Fracking in the Karoo - why it's bad

BigAl-sa said:
I'm not talking about waste, I'm talking about sustainability. Nuclear fuel is not an unlimited resource.
Click to expand...

What's your point?

We have the technology to safely and cheaply generate power from uranium.
Uranium isn't useful for much except as a power source.
Uranium is far more efficient - by many orders of magnitude - at generating power, inexpensively, than any other power source currently available to man.
There is enough uranium available to us to power the ENTIRE PLANET for at least two centuries, and perhaps up to 60 millenia: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power is there to be used. Why not use it to break our dependence on fossil fuels while we find a truly sustainable way?
 
Quantum Theory said:
I cannot believe how shortsighted some people are. I love the Karoo and it's amazing diversity. I also know how fragile it is. Fracking will kill the Karoo. If that does not concern you and you are just worried about the billions of revenue, which all goes to a greedy multinational corporation and a corrupt government, I think there must be something seriously wrong with you.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head.
 
The_Assimilator said:
What's your point?

We have the technology to safely and cheaply generate power from uranium.
Uranium isn't useful for much except as a power source.
Uranium is far more efficient - by many orders of magnitude - at generating power, inexpensively, than any other power source currently available to man.
There is enough uranium available to us to power the ENTIRE PLANET for at least two centuries, and perhaps up to 60 millenia: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last



Nuclear power is there to be used. Why not use it to break our dependence on fossil fuels while we find a truly sustainable way?
Click to expand...

Nuclear power isn't clean either, all that radio active waste has to go somewhere and if there is a disaster then there is a real big problem. Look at the Fukushima and Chernobyl Plant. Germany is shutting down its Nuclear power program and you want SA to stat one up?

The only real clean power source is Fusion power and that is still some years away.
 
ChocolateBadger said:
Nuclear power isn't clean either, all that radio active waste has to go somewhere
Click to expand...
If we can afford to send satellites into space to watch TV I am not sure why we can not launch the waste at the sun...

and if there is a disaster then there is a real big problem. Look at the Fukushima Plant.
Click to expand...
Has no relevance to us. We are not in tsunami or earthquake zones.

The only real clean power source is Fusion power and that is still some years away.
Click to expand...
You mean like the sun?
 
ghoti said:
If we can afford to send satellites into space to watch TV I am not sure why we can not launch the waste at the sun...


Has no relevance to us. We are not in tsunami or earthquake zones.


You mean like the sun?
Click to expand...

I added Chernobyl to add the fact of human error, something that is very prevalent in this country.

Yes like the sun but the hard part is making a mini sun here on earth. The power from Fusion will come from the heat it generates and not from the UV rays.
 
Last edited:
ChocolateBadger said:
I added Chernobyl to add the fact of human error, something that is very prevalent in this country.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that showed what happens when you build a reactor on the cheapest budget, manage it badly and ignore all the warning signs. Our reactor is not cheap soviet crap, its well managed and there are no warning signs. Again, not relevant to us. The Chernobyl argument is kinda like saying... Dont fly SAA, because a cheap, ****ty, badly managed airplane crashed once in the soviet union.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Oh yeah, that showed what happens when you build a reactor on the cheapest budget, manage it badly and ignore all the warning signs. Our reactor is not cheap soviet crap, its well managed and there are no warning signs. Again, not relevant to us. The Chernobyl argument is kinda like saying... Dont fly SAA, because a cheap, ****ty, badly managed airplane crashed once in the soviet union.
Click to expand...

Do you even remember all the Load Shedding we had because of our badly managed Nuclear Reactor that had to go under drastic maintenance because the warning signs were ignored?

If Eskom can't even handle the countries power now and their own budget for that matter, how can they handle a full fledged nuclear program in this country. That's like trying to run before you can even crawl.

Also don't hate the Soviet machines.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Oh yeah, that showed what happens when you build a reactor on the cheapest budget, manage it badly and ignore all the warning signs. Our reactor is not cheap soviet crap, its well managed and there are no warning signs. Again, not relevant to us. The Chernobyl argument is kinda like saying... Dont fly SAA, because a cheap, ****ty, badly managed airplane crashed once in the soviet union.
Click to expand...

Who is to say it won't be badly maintained, run down and badly managed at some point in the future?
 
