Climate Change

[placeholder]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and mankind hasn't found a safe way to deal with this

I'm pretty sure they know how to deal with it safely, but don't want to pay for it.

And I know you won't be pretty sure unless you had some hard evidence to back up your claim. Can you share that evidence with us?

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, xylophone said:

So, what we seem to have, according to you, is a safe method of generating electricity, which may well be the case, however that doesn't take into consideration the dangers to the miners and those who die from cancer is alarming, in fact..... "They reported that a miners' life expectancy was twenty years after entering the mine, and about 75 percent of the miners died of lung cancer".

 

Not a good look for the miners, and also of course there's the problem with the tailings which destroy surrounding wildlife and pollute rivers, along with killing people.

 

Then of course is the fact that the nuclear waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, and mankind hasn't found a safe way to deal with this, just kicks the can down the road, so Earth is being seeded with a contaminant so powerful that it could destroy mankind, and we doesn't know what to do with it (safely).

 

That to me is the reason we must seek out other ways to generate electricity.

 

Not much point in my continuing this, as you have your view and I have mine, and as the saying goes "ne'er the twain shall meet".

I'm sorry, I did not realize you were only pretending to actually want to discuss this, but okay keep burning fossil fuel for at least the next fifty years, because that is what is happening. 

 

Who reported about minor's lives, and when? 

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

And I know you won't be pretty sure unless you had some hard evidence to back up your claim. Can you share that evidence with us?

There's this: 

Nuclear waste processing | IAEA

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There's this: 

Nuclear waste processing | IAEA

Nice in theory. Where's the practice?

[Yellowtail]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nice in theory. Where's the practice?

Somone claimed "...and mankind hasn't found a safe way to deal with this..."

Then someone else responded: "I'm pretty sure they know how to deal with it safely..."

To which you (snarkily)  commented: "And I know you won't be pretty sure unless you had some hard evidence to back up your claim."

Any then asked: "Can you share that evidence with us?"

 

I was only providing the evidence you asked for. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Somone claimed "...and mankind hasn't found a safe way to deal with this..."

Then someone else responded: "I'm pretty sure they know how to deal with it safely..."

To which you (snarkily)  commented: "And I know you won't be pretty sure unless you had some hard evidence to back up your claim."

Any then asked: "Can you share that evidence with us?"

 

I was only providing the evidence you asked for. 

They claim they know how to deal with it. But how do we know if it's never actually been dealt with?

[ozimoron]

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To read the anti nuclear posts one would think that the many years of safe operation of nuclear powered vessels by the US military never happened.

 

Fukushima disaster was caused by man made mistakes with the backup generator system, and IMO had it not failed there would not have been any catastrophe. Stopping use of nuclear power generation because of it is IMO knee jerk response not based on reality.

Excuses for why it failed (where's your link?) don't take away from the fact that it did fail and when they do fail they have dangerous and long (forever) consequences.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Excuses for why it failed (where's your link?) don't take away from the fact that it did fail and when they do fail they have dangerous and long (forever) consequences.

So the Earth heating to where it is uninhabitable due to CO2 emissions is less of a risk than nuclear power, got it. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

They claim they know how to deal with it. But how do we know if it's never actually been dealt with?

Do you have anything that supports your claim that it's never actually been delt with? 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So the Earth heating to where it is uninhabitable due to CO2 emissions is less of a risk than nuclear power, got it.

It's like asking if you want to be shot or hung. Either will kill you. The danger from nuclear power is not an existential threat for the whole planet, just large swathes of it. The danger from CO2 is an existential threat for the entire planet as far as humans and most other animal life is concerned.

 

We don't need (and most of us don't want) nuclear power. Germany just proved this. Whether newer generation small light water reactors or whatever they invent makes a nuclear comeback is another topic.

Edited April 20, 2023 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your claim that it's never actually been delt with? 

I can't find any evidence that a nuclear power plant has been dismantled and disposed of.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I can't find any evidence that a nuclar power plant has been dismantled and diposed of.

So, you really have no idea whether it's being dealt with or not, correct? Per the link I provided, it would appear it is being delt with, at least by the countries that are not cheating.

 

 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

So, you really have no idea whether it's being dealt with or not, correct? Per the link I provided, it would appear it is being delt with, at least by the countries that are not cheating.

Define "dealt with".

