Re: Time to talk about Global Warming [was Re: Maccies aren't fanatical? (by the way, what is a "Maccie?)]

ZnU wrote:

In article <iK2dnWO1_NtPoObZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


ZnU wrote:


In article <B9-dnc9c8YaU8efZRVn-jA@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Wegie wrote:


[snip]



best thing to do is start a mass building project of 200 nuclear power plants, to be completed in 15 years, and then a near total phase out of all oil / coal burning in the next 50.


That would be nice, if they know what to do with the radioactive wastes involved with nuclear power.


They do. Fast breeder reactors vastly reduce its quality and life span, while generating more power.

At one time I advocated for breeder reactors, but the problems of waste disposal still remains.


But it's a much smaller problem.


After that, there are technically feasible ways to burry it in vast, lifeless mud flats on ocean bottoms.

There is where you'll meet the environmentalists.


Only the irrational ones. I consider myself to be an environmentalist, and I think it's a great idea. Vitrification can immobilize waste for tens out thousands of years, and the high-level wastes that come out of a fast breeder reactor have short enough half lives that they're no more radioactive than naturally occurring stuff after about 300 years.


Ironically, fear of nuclear power results in nuclear power being much more dangerous than it needs to be, because nobody is willing to try newer, safer approaches.

They'll only work if the scientists first figure out a way to neutralize the waste so that it isn't radioactive.


See above.


Not that nuclear power (at least as implemented in the West) is particularly dangerous. No member of the general public has ever been killed as a result of a nuclear accident at a Western civilian power reactor.


Not on any civilian reactors, no. There has been one major incident that the government tried to keep covered up at Post Falls, Idaho tho.
It was a Navy experimental reactor that blew it guts out over the local landscape. A few of the workers died from that one.


Experimental reactors are obviously a different matter, and military designs in general are willing to trade off safety for other benefits.

And nothing is perfectly safe. Cars kill 30-40K people per year in the United States, yet few people are afraid of them, and even fewer argue that they should be banned because of safety concerns.

[snip]


Not sure what a poorly designed and incompetently operated nuclear power reactor has to do with nuclear waste storage.


People have a fear now of nuclear power. Near Mesa, AZ, the people are fighting to keep a nuclear waste repository from being built.
This is the biggest hurdle.


The proper remedy is education. The case in favor of nuclear power is so clear cut that I think most Americans would buy it -- if they ever heard it properly articulated. Most public figures, unfortunately, would rather play on peoples' existing fears than try to educate them.


The scientific question I'd have is this: how big does the global population have to be before disaster strikes?


With our current fuel sources, it's probably already large enough that, given enough time, there will be fairly disastrous consequences.

With sufficiently large amounts of cheap, clean energy, though, and foreseeable advances in e.g. genetic engineering of food crops, the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth is almost arbitrarily high.


Scientifically... no one knows the number.


Well, it all depends on the assumptions you make. At the extreme end, if you rip the Earth apart and use the material to construct space habitats, you could probably support a population of hundreds of trillions <g>.


Still, the main trouble will be overcoming peoples fears of nuclear power. Unless of course some marketing group can spin it in the proper light.


--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time to talk about Global Warming [was Re: Maccies arent fanatical? (by the way, what is a "Macc
    ... At one time I advocated for breeder reactors, but the problems of waste ... People have a fear now of nuclear power. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Time to talk about Global Warming [was Re: Maccies arent fanatical? (by the way, what is a "Macc
    ... plants, to be completed in 15 years, and then a near total phase out of all oil / coal burning in the next 50. ... if they know what to do with the radioactive wastes involved with nuclear power. ... At one time I advocated for breeder reactors, but the problems of waste disposal still remains. ... They'll only work if the scientists first figure out a way to neutralize the waste so that it isn't radioactive. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Fuk-u-shima
    ... if the US had been less negative towards nuclear power? ... talk of the US and Russia acting as nuclear fuel suppliers and ... Also perhaps a good argument for LFTR reactors. ... Much small amount of waste generated, lower fuel costs, ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Fuk-u-shima
    ... if the US had been less negative towards nuclear power? ... talk of the US and Russia acting as nuclear fuel suppliers and ... Also perhaps a good argument for LFTR reactors. ... small amount of waste generated, lower fuel costs, safer to operate. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... Of course there's a waste ... fuel that does not have its share of contamination. ... Just think of all those former gas works and gas tanks in every ... Furthermore I doubt that you have been affected in any way by nuclear power ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)