ChocolateBadger said:
Do you even remember all the Load Shedding we had because of our badly managed Nuclear Reactor that had to go under drastic maintenance because the warning signs were ignored?
Click to expand...
You are comparing apples with oranges.

If Eskom can't even handle the countries power now and their own budget for that matter, how can they handle a full fledged nuclear program in this country. That's like trying to run before you can even crawl.
Click to expand...
Despite what you think. South Africans are not idiots. We had nukes before most countries had nuclear reactors. We are not new to the atom.

Also don't hate the Soviet machines.
Click to expand...
Theyre kak. For almost every thing they have done, there is a better counterpart somewhere else. They only thing that soviet technology was.... was cheap and nasty.

joelus said:
Who is to say it won't be badly maintained, run down and badly managed at some point in the future?
Click to expand...

Our government would have to fail to the level that the soviet union did. I think technology, education and people have changed for it to be likely for that to happen again.
 
ghoti said:
Our government would have to fail to the level that the soviet union did. I think technology, education and people have changed for it to be likely for that to happen again.
Click to expand...
Well I'm glad you have faith in a government you know nothing about as we're talking the 50 - 100 years into the future. We have no idea what the world will be like in that time, never mind our government. Admittedly the current lifespan of a nuclear power plant is only 25 years which is very expensive for such a short span of time...

And then there is nuclear waste - 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).[27] 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.[28] 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.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
 
joelus said:
Well I'm glad you have faith in a government you know nothing about as we're talking the 50 - 100 years into the future.
Click to expand...
Ditto


And then there is nuclear waste - 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).[27] 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.[28] 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.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
Click to expand...

Ive already given a possible solution to that :D
 
ghoti said:
Ditto




Ive already given a possible solution to that :D
Click to expand...

Sorry I thought we were being practical here, but if we're just having a laugh then sure lets frack up the earth and let our grandchildren all die horrible deaths.

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, New Zealand, 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.

None of these are particularly encouraging, considering they have to remain safely out of the way for thousands of years.

As for sun disposal...
There isn’t a space agency or private firm on the planet with a spotless launch record. And we’re not talking about cheapo rockets—in 2009, the craft carrying NASA’s $280-million Orbiting Carbon Observatory fizzled out and crashed into the ocean near Antarctica. It’s a bummer when a satellite ends up underwater, but it’s an entirely different story if that rocket is packing a few hundred pounds of uranium. And if the uranium caught fire, it could stay airborne and circulate for months, dusting the globe with radioactive ash. Still seem like a good idea?
 
joelus said:
Sorry I thought we were being practical here, but if we're just having a laugh then sure lets frack up the earth and let our grandchildren all die horrible deaths.
Click to expand...
Now you are confusing me. I am against fracking. I dont know what you mean by this :confused:
 
ghoti said:
Now you are confusing me. I am against fracking. I dont know what you mean by this :confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah but I thought you were having a laugh not taking a genuine position. I mean you suggested sending nuclear waste into the sun as a means of disposal with a big grin which means you're not really having a practical discussion. If you want to have a realistic, practical discussion about meeting future energy requirements then lets be practical - if you want to have a laugh then it's irrelevant what you're for or against, we're just having a laugh so sure, lets frack the earth by fracking or nuclear waste :D
 
ghoti said:
That neither of us know what the government of the future will look like.
Click to expand...

Right, but surly we would rather be safe that sorry? :confused: Since we don't know why would we risk a badly maintained nuclear power plant?
 
joelus said:
"Disposal in outer space", not implemented.
Click to expand...

Yes, launching rockets containing radioactive material is a hazard. But now that commercial companies are getting in on the act, launches will become far more common and hence, safer. In under half a century, space launches will be as ordinary as commercial plane flights are today.
 
The_Assimilator said:
Yes, launching rockets containing radioactive material is a hazard. But now that commercial companies are getting in on the act, launches will become far more common and hence, safer. In under half a century, space launches will be as ordinary as commercial plane flights are today.
Click to expand...
When we reach the point where launches are common and safe then we can talk about disposal in outer space as a practical option.
Right now you want to take the attitude of "let's create the nuclear waste now and figure out how to deal with it later" which is not an option I'm willing to support. And all it takes is one launch accident and the entire planet could be covered in radioactive ash.
Even though planes are safe today, accidents still do happen...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X