They are acutally keeping them in glass and sand Kunark.
| |
What the fuck does that even mean?
| |
I thought you were done with this topic Drakiel. And if they kept it under glass and sand, how can they keep replacing the people who would die/leave due to the radioactive effect on them, ASSUMING what you said was true (which I highly doubt), without getting governments involved and a general global knowledge?
| |
Ever thought about what resource we could use that can live the amount of time it will take the radioactive buildup to biodegrade? Everything else decays too fast for it to be contained except for glass.
| |
Okay, first off, nuclear materials can't biodegrade. "Biodegrade" means that it will be consumed by bacteria and other such things. Bacteria is incapable of performing transmutation, so these materials just decay. As well, steel, nickel, etc. are stable, meaning they aren't going to decay. They will be their longer than the radioactive compounds, because the elements are unstable. They will decay into another element in less time than it takes for the steel, nickel, et cetera to decay.
| |
Everything has a half-life. I was implying the time it took for it to lose its radioactiveness. Tens of thousands of years might I add.
They do plan to put it ina special glass. Layers of protection Thus, to ensure that no significant environmental releases occur over periods of tens of thousands of years after disposal, a 'multiple barrier' disposal concept is used to immobilise the radioactive elements in high-level (and some intermediate-level) wastes and to isolate them from the biosphere. The principal barriers are: Immobilise waste in an insoluble matrix, eg borosilicate glass, Synroc (or leave them as uranium oxide fuel pellets - a ceramic) Seal inside a corrosion-resistant container, eg stainless steel In wet rock: surround containers with bentonite clay to inhibit groundwater movement Locate deep underground in a stable rock structure Site the repository in a remote location. | |
I know that everything has a half-life. As well, you're showing things that support nuclear power, seeing as how what they place in there won't make it back out until after it's no longer radioactive.
| |
I was just saying that cus you guys doubted me that they were going to place it in glass. I dont like people lying *cough* Kun *cough* ark.
| |
The real reason we don't all have solar panels on our roofs is because their so damned expensive to implement. Not everyone can afford it. Let's also not forget about all the people that make money off of the power we use.
Installing solar panels would not only require multiple large batteries (I think they're referred to as "capacitors") and a very large solar panel which would most likely be cause for a mega-reinforced roof, and a sun. What if it is a cloudy or rainy day? What if you're in a hurricane? Installing a reliable, solar energy system in a home built without one would cost you a large sum of money, I'm talking around $60,000 or more. I'm a big fan of fuel cells and nuclear energy. I'm actually living right next to a plant called "Turkey Point" in Florida and I'm just fine. When a meltdown is about to occur, we can be warned with plenty of time to spare, and be evacuated to Florida City or somewhere up north. As far as the statement about applying more time and research to power, I'd rather it not. I'd like to keep our research centered around health, like curing cancer or diabetes, and other incredibly useful technologies, like space exploration and teleporters (hell yes!). About all of these comments on the earth and the atmosphere--although we're not helping with all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere, global warming happens all the time. It's a fact of life--climate is not a constant; in fact, it's very variable. Global warming will cease, don't worry. I, myself, predict an ice age in the near future, where the near future is 100 years or so. We've survived the last, we'll survive the next--we are more than capable. | |
Where did you get the 60k figures capt? My friend had his house installed with solar panels for about 9 grand! Not only is he getting a good source of free electrcity he can sell the extra back to PG&E. It is defintaly not as hard as you make it seem - he doesnt have a fat capacitor anywere in his house either. There is no reinforcing to be done, just a frame to hold the panels. There is also no maintenance. In 3 years he will of made his money back in savings and from then on , its like extra free electrcity!
| |
This is what I don't get, Drakiel. Sure, you've presented some points on the dangers of relying on nuclear power, but for every answer to your 'concerns', you just shoot it down. Nuclear Plants are not just cleaner than conventional Coal and Oil based power plants, but as fuel costs rise, become more cost effective as well.
You also won't find any large scale disaster out of the former Soviet Union that has been linked to a single death or case of cancer. Why? Not because of some government coverup, but because when it's regulated properly, Nuclear Power is among the safest forms of power you can bring out in this day and age. But my point is this: even if you don't believe what I am saying--or what pretty much every single other person here has said--you can still look this information up for yourself--by using reputable and professional sources, by the way. If you have an opinion and you're in a situation where everybody else seems to have a contrasting one, that may be an indication that you should reevaluate yourself. This is what science is based on. One more thing: even $9000 is more than many families can afford, if the price is even that low. | |
So I have a strong opinion, I dont care if no one agrees to it. Everyone is against me, so what? I've given my points and so has everyone else. Just because im the only one (on byond) who believes in this doesnt mean your right. Im getting used to being teamed up on anyways so Ill keep shooting down YOUR answers.
