Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I only know what the wiki gods just told me about this site Newhaul. Sounds pretty bad, and not an actual permanent storage facility like the kind being contemplated here in Canada.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

Mike it is bad and itis supposed to be perminate storage. They have been burying crap there since the early days . Hopefully the systems they are planning in Canada are better designed . The problem is how do you plan for what may happen to the area in the next 300k years. Heck they don't even know what may happen earthquake wise in a year let alone even twenty.

[Eclipsed]

A LFTR reactor was operated at Oak Ridge, TN for 22,000 hours with out mishap. It was a project for the USAF to develop a nuclear bomber headed by Alvin Wienberg. He did the development knowing it was unworkable, but he thought that it would be a good power source for the future, The guvment shut down the development because it would not produce weapons grade uranium.
The waste that LFTR produces has a half-life of 300 years as apposed to 10,000+ years for the present reactors. Again I say, Google it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Mike it is bad and itis supposed to be perminate storage. They have been burying crap there since the early days . Hopefully the systems they are planning in Canada are better designed . The problem is how do you plan for what may happen to the area in the next 300k years. Heck they don't even know what may happen earthquake wise in a year let alone even twenty.

Radioactive waste is indeed a vexing problem. It's too toxic to just bury and forget, like we've done with most other industrial wastes. Also, we're of course worried that it could be used in dirty bombs, so security will be a perpetual issue, and we won't want to see reactors built in/near politically unstable regions.

And, no, we can't just drop it in a volcano like Frodo's ring.

On the plus side, there's the hope that future reactor technology will use, or at least help de-toxify our current waste.

Intelligent use of nuclear power will be necessary I think.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Eclipsed

A LFTR reactor was operated at Oak Ridge, TN for 22,000 hours with out mishap. It was a project for the USAF to develop a nuclear bomber headed by Alvin Wienberg. He did the development knowing it was unworkable, but he thought that it would be a good power source for the future, The guvment shut down the development because it would not produce weapons grade uranium.
The waste that LFTR produces has a half-life of 300 years as apposed to 10,000+ years for the present reactors. Again I say, Google it.

Quote" an experimental 10MW LFTR did run for five years during the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US, though using uranium and plutonium as fuel"
So one would assume it was not a true thorium salt reactor.

[Mike OReilly]

I have not spent any significant time researching long-term storage for radioactive waste. I know the broad sweeps of Canada's initiatives, which are to bury it deep in continental cartoons found in the Canadian Shield.

Radioactive waste - CanadianÂ*Nuclear SafetyÂ*Commission

Nothing is 100% certain or safe, but these locations have been geologically stable for, in some cases, billions of years. Outside of blasting the stuff into the sun (which would likely be even riskier) I can't think of a better way to deal with all this toxic waste.

I'm not in any way diminishing the risk or danger of this waste, which is the most toxic pollution we've figured out how to create. But while it is really bad, the volume of this stuff is also very small. Compared to all over forms of bulk energy production (excluding perhaps hydro, although this is also debatable) nuclear fission has produced by many magnitudes the least negative impacts. And that includes the impacts of all the nuclear plant disasters we've had so far.

Again, I am in no way diminishing the danger of this stuff. But neither am I inflating it into the great boogyman too many so called environmentalists see. If human civilization continues on its current path (which as I say, I would prefer us to change), then nuclear is by far the lesser of the currently available bad options out there.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I have not spent any significant time researching long-term storage for radioactive waste. I know the broad sweeps of Canada's initiatives, which are to bury it deep in continental cartoons found in the Canadian Shield.

I hate autocorrect ... "cratons" not cartoons.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Radioactive waste is indeed a vexing problem. It's too toxic to just bury and forget, like we've done with most other industrial wastes. Also, we're of course worried that it could be used in dirty bombs, so security will be a perpetual issue, and we won't want to see reactors built in/near politically unstable regions.

And, no, we can't just drop it in a volcano like Frodo's ring.

On the plus side, there's the hope that future reactor technology will use, or at least help de-toxify our current waste.

Intelligent use of nuclear power will be necessary I think.

What Mike is saying is absolutely correct in terms of the geostability of cratons. The idea that burial of radioactive waste deep in geostable regions is dangerous in some way suggests to me that you don't really understand this at all. I get the feeling you think that human interaction with nature is somehow "unnatural". It is not. We are products of nature and radioactivity of one form or another is an ordinary feature of most geologies. A tiny tiny tiny amount of radioctive waste (which was dug out of the earth in the first place) is going to do what, in the deep regions of the crust? What? Really.

Can I take it from the rest of this post that you are anti nuclear at the same time as being anti fossil fuel on grounds of carbon emissions? Nice.

Perhaps your invocation of the image of "Frodo's Ring" begins to make sense, vis a vis your comittments?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I hate autocorrect ... "cratons" not cartoons.

That's OK, I didn't know what you meant by "cratons" at first either, but I get it now. I also think you're probably correct about bringing more nuclear energy on line, especially with newer safety technologies. The problem is the political fallout (pun intended) from the tsunami disaster in Japan. It's analogous to reaching a political consensus on AGW. Assuming you guys are correct about the scientific consensus, it will take some credible & responsible leadership to unify people behind it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I hate autocorrect ... "cratons" not cartoons.

