Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:50 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan View Post
putting it on the moon might be more viable politically than Yucca.

I don't think it would be. The optics are terrible. Humans have spread their muck to somewhere else; what was a pristine, tranquil environment for billions of years is now another dump.
And it's always there: "The moon doesn't look the same to me any more, now that I know the right most black blob is a no go zone"

I'm pro nuclear and I'm not even necessarily saying putting it on the moon is a bad idea. Just that politically, it will be protested / resisted as much as anything ever.

Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
  #152  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:57 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Ok, I asked how we deal with the nuclear waste problem. I admit I don't know the answer. One response was, "Store it off planet on the moon." I'd be cool with that if I were convinced nuclear waste could be 100% safely blasted off the Earth to the moon and stored there somehow.

The other answer was, "We can store it here on Earth for 25,000 years, but politics derailed it." Yucca Mountain, I presume?

In both cases, the posters rest their cases on their confidence that they are right. No offense guys, but can I get a little more meat with these potatoes?
As far as launching stuff into orbit to send to the moon, leaving aside the increased risk of trying to do that (which is going to be a much higher risk than just storing it here on earth), I'll lay out the issue and you can do the math if you want. So, the largest rocket that I'm aware of can lift about 150 tons of cargo into low earth orbit. There is, currently, about 90,000 tons of nuclear waste in the US. Today, again from memory, it's currently around $10k per pound to put something into orbit. This doesn't count the cost to then send it on to the moon, though the major cost is getting it into orbit.

Not really feasible, even if you dropped launch cost to $1000 per pound (which is the goal right now). I'd say that even if it were cost effective, the risk would far outweigh the return, at least until you could have a much lower mean time to failure rate on space launches. Currently, we don't have any infrastructure to do this, including the logistic infrastructure to take it and move it to the moon and store it there. Hell, we haven't even been back to the moon since the early 70's at this point with anything larger than a robotic rover.

Of course, you COULD do what I said, which is just reprocess the waste. You would end up with a lot of weapons grade material, but you'd have a lot less waste. I don't recall exactly, but I think we are talking about over half of the waste being stored could be recycled and reprocessed back into something usable...it might even be more (for some reason I was thinking it was over 80%, but I am probably mis-remembering). So, we COULD cut down that 90,000 tons to something a bit smaller just doing that. As for the rest wrt long term storage, there are several options. I seem to recall that vitrification works pretty well, putting it into a long term stable format that is also easier to house and store.

The thing is, storage of waste isn't a show stopper. We have options. The real issue isn't storage of waste...it's fear and loathing in Las Vegas. Well, and everywhere else in the US and in many other countries to boot. Cost is also a factor, but I think costs could be brought down...or, if this is REALLY the emergency that folks say (and I think it is), then why are we balking at cost for nuclear while not for all this other stuff folks propose?

It's kind of a moot point though all around. We have been using nuclear for longer than most folks have been alive. We have tons of nuclear waste. Even when we let the last creaky nuclear plant go silent, we'll have to deal with the waste. Our current plan is stupid, of course, which is just entomb it at the plant sites and I guess hope for the best. We have been and are just kicking the can down the road, and the only thing we are doing is just letting those plants die out and replacing them with fossil fuel burners (natural gas mainly) for base load while we build out tons of solar and wind that only work when they work with no current large scale backup. Eventually, that will (hopefully) catch up and we'll have that backup (it's going to cost a HUGE amount). I don't know, maybe 20 or 30 years down the road. The other part is, we aren't going to get new nuclear in the US. It's not going to happen. So, like I said, it's a moot point all around, no matter what we do.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #153  
Old 10-01-2019, 05:08 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Not really feasible, even if you dropped launch cost to $1000 per pound (which is the goal right now). I'd say that even if it were cost effective, the risk would far outweigh the return, at least until you could have a much lower mean time to failure rate on space launches. Currently, we don't have any infrastructure to do this, including the logistic infrastructure to take it and move it to the moon and store it there. Hell, we haven't even been back to the moon since the early 70's at this point with anything larger than a robotic rover.

