Radioactive Wolves.

[MiM]

Dunno.

I've only seen one financial analysis, but it was done by a Greenpeace guy. Seemed like he'd done his homework, but he isn't a disinterested party. I've not come across any analysis that could be described as disinterested though. That some of the finances are reputedly state secrets, some of the public subsidisation might never come into the public domain.

Greenpeace does a good job at challenging the industry and governments, but they do have an outspoken policy, which does not include keeping to the truth or keeping their statements factually unbiased. So a good rule of thumb is never to take a fact from Greenpeace at straight value. There might be something in it, but it's almost certainly tainted.

This is, of course, what I meant by it not being 'disinterested' - as in, he has an axe to grind, and so his report is questionable

The problem is that the nuclear industry has lots of money and an active politically backed PR campaign. They use supposedly neutral parties to present reports and opinions into the public domain which muddies the waters.

Naturally the industry has their own agenda, but universities, government agencies and several other players do have a clear policy of speaking the truth and trying to give unbiased statements. This does distinguish them from Greenpeace and their likes,even though it can be questioned if they always manage to adhere to these policies.

I'm not convinced of that. But aside from that, I am not convinced that they take a broad enough view of matters - risk assessment (including terrorism), full life cycle costs, full life cycle environmental impact, global market trends, global security threats, etc.

While I maintain the claim that there exists several players that genuinely try to maintain an unbiased view to getting to the truth as best they can, I certainly agree that these things are genuinely difficult and errors are made. On the other hand all risks have to be weighed against other risks, as there are no risk free alternatives. Additionally to the risks of coal fired global warming, this includes the risks of doing neither or in this case producing significantly less or more expensive energy. What would be the consequences of less energy and much higher energy prices? Would there be a stagnation of economy, less health care, less caring of the poor? Would there be thousands of people dying from these issues? Riots on the streets destroying private property for millions? Ore could it somehow lead to a society where wealth is more justly divided, and on average people have better lives? These are questions that are really difficult to factor into these equations, and therefore usually are left out. The technical ones, and even the environmental ones ore security related, are a breeze in comparison.

[Schneibster]

One of the big problems with disposing of the radioactive waste if you don't reprocess is, you're putting U-238 in enormous quantities into the storage depot. If you seal it up so it won't get out for 10,000 years, how do you get it out in 100 years when you want it? Oops.

You dig.

You ever seen the sarcophagi they're figuring to put the stuff in over here?

Good luck with that. You better bring about a hundred guys with jackhammers and be prepared to wait about ten years to get your shit.

I have never heard about a man made construction, that could not be opened with proper tools.

They're talking about making concrete that will last a million years.

[Schneibster]

Greenpeace does a good job at challenging the industry and governments, but they do have an outspoken policy, which does not include keeping to the truth or keeping their statements factually unbiased. So a good rule of thumb is never to take a fact from Greenpeace at straight value. There might be something in it, but it's almost certainly tainted.

"Factually biased" is a nice way of putting it. "Outright lies" is more like it. What really pisses me off is that it's unnecessary, and often counter-productive; lies are easily dismissed, and difficult to defend. People tend to dismiss liars from then on once they catch them.

[MiM]

One of the big problems with disposing of the radioactive waste if you don't reprocess is, you're putting U-238 in enormous quantities into the storage depot. If you seal it up so it won't get out for 10,000 years, how do you get it out in 100 years when you want it? Oops.

You dig.

You ever seen the sarcophagi they're figuring to put the stuff in over here?

Good luck with that. You better bring about a hundred guys with jackhammers and be prepared to wait about ten years to get your shit.

I have never heard about a man made construction, that could not be opened with proper tools.

They're talking about making concrete that will last a million years.

Like the pyramids will still last for an unforeseeable future, but many of them where emptied of their treasures long before modern times

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This isn't actually a derail, but it's damn strange. And very informative. If asked, I would be against a split at this time.

[Svartalf]

One of the big problems with disposing of the radioactive waste if you don't reprocess is, you're putting U-238 in enormous quantities into the storage depot. If you seal it up so it won't get out for 10,000 years, how do you get it out in 100 years when you want it? Oops.

You dig.

You ever seen the sarcophagi they're figuring to put the stuff in over here?

Good luck with that. You better bring about a hundred guys with jackhammers and be prepared to wait about ten years to get your shit.

I have never heard about a man made construction, that could not be opened with proper tools.

They're talking about making concrete that will last a million years.