[Yellowtail]

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's like asking if you want to be shot or hung. Either will kill you. The danger from nuclear power is not an existential threat for the whole planet, just large swathes of it. The danger from CO2 is an existential threat for the entire planet as far as humans and most other animal life is concerned.

 

We don't need (and most of us don't want) nuclear power. Germany just proved this. Whether newer generation small light water reactors or whatever they invent makes a nuclear comeback is another topic.

Germany proved what? There just burning more coal now, how is that helping? 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Germany proved what? There just burning more coal now, how is that helping? 

I was replying to a post about nuclear power. You are deflecting.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I was replying to a post about nuclear power. You are deflecting.

The thread is about climate change. Germany been shutting down its safe, non-CO2 producing nuclear plants and are burning coal to produce the energy lost doing so.

 

How is burning coal deflection in a discussion about climate change? 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

The thread is about climate change. Germany been shutting down its safe, non-CO2 producing nuclear plants and are burning coal to produce the energy lost doing so.

 

How is burning coal deflection in a discussion about climate change? 

Again, you replied to a post by me and to me about nuclear power and somehow introduced coal into it to deflect from my point that "Germany proved this" that nuclear power was not needed. I hope you can grasp this because I don't intend to reply to posts about my response again.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Again, you replied to a post by me and to me about nuclear power and somehow introduced coal into it to deflect from my point that "Germany proved this" that nuclear power was not needed. I hope you can grasp this because I don't intend to reply to posts about my response again.

Not to be argumentative or trying to deflect, but Germany proved that nuclear war not needed by burning coal. 

 

"More than 30% of Germany’s energy comes from coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels – and the government has made controversial decisions to turn to coal to help with energy security."

 

Germany quits nuclear power, ushering in a 'new era' as it closes its final three plants | CNN

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I'm sorry, I did not realize you were only pretending to actually want to discuss this, but okay keep burning fossil fuel for at least the next fifty years, because that is what is happening. 

 

Who reported about minor's lives, and when? 

Well IMO, discussion doesn't actually take place on a forum like this, points of view prevail and it very often ends up with agreeing to disagree.

 

I never discussed the lives of minors, but did quote from a report done many decades ago with regards to uranium mining, however, in addition, another poster has given a link to the destructive outcomes of uranium mining in Australia in more recent times.

 

Finding a way to lessen the effects of fossil fuel in the atmosphere is really what I was aiming at rather than nuclear fission, and although there has been some progress in this field, much more is needed.

 

Bioethanol is an area which is being investigated, and I'm hopeful that progress will be made in other areas which negate the need for nuclear reactors.

 

For me it really comes down to the fact that we have a waste product from nuclear power that we don't really know how to deal with, and it has the potential to destroy life on earth, if not now, then potentially later, and I'm not comfortable with that.

 

https://ehss.energy.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap12_2.html#:~:text 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by xylophone

[ozimoron]

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not to be argumentative or trying to deflect, but Germany proved that nuclear war not needed by burning coal. 

 

"More than 30% of Germany’s energy comes from coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels – and the government has made controversial decisions to turn to coal to help with energy security."

 

Germany quits nuclear power, ushering in a 'new era' as it closes its final three plants | CNN

Most of Germany's energy comes from natural gas and renewables. Nuclear power is so bad that they are prepared to continue burning coal until they can completely replace it. There is no plan to stick to coal as an energy source. They have only decided to continue with coal for the time being because of the exigencies of the Russian problems.

 

https://www.iea.org/policies/12392-germanys-renewables-energy-act

Edited April 20, 2023 by ozimoron

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Well IMO, discussion doesn't actually take place on a forum like this, points of view prevail and it very often ends up with agreeing to disagree.

 

I never discussed the lives of minors, but did quote from a report done many decades ago with regards to uranium mining, however, in addition, another poster has given a link to the destructive outcomes of uranium mining in Australia in more recent times.

 

Finding a way to lessen the effects of fossil fuel in the atmosphere is really what I was aiming at rather than nuclear fission, and although there has been some progress in this field, much more is needed.

 

Bioethanol is an area which is being investigated, and I'm hopeful that progress will be made in other areas which negate the need for nuclear reactors.

 

For me it really comes down to the fact that we have a waste product from nuclear power that we don't really know how to deal with, and it has the potential to destroy life on earth, if not now, then potentially later, and I'm not comfortable with that.