Its not like we have to do Lunar today or tommorow but the planning for what we will do has to start sometime. I dont see what we are going to do with the stuff even if it is recycled. I dont really see any planning for breeder reactors which I assume this waste would be going to.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #154  
Old 10-02-2019, 12:46 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,645
Thunberg is a terrible messenger. Inslee’s approach, sunny can-do optimism, is the right one. Scolding and scowling and exclaiming “how dare you” is not an effective form of communication or persuasion.
  #155  
Old 10-02-2019, 01:21 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Thunberg is a terrible messenger.
Well, if you count inspiring and energizing millions of people as being "terrible", I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Inslee’s approach, sunny can-do optimism, is the right one. Scolding and scowling and exclaiming “how dare you” is not an effective form of communication or persuasion.
It sure communicated with and persuaded a lot of people who are now very motivated about climate activism, though. There's room in the movement for Thunbergs and Inslees too; we don't always have to be pathologically fearful of confrontational attitudes just because oh noes somebody might be antagonized by them.
  #156  
Old 10-02-2019, 02:37 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, if you count inspiring and energizing millions of people as being "terrible", I guess.

My 19-year-old son is one of them. It is because he texted me to say how inspired he was by her speech that I went to watch it in full. I was aghast. I think it’s actually disturbing to think about young people being “inspired” by her, because I honestly don’t think that’s psychologically healthy. Like a lot of people his age, my son has tendencies toward depression already, so it’s hard for me to see how this is helpful.

But in political terms, it’s preaching to the choir and turning off everyone else. Furthermore, her rhetoric is so strident that I have to assume we are to take it as Inslee not really being any better than Trump. It’s Ralph Nader‘s “Tweedledee and Tweedledum” all over again. Well, I have news for you: it’s either going to be Tweedledee or Tweedledum who gets elected president, so if young people are persuaded it doesn’t matter and it’s all bullshit unless we go way more radical, that is a prescription for disillusionment and apathy.

She is not just confrontational, she is completely scornful of people who are trying to be her allies but also to be pragmatic. The “how dare you!” was not aimed at the coal industry or Republicans but at center-left politicians. Right? That’s the only communication I have seen from her, so maybe there’s some small chance that I misunderstood—but it sure seemed like that’s what she was getting at. And if it was not what she meant, she was not communicating clearly at all.

I think it’s more likely that she was quite clear, with a scathing and uncompromising message that will ultimately be counterproductive.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-02-2019 at 02:39 AM.
  #157  
Old 10-02-2019, 03:16 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
My 19-year-old son is one of them. It is because he texted me to say how inspired he was by her speech that I went to watch it in full. I was aghast.
So, he's inspired, you're aghast, so far it's a draw. If there are more of him than of you---and from what I've read, that seems like a reasonable inference---then she's being an effective messenger overall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
But in political terms, it’s preaching to the choir and turning off everyone else.
Including, apparently, getting a lot of new people to join the choir, and getting a lot of other people who were only nominally choir members to start showing up and singing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Furthermore, her rhetoric is so strident that I have to assume we are to take it as Inslee not really being any better than Trump.
I don't think Thunberg should necessarily be held responsible for what you choose to assume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
She is not just confrontational, she is completely scornful of people who are trying to be her allies but also to be pragmatic.
I think UN politicians as a group may not be quite as thinskinned or resentful as you might be about catching some forensic flak from an indignant young activist.

Even if they are, though, ISTM that what really matters is the popular response. If the inspired public really starts pushing for more decisive action on climate change, elected "world leaders" are going to have to step up their game whether or not they personally enjoyed getting "how-dare-youed" at.

Remember, lots of people of all political stripes, no matter how pragmatic they are, rather enjoy the sight of some little Ordinary Folk getting a platform to rebuke the powerful elites. Hell, there are tens of millions of Americans who like that schtick so much they even bought it from Donald Trump, of all people. And sensible grown-up politicians recognize that they have to be prepared for popular indignation in crisis situations, even if they personally feel that the popular judgement is a little harsh.
  #158  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:58 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Thunberg is a terrible messenger. Inslee’s approach, sunny can-do optimism, is the right one. Scolding and scowling and exclaiming “how dare you” is not an effective form of communication or persuasion.
It seems to me that you do miss on many occasions who can be a good or bad messenger.

Jay Inslee
May 24 on Facebook:

Quote:
I’ll be there Greta Thunberg. I’m proud to be joining the strikers in Las Vegas. #Fridays4Future
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017