Comments on: Nuclear planning to the year 1,002,008 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: George Nixon http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-2439 Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:37:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-2439 The million year criterion is unfortunately typical of the overly paranoid metality of persons attracted to government (and corporate) positions of authority. They are so afraid of making funvctionally rational decisions for fear of any criticism and remote chance of being wrong, that they set the bar so high it either cannot be achieved or their proclamations become over ruled by higher authorities, usually after extreme waste of time and money. That way they can point a finger if the decision is found to be in error and keep their dossier’s super clean and not ever have to make difficult decisions, thus masking their shallow character and inability to do so.
‘No Risk’ living is a pervasive reality of America’s ‘modern’ culture and a sad commentary of the state of our national character. Next thing we’re likely to see (some elements of this are reality) is hiring other mercenaries to fight our wars. Is ‘Rome’ nearing it’s end? Hmmmm…

]]>
By: Nelson http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-2216 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:02:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-2216 Billions wasted? Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest and most efficient form of energy in world.

If we ran this country and it’s automobiles on Nuclear electricity, we’d be doing, ourselves, the environment and the world a favor. Imagine! Ending the greenhouse gas panic, cleaning the air of disgusting coal pollutants, and putting a stop to Trillion-dollar wars, and the senseless exploitation of other nations for their oil.

Self-Reliance! Peace! Freedom! Nuclear Power!

]]>
By: James http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-2106 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:34:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-2106 Blast the waste into space.
Why bury it here?
And why worry about what will happen in a million years anyway? We won’t be here. This planet will be long gone.
What moron really believes there will be life here in 1,002,008? Fool!!

]]>
By: Emma Clark http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-1907 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:54:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-1907 Why don’t they bury the nuclear waste on the moon?

]]>
By: david hurst http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-1858 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:20:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-1858 With nearly 7 billion people exploding on the planet, the majority under 15, to hear of improved recycling of current nuclear waste or wind energy generation etc. I would hope would fall on very deaf ears.

It might make sense if there were an organized international process going on. Certainly it is clear that soon enough, nuclear power is necessary for billions, wind and so on might be good for millions. One (high sulfur) coal fired plant produced per day in China.

Simple nuclear science made mystical, this waste, decommissioning, half-life responsibility (we may be walking on our hands by the time this stuff is background, much less will we be able to read warning signs in one hundred years, mushroom cloud hieroglyphics).

No answer yet to 20k year half-lives suddenly down to a three hundred year question.

Energy is recognized as a US and world security issue.

Colossal ignorance of basic science? Zero emission? My local nuke plant emits, ‘vents’, safe radioactive steam, and has killed the seabed around it with its cooling water and high volume ‘filters’, and that is just the beginning.

An American fusion research company next door to my toxic Chemistry drug development company closed its doors, and I guess, handed Europe the fusion mandate. Has anyone heard this year of sustainable temperatures necessary for non cold fusion? The time frame is greater than 100 years, time frames for cures for many types of cancer, money better spent.

“Inactivation of the waste”, why can’t there be an answer in the commentary here. We would like to inactivate the waste! Population control might be more effective. ‘Zap It’! Yes, that is the solution.

It is not witchcraft. I believe if there were really an answer here, not French, plants would be sprouting up in the US. Every drop of oil is going to be burnt, and all coal. Humans are ants grabbing the drop of sugar on the tongue of the sleeping anteater. One hundred years from now, when humanity is civilized, point out that pool of oil or coal seam that was not used because it was carbon based.

]]>
By: Paul Rosa http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-1846 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:15:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-1846 Such long term planning for the disposal of nuclear waste presupposes that human society will be in any condition to deal with it safely or otherwise for a very long time.

And article I read years ago The Waterbury Republican, mentioned that not only the spent fuel but also thousands of gallons of water and even tons of fabric and equipment become contaminated beyond safe levels during the life of the plant.

If the plant itself must be decommissioned and demolished – there is all the material of the structure of the containment vessels and the miles of piping that must also be disposed of. The article suggested that the cost of decommissioning an obsolete nuclear plant could well exceed – I think we can assume it will be guaranteed that it will exceed the income produced by that energy production many times over.

Nuclear energy sounds like a wonderfully sophisticated technological albatross that creates more problems than it can solve.

It is possible for the US to create much more energy efficient products of all kinds and to redesign our built environment now that would use the power we have I hope we do that. That seems like less of a tour de force than trying to contain some thing we may not be around to insure it is safely handled.

The computer is a marvel that illustrates how small amounts of energy can do amazing things. It is not a machine for doing work – in the classical senses of the machine but a little goes a very long way and the computer industry seems always to be making it do more. I am quite sure we can do the same to every artifact industry makes.

No one ever mentions ocean waves. WE should be building ocean-floating cities. They are being discussed in several sites on line and nowhere are there any actual construction. They are very easy to do. I don’t know why there isn’t more activity in that area except for the fact that few people think they could be a real possibility. Water born transport is the easiest way to more massive loads.
The modern world is used to making entire industries obsolete and fit only for the junkyard – literally – practically overnight. But none of the industries that have gone obsolete have created the long term problem that nuclear creates when it is due for replacement.

If fusion is ever perfected and made economical – that may also prove to be the death of the old fission plants. That will mean millions of tons of radioactive material will have to be buried as well.

]]>
By: David C. Berryman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-1839 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:43:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-1839 Many of the comments have posed legitimate questions but an unsettling number have displayed a colossal ignorance about nuclear energy, radiation, and basic science. Since nuclear power would appear to be the only zero emission source of energy that is scalable, the public discourse certainly benefits from a better understanding of the facts. The following are four books that should help:

Power to Save the World
Gwyneth Cravens and Richard Rhodes

Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century
Ian Hore-Lacy

Nuclear Energy Now
Alan M. Herbst and George W. Hopley

Terrestrial Energy
William Tucker

Full disclosure: I am definitely pro-nuclear energy. But one of the books is written by an environmental activist, another by a very neutral journalist, and the other two by scientists so I believe they present a balanced view. Their treatment of the subject is fair and they address all the fears and concerns about nuclear energy even if they ultimately conclude that nuclear is the best choice.

]]>
By: siburp http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-1824 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:33:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-1824 Recycle the waste would be a better answer.

I am pretty sure our scientist will have the answer or can find the answer.

The European new technology, as mentioned in the best comment, is already one of the answer. There should be others which can be studied rather than like the present one in Yucca mountain or being dumped into our deep seas or oceans troughs which may be brought up in a new undersea volcano raises the trough up to pollute our seas and oceans. Then what? An environmental disaster!

Inactivation of the waste and then recycle for safer uses should be an answer which must be looked into.

]]>
By: M Meurer http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-1756 Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:32:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-1756 I thought these times were about nuclear proliferation & not pro-eficientcy. I suppose you have “Bush” with all the answers & an imaginary man called god too.

]]>
By: James Harris, Jr http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/19/nuclear-planning-to-the-year-1002008/#comment-1755 Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:44:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=579#comment-1755 Bernd,

I updated the description of Quantum Unified Theory of Lattice Quantum Dynamics at www.genusi.com/main.aspx in describing for the general public how Absolute Mass works in the New Standard Model and is in Agreement with the Relativity Model. The update is on the summary page under understanding the concept of absolute mass.

I think its showtime but have yet to hear back from CERN, NSF and LANL.

A thank you note is in order, though I would much prefer a check.

Regards,

Jimmy/James

]]>