weasel decentral

The elements with the long half life are naturally occurring, not creations of the process. So I am unsure of what you mean by that.
Personally I am all for renewable energy but while the rhetoric about them so far has been impressive they simply aren't working or capable of meeting demand. Its not a research problem in my mind, as its a huge investment area, just its to date not feasible. Not able to harvest the energy without needing a huge scale factor, are we willing to cover Africa in solar panels or the Atlantic in wind or tidal turbines? Forest half of Europe to provide renewable wood?

weasel decentral

well to be honest I wasn't specifically thinking of the ME, just in general. The Iranians have one right? or is that research only

Bahtatboy

If the CBA stacks up, yes.

weasel decentral

well it hasn't so far, and shows little likelihood of it in the medium term. The interesting conundrum I have seen so far which must upset green leaning people, is that they are forced to swallow all their previous arguments against destroying the environment when a solar array or turbine is chosen in some location versus a power station.

scrubbedexpat141

The thing that annoys me about it is the classic nimbyism that comes with any form of eco-friendly ideas.

Normally it's the same people who bemoan fossil fuels as well.

Tossers.

shiva

yes i for one am willing to do so, the more we use it the faster it will develop and as the technology is outdated the removal and decommissioning of any renewable is far cheaper and safer than that of nuclear or any other alternative.

There is no real viable long term nuclear decommissioning program anywhere in the world. The best we have is to store it underground (again concentrated) and keep people away but we have even had to invent new languages and symbols for signs as the hazard will outlive all currently known languages.

We have developed and deployed a technology we know to be lethal that will remain lethal for longer than human civilisation has existed. That's beyond farcical.

It all very well and good saying we wont introduce a technology until its perfect and 100% operational but doing so is not only just stupid it also ignores how every single human technological achievement has been developed.

Why is it that renewables get held to a standard that no technology on earth has ever been held to.

You are asking that renewables, with little to no toxic and long term detrimental effects be held to a higher standard than other energy sources that we absolutely know to be harmful.

It would be ridiculous if it wasn't so staggeringly sad.

weasel decentral

I think you are missing point I am making, which is this; the switch to renewable energy is not possible simply because it does not produce enough to meet demand. What is the point in a country of arrays that produces 5% of energy needs? The benefits are negligible.
The hazard will outlive all languages? All naturally occurring elements will outlive and have outlived civilization. That's a bizarre argument.

shiva

Again, bollocks. I believe it is you through either dogma or willful ignorance who is missing the point.
Renewables are already at a stage where they are a viable addition to a nations power needs The below took about 5 minutes to find, hardly a stretch.
As for naturally occuring I hope you read at least some of the below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...rgy_in_Germany

"The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012. In 2010, investments totaling 26 billion euros were made in Germany’s renewable energies sector. According to official figures, some 370,000 people in Germany were employed in the renewable energy sector in 2010, especially in small and medium sized companies. This is an increase of around 8 percent compared to 2009 (around 339,500 jobs), and well over twice the number of jobs in 2004 (160,500). About two-thirds of these jobs are attributed to the Renewable Energy Sources Act Germany has been called "the world's first major renewable energy economy". In 2010 nearly 17% (more than 100 TWH) of Germany's electricity supply (603 TWH) was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas-fired power plants.

Renewable electricity in 2010 was 101.7 TWh including wind power 36.5 TWh, biomass and biowaste 33.5 TWh, hydropower 19.7 TWh and photovoltaic power 12.0 TWh.[7]"




Its not a bizarre argument its the depressing truth and these are not naturally occurring elements they are made as a direct result of the Nuclear power process. Radioactivity in nature is common but it occurs in sparse amounts well spread out geographically and geologically with stable elements, to produce nuclear power you have to concentrate this and produce highly radioactive isotopes. Some of which will outlive the civilizations that created them thus leaving our distant ancestors a deadly problem. We have no way of knowing if we can warn them adequately of these dangers.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...urces_of_waste

"The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life—the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity—and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements (i.e., stable isotopes). Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds or thousands of years. Other radioisotopes remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia"

"Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years). Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form. Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.

In second half of 20th century, several methods of disposal of radioactive waste were investigated by nuclear nations. Which are;

"Long term above ground storage", not implemented.
"Disposal in outer space", not implemented.
"Deep borehole disposal", not implemented.
"Rock-melting", not implemented.
"Disposal at subduction zones", not implemented.
"Ocean disposal", done by USSR, UK, Switzerland, USA, Belgium, France, Netherland, Japan, Sweden, Russia, Germany, Italy and South Korea. (1954–93) It's not permitted by international agreements.
"Sub seabed disposal", not implemented, not permitted by international agreements.
"Disposal in ice sheets", rejected in Antarctic Treaty
"Direct injection", done by USSR and USA."