Its called an investment, you can get help from your state and you get rebates. For hells sake, I actually know people who have solar panels on there houses so I KNOW how much it costs. | |
The cost of covering a typical American house's roof with solar panels is $15,000 to $84,000 USD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_roof http://www.etmsolar.com/roof.htm | |
The problem with nuclear power, Fiz, is that humans will always be running it. Chernobyl wasn't anything to do with the safety of the plant - it was an exercise in the stupidity of people.
But there are always going to be idiots running plants. They will go into meltdown, catch fire, and spread interesting materials around the place. Additionally, we do not have a good place to store nuclear waste. They do not produce 'not much waste' - you get a significant quantity of what you put in back out as radioactive substances. Think of it like this - as a simplified model, a nuclear reactor converts some of the energy present in the mass fed into it into heat, and the rest comes out again as mass. A nuclear reactor is not going to be more then, say, 20% efficient. That means you get 80% of what you put in coming back out as waste. And a lot of that will be radioactive. Sure, you can feed some of it back into the reactor - and then you get more waste back. Sure, you can bury it underground. This stuff will remain dangerous for longer then humanity has existed. You cannot guarantee that it will stay safely buried for long enough for the radioactivity to run down. Geological activity, general decay, etc. etc. will happen, and it will get into the water table. Not good. Finally, fission power plants use uranium, a resource that is even more limited then oil. We're just switching our dependence to something that'll run out even faster. In a hundred years, people will be going "Why oh why did we use up all our uranium in fission power plants?". Finally finally, nuclear power is not CO2 neutral by any stretch of the imagination. Fissioning lower-grade uranium does produce CO2, and the transport and mining of uranium also produces significant quantities. It's significantly less then oil and coal, but its still present. Those figures for the cost of solar power sound off, Strawgate. We got our roof covered for $8000 or so, AUD. We've got a largish house, too. Unfortunately, solar power can never come close to providing baseline load. There's just not physically enough energy hitting the surface. Wind and tidal power suffer the same problem. Geothermal can aggravate geological activity - and earthquakes are BAD when you're getting power by dropping water down holes. Basically, there's no silver bullet. Even aneutronic fusion would have its problems. I personally like a combination of solar/wind/tidal where appropriate to try and cut down load and geothermal in geologically appropriate areas (Say, Australia). If you're feeling adventurous, drop a massive satellite off at a Lagrange point with really, really big solar panels, and then come up with some way to get the energy back - potentially, get the satellite to use the power generated to electrolyse water, and then use the hydrogen and oxygen in fuel cells - or if we've got it, aneutronic fusion - after you pick it up. You'd need a space elevator for that last one to function, though. | |
Looks like im not the only one with some truth in there words.
I personally would love to see some wind mills built somewere in the middle of the ocean. Maybe under that, a turbine that runs from natural currents. | |
Even with all of that, nuclear energy is still preferable, in my opinion. It produces far less pollution, and produces a lot more power.
Regardless, I don't care about this right now. Almost all of my work was deleted from my computer, that I've been working on for a long time, and I'd like to try and get as much of it back as I can. | |
Nuclear reactors are not currently energy-efficient enough to outproduce oil. Their power-per-pollution is probably higher, but it's just chaining ourselves to another sinking ship. Not a great move.
| |
Drakiel wrote:
Where did you get the 60k figures capt? Did you uh, not see the link I posted? "If you used silicon solar panels costing $4 per watt, you could run the same stove for $4,000.00. But the panels would only be about 10 square meters." Four thousand dollars to power a 1000w stove. Nevermind your fridge, washer/dryer, computer, air conditioner, and any other major (or even a bunch of minor) appliances running in your house. Solar energy sounds cool and all, but it's honestly not that practical for the price. | |
Throw in another 4k there if you have a ridiculous computer build. However, company bought computers usually run off 250watt power supplies at max, so maybe 1k or 2k. :p
I agree that nuclear power is the way to go. However, after reading that article that someone posted here, I'm having second thoughts. It does take a lot of energy to enrich and transport that uranium. | |
Chernobyl scared away everybody even though the plant was designed like a piece of shit.
And by the way, the containers used to store radioactive waste are powerful enough to withstand a nuclear explosion themselves. There is less radiation around one of those containers than there is in your basement.