 

https://ehss.energy.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap12_2.html#:~:text 

 

 

We can inject it back to earth in borholes, as we do in oil drilling, and I believe russia have practiced this for a few decades already. 

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

We can inject it back to earth in borholes, as we do in oil drilling, and I believe russia have practiced this for a few decades already. 

https://worldwidescience.org/topicpages/l/liquid+waste+injection.html

[xylophone]

11 hours ago, Hummin said:

We can inject it back to earth in borholes, as we do in oil drilling, and I believe russia have practiced this for a few decades already. 

So we inject lethal radioactive waste back into the planet/earth which sustains us........has to be a better way.

[Hummin]

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

So we inject lethal radioactive waste back into the planet/earth which sustains us........has to be a better way.

When we where drilling for oil, we went through radioctive formations often. Planet earth is radioactive naturally. As long we inject in stable formations, there is no harm. New modern nuclear waste will have shorter half life than old plutonium 

 

After 300 years (approx. 10 half-lives), the levels of the short-lived radioactive waste are negligible, so that they equal the natural level of radioactivity. This waste can then be treated as ordinary waste

 

https://www.euronuclear.org/nuclear-basics/waste/radioactive-waste/#:~:text=After 300 years (approx.,be treated as ordinary waste.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Hummin

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, Hummin said:

When we where drilling for oil, we went through radioctive formations often. Planet earth is radioactive naturally. As long we inject in stable formations, there is no harm. New modern nuclear waste will have shorter half life than old plutonium 

 

After 300 years (approx. 10 half-lives), the levels of the short-lived radioactive waste are negligible, so that they equal the natural level of radioactivity. This waste can then be treated as ordinary waste

 

https://www.euronuclear.org/nuclear-basics/waste/radioactive-waste/#:~:text=After 300 years (approx.,be treated as ordinary waste.

I have to say thank you, "Hummin", because you have opened my eyes to something which I never knew about and I was really dwelling in the past (long time past) with my scant knowledge of nuclear waste, and so I did a bit of research and it appears that you are spot on with your post, so I take my hat off to you!

 

If what is said in the link that I posted, which I think is the same as yours, then we shouldn't have a problem with nuclear power.

Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste

(Updated January 2023)

 

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx#:~:text=The%20radioactivity%20of%20the%20wastes,be%20undertaken%20safely%20almost%20anywhere.

[Hummin]

7 minutes ago, xylophone said:

I have to say thank you, "Hummin", because you have opened my eyes to something which I never knew about and I was really dwelling in the past (long time past) with my scant knowledge of nuclear waste, and so I did a bit of research and it appears that you are spot on with your post, so I take my hat off to you!

 

If what is said in the link that I posted, which I think is the same as yours, then we shouldn't have a problem with nuclear power.

Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste

(Updated January 2023)

un

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx#:~:text=The%20radioactivity%20of%20the%20wastes,be%20undertaken%20safely%20almost%20anywhere.

There is one significant problem with making new borholes and underground storage, is the produced disposal and where to use or dispose that. 

 

In Norway we have quite a big problem with mining want to dispose the waste in the fjords. It is an endless pollution cycle

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

There is one significant problem with making new borholes and underground storage, is the produced disposal and where to use or dispose that. 

 

In Norway we have quite a big problem with mining want to dispose the waste in the fjords. It is an endless pollution cycle

I think it safe to say that while clearly more dangerous, the volume of waste generated by nuclear power is not very significant.  

 

It is also worth noting that mining rare earth metals is dangerous, desecrates the local environment and generates a lot of waste. 

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, xylophone said:

So we inject lethal radioactive waste back into the planet/earth which sustains us........has to be a better way.

It's not lethal to dirt.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I think it safe to say that while clearly more dangerous, the volume of waste generated by nuclear power is not very significant.  

 

It is also worth noting that mining rare earth metals is dangerous, desecrates the local environment and generates a lot of waste. 

and also worth pointing out that the pollution is caused so people in rich countries can pretend that they are doing something by driving electric cars. Apparently without rare earth metals there are no windmills or electric vehicles.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Hummin said:

There is one significant problem with making new borholes and underground storage, is the produced disposal and where to use or dispose that. 

 

In Norway we have quite a big problem with mining want to dispose the waste in the fjords. It is an endless pollution cycle

Dirt, to my knowledge isn't polluting, and can be used to build up areas prone to flooding so houses can be built on them.