This bit strikes me as practical I dont think

"Long term management of waste
The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years, according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses. Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically. Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning and cost evaluations are concerned. Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects in geoforecasting."

"Illegal dumping
Authorities in Italy are investigating a 'Ndrangheta mafia clan accused of trafficking and illegally dumping nuclear waste. According to a turncoat, a manager of the Italy’s state energy research agency Enea paid the clan to get rid of 600 drums of toxic and radioactive waste from Italy, Switzerland, France, Germany, and the US, with Somalia as the destination, where the waste was buried after buying off local politicians. Former employees of Enea are suspected of paying the criminals to take waste off their hands in the 1980s and 1990s. Shipments to Somalia continued into the 1990s, while the 'Ndrangheta clan also blew up shiploads of waste, including radioactive hospital waste, and sending them to the sea bed off the Calabrian coast.[80] According to the environmental group Legambiente, former members of the 'Ndrangheta have said that they were paid to sink ships with radioactive material for the last 20 years"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

"High-level radioactive waste management

Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described the as yet unsolved dilemma of high-level radioactive waste management: "The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability."

Thus, Alfvén identified two fundamental prerequisites for effective management of high-level radioactive waste: (1) stable geological formations, and (2) stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of years. As Alfvén suggests, no known human civilization has ever endured for so long, and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period. Nevertheless, avoiding confronting the risks associated with managing radioactive wastes may create countervailing risks of greater magnitude. Radioactive waste management is an example of policy analysis that requires special attention to ethical concerns, examined in the light of uncertainty and futurity: consideration of 'the impacts of practices and technologies on future generations'."

"There is a debate over what should constitute an acceptable scientific and engineering foundation for proceeding with radioactive waste disposal strategies. There are those who have argued, on the basis of complex geochemical simulation models, that relinquishing control over radioactive materials to geohydrologic processes at repository closure is an acceptable risk. They maintain that so-called “natural analogues” inhibit subterranean movement of radionuclides, making disposal of radioactive wastes in stable geologic formations unnecessary. However, existing models of these processes are empirically underdetermined: due to the subterranean nature of such processes in solid geologic formations, the accuracy of computer simulation models has not been verified by empirical observation, certainly not over periods of time equivalent to the lethal half-lives of high-level radioactive waste. On the other hand, some insist deep geologic repositories in stable geologic formations are necessary. National management plans of various countries display a variety of approaches to resolving this debate."

"Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such long periods should be examined critically. Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning and cost evaluations are concerned. Long term behaviour of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research. Management strategies and implementation plans of several representative national governments are described below."



So would it be preferable for man if we started adopting energy sources that were only partially effective now and work on improving them in a move towards 100 %reliance on them or should we use nuclear power and generate waste that will be a danger for millenia?

I don't know but i seem to recall one terrible accident where a wind turbine burst into flames last year and had precisely ZERO long term hazard and a dangerous half life of the couple of weeks it took to replace. I did hear it left some burnt grass at the base though.

just to give you an idea of the time sclae involved in nuclear waste.

civilisation is reckoned to be around 12,000-15,000 years old

The first aboriginal peoples are thought to have been active in Australia some 40,000 - 50,000 years ago

Homo Sapiens first show up in the geological record around 200,000 years ago

The first Hominids appeared around 2 Million years ago


Yup humans are probably perfectly capable of looking after a lethal waste product that will be around for longer than our species has existed and in some cases our genus.

mikewot

Abu Dhabi breaks ground on new nuclear power plant http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-n...ion-gets-seoul

weasel decentral

Well maybe who knows, I do a lot of work in the energy field so its from this point of view I am coming. I don't really care much to be honest whether I build power stations that run on the solar power or fluffy bunnies crammed into incinerators.
My personal belief is that nuclear power is the way forward, emotive language of yours aside, and that until a real game changer in renewables comes along nothing much will change that point.

So whats new in renewables? Tidal power? Same as water wheels from 100 years ago, wind power? wind mills from centuries ago. Wood pellets? Back to burning wood again. Solar power? First commercial installations were in the 1980's. Geothermal heating, been around commercially since 1900's. Biofuel? Convert the world's agriculture to fuel production.

Boomhauer

Wonder where they will send the radioactive waste to; Africa or Pakistan me thinks.

shiva

weasel decentral

Seems my legacy will be to poison current and future generations. In fact I may even get to **** up aliens should they ever land on earth in distant millennia.

Mwaahhhaaaa

scrubbedexpat141

Millhouse

Most nuclear stations do not have cooling towers like this though.