Given that it's to be used in a seismically stable area, and deployed away from water and wind erosion, the feat is not as incredible as it sounds.
Plus, long lasting doesn't mean impervious to wilful destruction

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The fuel will be a hazard as long as it's on Earth. I say move it to the Moon.

[MiM]

The fuel will be a hazard as long as it's on Earth. I say move it to the Moon.

And what would the loonies say about that

Just to keep this serious:
Notwithstanding the cost, the risk from transport would be many times the risk of storing it securely here.

[Svartalf]

Why not send it on a sunward orbit? that's the ultimate in garbage incineration after all.

[Cormac]

Of course, I'm pretty sure that there's a whole lobby concerned that new power stations be built only from 'fresh' material, and with getting paid to dispose of the remains of old ones, so I'm pretty sure no serious study has been made as to the savings and feasibility that would go with recycling all that concrete and steel, not to mention the rarer materials.

From what the project manager was saying, the materials are so dangerous they have to be treated in exactly the same manner as spent fuel. Then there's the risk of dust etc.

Simply can't be right. The spent fuel, with its load of transuranics, fission products and plutonium is intensley radioactive, and handling it requires some serious expertise, shielding, remotes etc. The structural materials, because of the neutron bombardment, certainly have developed a certain number of radio-isotopes, and cannot simply be disposed of like ordinary building waste. However, the radiation flux would be orders of magnitude less than the spent fuel rods, and so does not require the extreme measures needed for them.

Hi Jim,

I'm merely reporting what was said by the team doing the decommissioning at that station. The materials taken out are going to be handled and stored in the same manner as the fuel. They'll be put into the same containers and subject to the same protocols.

Mind you, if you got to the link above, you'll see that they had some unorthodox practices there in the past involving rifles!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The fuel will be a hazard as long as it's on Earth. I say move it to the Moon.

And what would the loonies say about that

Just to keep this serious:
Notwithstanding the cost, the risk from transport would be many times the risk of storing it securely here.

Nah, it would be fun. People could bring a picnic basket and watch the launches.

[Schneibster]

Like the pyramids will still last for an unforeseeable future, but many of them where emptied of their treasures long before modern times

The Egyptians didn't make concrete.

[Cormac]

While I maintain the claim that there exists several players that genuinely try to maintain an unbiased view to getting to the truth as best they can, I certainly agree that these things are genuinely difficult and errors are made. On the other hand all risks have to be weighed against other risks, as there are no risk free alternatives. Additionally to the risks of coal fired global warming, this includes the risks of doing neither or in this case producing significantly less or more expensive energy. What would be the consequences of less energy and much higher energy prices? Would there be a stagnation of economy, less health care, less caring of the poor? Would there be thousands of people dying from these issues? Riots on the streets destroying private property for millions? Ore could it somehow lead to a society where wealth is more justly divided, and on average people have better lives? These are questions that are really difficult to factor into these equations, and therefore usually are left out. The technical ones, and even the environmental ones ore security related, are a breeze in comparison.

I am not one for advocating hairshirts and new-agey cave dwelling.

I firmly believe that science and technology are capable of digging us out of this hole.

For example, a bunch of scientists and engineers got together in Ireland over the last few years to propose a series of grand scale wind powered pumped hydro stations. They have identified viable sites, and calculate that Ireland is capable of generating a very large proportion of electricity through pumped storage.

Because of our geographic location, we have a substantial wind resource. The challenge is storing that power so that power can be generates during times of low wind and also to match peak load demand. Pumped hydro is eminently capable of filling this role.

These were reputable academics and professionals proposing a National project funded and owns on a cooperative basis.

What I like about the proposal is that:

It uses existing and very well understood technology to address the weakness of wind.

It is this combo of innovation, notion, and ingenuity that will solve the energy question. Probably by a radical advance in PV tech.

[Schneibster]

Given that it's to be used in a seismically stable area, and deployed away from water and wind erosion, the feat is not as incredible as it sounds.
Plus, long lasting doesn't mean impervious to wilful destruction

They're talking about making it impervious to willful destruction in case civilization falls and rises again.

All of this, of course, is intended to make the NIMBYs shut up.

And my point was and remains that taking extreme measures of this type with all of the spent fuel instead of reprocessing and only having to do it with a small fraction of the total is ridiculous. But do carry on.

[Svartalf]

Well, Romans did, and it's still in perfect state 2500 years later in several places... Roman concrete floorings and foundations are often the best preserved parts of many buildings, regardless of general state, and even in thoroughly ruined buildings, said flooring often has remained intact in spite of hard, heavy things falling onto it from above and soil shifting and roots trying to dig through below.