They’d have a lot easier life, and access to more money, if they became mouthpieces for big oil instead.
Why the frack should he not? I think it’s a good damn thing if he puts his money where is mouth is.
Since when has trying to turn a buck become Un-American?
Oh right - When-It’s-Not-A-Republican-Doing-It.
The idea that AGW is a money-making scam is just a lunatic conspiracy of epic proportions alongside WTC whacko’s, moonlanding hoaxers and holocaust deniers.
Anyone seriously suggesting it automatically disqualifies themselves from taking part in the discussion or receiving any response other than laughing and pointing while making little twirly motions of the index finger besides your temple.
I think you underestimate just how much of the anti-nuke movement is motivated by irrational fear and hatred of nukes, with no motive ( or thought ) beyond that. It’s not like opposing nukes will reduce consumption; at most all it does is encourage the building of coal power plants instead of nukes.
Has anyone actually figured out what to do with the nuclear waste produced by these power plants, or are we still in we’ll-think-of-something mode?
There’s any number of methods of getting rid of it. The difficulties are political, and the raving paranoia over it. It is simply not necessary to keep every last drop contained for a thousand years.
Not to mention that we can reprocess much of it, and probably eventually will.
There are plenty of places across the country that are suitable storage sites. They’re geologically stable, the rock seperates them from their water tables so that even in the event of an accident or leakage they wouldn’t mix with the water table, and their water table is such that, even if they somehow did get into the water, it wouldn’t go anywhere - they are essentially downhill from everything in terms of the water geology (or whatever term is appropriate here).
The one that actually has facilities built and got all the press was Yucca Mountain, and while it is indeed suitable, it was mostly picked because that was the farthest from being someone’s back yard. But even then, there’s a massive amount of political pressure and NIMBYism - apparently even being in the same state, even if it’s a hundred miles from anyone, where you’d already see more radiation from atomic blasts in the area 50 years ago than you’d ever somehow get out of the nuclear waste, it’s still not practical. So instead all the nuclear waste is stored all across the country in temporary and intermediate storage sites.
That’s a good example of the anti-nuclear movement, actually - because they are irrationally scared and do nothing but obstruct, they make the situation worse. The waste is already scattered all around in everyone’s back yard - and we refuse to stick it all out in the middle of nowhere.
My suggestion to the nuclear industry? Create a reactor that spews nuclear waste into the atmosphere. That way we don’t have to deal with the problem of how to store our waste materials and pollution and scare the public, we can just use everyone’s air to dump it in instead. Maybe people would like that more… they certainly don’t seem to mind it when it comes from coal or gas plants.
Actually, we already have one perfect place to put it.
The dry valleys of antarctica. No water. No flowing water. Not near a damn soul. The stuff would be perfectly safe there.
Fortunately, that is specifically prohibited by Article 5 of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959.
Fortunately?
Yeah, it’s much better that we store the waste in intermediate sites all across the country - and in the case of current power generation systems, in our atmosphere, so we can get all of the global warming, lung cancer, and acid rain we can eat!
(I say this without knowing the drawbacks of storing waste there, so there may be some legitimate ones)
Perhaps we could just store it in the excluded middle…
Diamonds aren’t forever. Radwaste is forever.
I’ve never heard a proposal to store it in the antarctic, so I’d be interested to hear what the benefits and drawbacks would be. I just assumed that your “fortunately” statement was kneejerk resistance to storing it anywhere, as if it wouldn’t exist if it we just never declared an official storage space. So if you’d like to explain why you think it’s a bad idea (and again, having never heard the proposal, there may be fine objections) that’d be a more productive way to go.
Except what happens if/when the ice melts and the weather continues warming? Not to mention the sheer expense of building a facility and transporting waste there in such a harsh environment so far away. Besides; it’s not worth the effort. The waste just isn’t so dangerous that it’s worth that kind of effort ( and we may well decide that what was seen waste now is a useful resource in the future, anyway ).
Well, just of the top of my head, transporting large quantities of radioactive waste 10,000 miles through some of the most treacherous oceans on Earth seems reckless.
Plus, it seems selfish to dump waste in a location outside our borders. If it is produced in our front yard, it belongs in our backyard, not in the community park across town.
For the record, I support the commissioning of Yucca Mountain.
Okay, sorry, I jumped to conclusions too quickly about your motives.
Nothing to it! Just truck it down…oh, wait, no, going to need boats. Unsinkable boats. Anyway, we ship it down to the Antarctic shoreline and…dump it there? No, gotta be a better spot than that. OK, so we find the spot and build roads from the harbor (which we gotta build, put that on the list: “build harbor”)…we build highways to the dumping spot, I mean, the “super secure storage facility” and truck it there. Great! How many people do we have to have living in Antarctica? Quite a few, I would imagine. Well, that’s OK, the scenic splendor will be a great recruiting point! “Join the Nuke Storage Corps, see more white than you ever imagined! You like white, dry, and dead, you’ll love Antarctica!”… Cue the cute penguins.
Dunno. Could be some minor problems.
The US doesn’t own Antarctica. It doesn’t even have a current claim. Some of the other countries with an interest in the place might object to the NIMBYism implicit in such actions. Especially the Australians, I believe McMurdo is in their claimed territory.
That and it certainly goes against the Madrid Protocol, both spirit and letter. And that’s a treaty the US has actually ratified.
Anyway, what’s wrong with your own damn continent?
Nothing - there are dozens of fine sites to store it on the North American continent. I was just questioning for the scientific ups and downs of storing the waste there and why Fear Itself thought it was fortunate that it was banned by treaty anyway.
By all means, I’m not advocating we do it there when there are plenty of suitable sites available here, including one that’s already partially constructed and almost ready to receive shipments.
I wasnt talking about the frozen south being a dumping ground for American waste.
I was talking about it being a dumping ground for the WORLDS waste. You know, kinda like our atmosphere we use now, but perhaps a smidgen better ?
And if anybody is worried about the center of the frozen south melting…well, IF that happens, we got WAY bigger global problems than some well stored nuclear waste getting sprinkled on.
And the atacam (sp?) desert is probably another damn good place. Makes most other deserts look like tropical rain forests by comparision.
Hell no, everybody goes there 