any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reac

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 7:06:44 AM UTC+2, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:30:23 PM UTC-7, amdx wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

Actually, old nuclear reactors are the safest form of energy production today. New technologies will just make them that much more safe.

Like the very old nuclear reactor at Chernobyl?

Or the twenty of France's fifty nuclear reactors that are now off-line because the steel casting orginally installed weren't quite as good as they needed to be?

New technology frequently promises better safety, but it doesn't always deliver. Doing something a new way opens up new possibilities for getting it wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:32:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 6:03:38 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 11:14:08 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

The jury is still out on that assessment. Wait for 10,000 years until the waste has cooled enough to not be a threat. Until then, you really can't say how dangerous or safe nuclear power may be.

We don't need experimental verification of the decay of isotopes; we've mapped the decay
processes, we KNOW the time sequence. Why the need to wait for milennia?

Yes, we know the isotopes will be dangerous for many, many years. The issue is how to keep them safe for that long when we don't have the science to be able to say we can.

So, like natural toxic minerals, we leave it in the ground in a place where we expect
stratified accumulation rather than rapid erosion or eruptive disturbance.
Geological knowledge is required, and we have that. Today is not 'when
we don't have the science'.

> Did I really need to spell that out for you? Have you never heard any of the discussion of nuclear waste disposal?

Every underground nuclear test 'disposes' of isotopes in this way, but without a
discussion phase. The 'discussion of nuclear waste disposal' that you seem to be
referring to is a political process of telling all persons that they are right, carried
on by fence-sitters who call themselves politicians. That process isn't really
safety-based, fact-heavy, or convincing. Why would anyone want to hear more
of that?

The Fight over Nuclear Power, by Fred Schmidt, is a good overview of that
discussion environment; it's toxic.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 2:44:15 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:32:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 6:03:38 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 11:14:08 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

The jury is still out on that assessment. Wait for 10,000 years until the waste has cooled enough to not be a threat. Until then, you really can't say how dangerous or safe nuclear power may be.

We don't need experimental verification of the decay of isotopes; we've mapped the decay
processes, we KNOW the time sequence. Why the need to wait for milennia?

Yes, we know the isotopes will be dangerous for many, many years. The issue is how to keep them safe for that long when we don't have the science to be able to say we can.

So, like natural toxic minerals, we leave it in the ground in a place where we expect
stratified accumulation rather than rapid erosion or eruptive disturbance.
Geological knowledge is required, and we have that. Today is not 'when
we don't have the science'.

Did I really need to spell that out for you? Have you never heard any of the discussion of nuclear waste disposal?

Every underground nuclear test 'disposes' of isotopes in this way, but without a
discussion phase. The 'discussion of nuclear waste disposal' that you seem to be
referring to is a political process of telling all persons that they are right, carried
on by fence-sitters who call themselves politicians. That process isn't really
safety-based, fact-heavy, or convincing. Why would anyone want to hear more
of that?

The Fight over Nuclear Power, by Fred Schmidt, is a good overview of that
discussion environment; it's toxic.

Interesting that you think we have a storage solution when the scientists don't agree on that.

--

Rick C.

----- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 20:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 10:10:46 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 7:05:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 3:33:53 AM UTC+2, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 03:53:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote in news:7keqiehu9rcoopp22a8fde2lggea12ogau@
4ax.com:

crickets

Yet Another Retarded Usenet post by KRW.

Whodathunk... Oh that's right... everyone thinks you are fucked in
the head. Because you are.

You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong, so I'm alright.

Since krw clearly is cognitively challenged, his own opinion of his mental soundness is worthless, like pretty much everything else he posts.

He might have been okay before he stopped being able to absorb new information, but that was quite a while ago.

I have to say, your posts about these guys are getting as lame as their posts insulting and swearing at each other.

Someone other than AlwaysWrong is reading whatever Slowman is writing?

WTF?

Indeed!

LOL It is very funny indeed that I criticize someone by comparing them to you and you seem to thing that says more about them than it does about you.

I shouldn't have expected you to be able to read and understand. I
thought you were smarter than AlwaysWrong, anyway.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 2:44:15 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:32:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 6:03:38 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 11:14:08 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
The jury is still out on that assessment. Wait for 10,000 years until the waste has cooled enough to not be a threat. Until then, you really can't say how dangerous or safe nuclear power may be.
We don't need experimental verification of the decay of isotopes; we've mapped the decay
processes, we KNOW the time sequence. Why the need to wait for milennia?
Yes, we know the isotopes will be dangerous for many, many years. The issue is how to keep them safe for that long when we don't have the science to be able to say we can.
So, like natural toxic minerals, we leave it in the ground in a place where we expect
stratified accumulation rather than rapid erosion or eruptive disturbance.
Geological knowledge is required, and we have that. Today is not 'when
we don't have the science'.

Did I really need to spell that out for you? Have you never heard any of the discussion of nuclear waste disposal?
Every underground nuclear test 'disposes' of isotopes in this way, but without a
discussion phase. The 'discussion of nuclear waste disposal' that you seem to be
referring to is a political process of telling all persons that they are right, carried
on by fence-sitters who call themselves politicians. That process isn't really
safety-based, fact-heavy, or convincing. Why would anyone want to hear more
of that?

The Fight over Nuclear Power, by Fred Schmidt, is a good overview of that
discussion environment; it's toxic.

Interesting that you think we have a storage solution when the scientists don't agree on that.

I don't think the science is the problem. The problems are politics
and public opinion.

Then again, in the Netherlands, there was talk of storing waste in
cavities in salt domes. That's stupid. Salt domes are plastic and
not very stable. That's why salt forms domes. Another reason is
that the salt is mined. That's where the cavities come from. The
cavities are temporary, by the way. The plasticity of the salt
makes them collapse over time, crushing whatever is inside.
Finally, salt is corrosive, eating up whatever container the waste
is packed in in short order. Did I mention that salt is soluble in
water? It could be a nasty trap for future generations trying to
get at the salt.

But I see no problem in storing waste deeply in a billion-year-old
layer of solid dry rock.

Jeroen Belleman