to accept that its useless afterwards.

It would be much cheaper and easier to obtain whatever isotope you're wanting through traditional methods. Fusion is more of a science project right now than a viable industry technology.

 

[AM64]

Whether you can use it for fission or not, radiation and radioactive material in and of itself is a problem. You know, like a dirty bomb.

Another good reason to secure the border. You know that getting to spent fuel is virtually impossible, and any idea just how heavy the stuff is? If you've ever read NRC incident reports, most problems with irradiated material have to do with medical use and industrial radiography. As far as someone lugging around unshielded nuclear waste, that's a self correcting error on the labor issue. Whether Mohamed gets his 72 virgins for lugging hazardous material rather than going up in smoke is a question for the clerics.

 

[LouderVol]

When fission takes place it splits the uranium atom into pieces so you don't have uranium anymore. Eventually you'll run out of the necessary quantity of uranium to sustain a chain reaction.

It depends on the reactor design, and I'm really only familiar with PWRs which use highly enriched uranium. When this type of fuel is "spent" it is still pretty highly enriched and can be down blended and reprocessed for use in another application.



Again, I'm not very familiar with most new commercial reactors (almost all of which use low-enriched uranium), but probably so. Weapons-grade plutonium used to be one of the main isotopes sought from fuel reprocessing. This has died down in recent years with all the non-proliferation concerns.



It would be much cheaper and easier to obtain whatever isotope you're wanting through traditional methods. Fusion is more of a science project right now than a viable industry technology.

Thanks for the answers.

Is there a reason we can't "fission" (not sure on tenses for that as a verb, "fise"? I know "split" is generic) the not-uranium? I was thinking the fission that goes on was splitting off enough to make a Hydrogen, which seems like it would leave a good but of material to still be split. But it sounds like you are saying we are taking Uranium 232 and making it 231. or whatever those numbers are. if I understand the isotope speak.

 

[AM64]

It still amazes me how people look at Fukushima as a failure. I see a 50+ year old reactor set that withstood an onslaught of sheer human stupidity for multiple days before succumbing to the laws of thermodynamics. Pure alpha engineering. Kudos to GEs engineers on that one.

From an old PWR guy, I don't give a lot of credit to GE for much of anything. BWRs are more prone to radiation releases than PWRs, and GE constantly argued against applying lessons learned from prior PWR events as non-applicable to BWRs. The hydrogen buildup that destroyed the spent fuel buildings at Fukushima was preventable by spark ignitors put in PWR containment buildings since TMI. Of course the power source for them would still have been a problem. Light weight buildings housing pool storage and an overhead crane parked above the pool is an accident just waiting to happen ... particularly in a quake prone area.

 

[Wafflestomper]

If you actually refute something and want to say “azzhole,” You’ll never hear a peep from me.
The Tunguska asteroid is event is a fact. Whether it had any impact on the environment is a theory and I’m just as curious about that as anyone. You are the one that compares it to MSH.

There's nothing to refute as I've said numerous times now. I brought up the volcano because it was a) a huge explosion; and b) put a ****load of ice and rock high into the atmosphere--you know, sort of like you'd expect an exploding asteroid or comet to do. You can keep playing stupid, but it isn't making this asteroid theory any more plausible.

 

[AM64]

So I’m not sure the diesel placement was actually the GE engineers fault first off. And I believe if auxillary power had been maintained the hydrogen buildup would have been mitigated?

I found an old IEEE issue that dissected the whole thing from a technical perspective when I was cleaning up the man cave a while back. Like I said I was pretty impressed how well 50+ old reactor design held up.

Keeping backup generation online would have changed everything. I did a lost of work in Japanese plants (a different utility, PWRs on the other side of the island), and I found the Japanese to be very diligent and cognizant of US regulations and practices.