Mike it sounded better the first time . Brings to mind pictures of rocky and Bullwinkle. Lol. Rob

[Muckle Flugga]

… meanwhile I would really honestly love for the various gurus here to address the following questions, raised earlier in the thread but neglected for more fashionable lines of battle in this area:

1. How is the enormous expenditure of political, social, intellectual and other capital in this area, while vast swathes of the earth are simply burned and eaten, but the latter problems not addressed, not "fiddling while Rome is burning"?

2. Given that Climate Change is happening, as all agree, and given it is in fact inevitable, what is being done simply to accomodate the change, rather than attempt to prevent it, Canute style?

3. What benefits vs. debits may we reasonably expect from this change?

4. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of the history of life on earth, even since the Cambrian, has featured atmospheric carbon dioxide far beyond present levels, why is this fact almost never regarded in any discussion?

With regard to the latter fact, I would very genuinely appreciate an explanation of the often heard argument that increased CO2 levels will cause ocean acidification to the extent that coral reefs will no longer survive. I have frequently, frequently heard this stated, including in argumentation on CF recently, and yet coral reefs have flourished over vast swathes of geologic time (since near the dawning of multicellular life), most of which featured CO2 levels FAR in excess of those currently envisaged. How is this particular circle to be squared?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I know the broad sweeps of Canada's initiatives, which are to bury it deep in continental cartoons found in the Canadian Shield.

Nothing is 100% certain or safe, but these locations have been geologically stable for, in some cases, billions of years. Outside of blasting the stuff into the sun (which would likely be even riskier) I can't think of a better way to deal with all this toxic waste.

Agreed that the Canadian Shield is suitably stable geology. And there's enough old mines as a starting point. But 'burying' is not going to be possible. If the stuff has a 1000+ year half-life, then sometime in the future it may be necessary to re-encase the stuff (in some current dumps, the drums etc that house some lower-grade waste are already deteriorating) . Or as mentioned, we may later be able to use the stuff or have a new way to render it less toxic.

Again, I am in no way diminishing the danger of this stuff. But neither am I inflating it into the great boogyman too many so called environmentalists see. If human civilization continues on its current path (which as I say, I would prefer us to change), then nuclear is by far the lesser of the currently available bad options out there.

As you state, the potential environmental harm is often overstated. But maybe more of the opposition is still political - NIMBY ("yes my city/state consumes the most power per square mile, but I won't let you build a new reactor anywhere near here")

And the real dangers of radioactive materials in unfriendly hands, or the desire to prevent certain states from having reactors that would produce material for bombs.

All these considerations, and the scale, expense and long timeline of nuclear power projects means that government and tax money are necessary ingredients.

And many distrust government, and of course nuclear scientists are still scientists and we don't currently trust'em. I mean, if they can't simply take the occasional temperature reading, do a couple weekends of chartmaking in Excel, and make some halfway reliable guesses about climate, how could we possibly trust'em to successfully harness and contain the most dangerous substance on planet to make energy?

Gummint + scientists + nukular = Chernobyl, amirite?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Can I take it from the rest of this post that you are anti nuclear at the same time as being anti fossil fuel on grounds of carbon emissions? Nice.

Perhaps your invocation of the image of "Frodo's Ring" begins to make sense, vis a vis your comittments?

Thank you for the warm welcome after my one-day hiatus, and for your thoughtful ad-hominems and incitements to rejoin the AGW battle that we so enjoyed.

We had a nice Christmas; how was yours?

At this moment, I'm more interested in this discussion around nuclear power and the attendant problems. I did say I'm for it, if you care to read more carefully.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I hate autocorrect ... "cratons" not cartoons.

Apropos of nothing, this reminds me of a novel I read many years ago… set in New Orleans. The hero is set upon by muggers, and, in a long rehearsed defense, tries to talk to them about the dignity of General "Chinese" Gordon of Khartoum. There is a brief pause, followed by the lead mugger saying: "I don't care 'bout no accordion' o' cartoon! Gimme the go****n money!"

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thank you for the warm welcome after my one-day hiatus, and for your thoughtful ad-hominems and incitements to rejoin the AGW battle that we so enjoyed.

We had a nice Christmas; how was yours?

At this moment, I'm more interested in this discussion around nuclear power and the attendant problems. I did say I'm for it, if you care to read more carefully.

Fair enough. TBH I did not have the energy to read through the thread in great detail, for precisely that reason. I read as much as I could bear and skimmed the rest. Apologies for that. CC is the entire reason for the thread, however.

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The extreme left and right are both totalitarian. The ultimate goal of Marxism is the "withering away of the state." Fascists glorified the state.

Just to add a little clearness to the concepts here. Both political extremes have exhibited authoritarian totalitarianism. None have exhibited Marxism. Fascism, which is the merging of the State with Private Enterprise....assumes that the interest of the State and Private Enterprise are necessarily co-joined, i.e. "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA." The most advanced and pernicious recent example being an outrage committed by the US Supreme Court endowing corporations with with Free Speech Rights. This ruling was the result of the most convoluted and specious consideration of (fraudulent) property rights ever put forward by any country or culture. It's transparent Fascism designed to aid in rigging elections. I think it's important to be accurate when throwing terms around in defense of an argument as important as the premise of the one put forward by Ken's good natured attempt to stir the pot.

Near 70F temps in December in northern Mass has surely got to be disturbing.