Kusile pollution concerns

wingnut771 said:
Storing something that is radioactive for 100 000 years onsite in a container that only lasts a few hundred years is not a solution.
Click to expand...
Small amounts in comparison, compared to millions dying now of various cancers thanks to coal. Not to mention the other chemicals involved with batteries
 
Lupus said:
Small amounts in comparison, compared to millions dying now of various cancers thanks to coal. Not to mention the other chemicals involved with batteries
Click to expand...

So the world population is projected to shrink in the mean time - and it is prefered that people die in the future from radiation cancer than coal cause cancer now.
 
wingnut771 said:
Storing something that is radioactive for 100 000 years onsite in a container that only lasts a few hundred years is not a solution.
Click to expand...
agreed but , we advance and there are already advancement to re use this waste and with every cycle it is reused the window for which it is radioactive shrinks, so no we don't have to hope the containers last 100k years (just realised this video in the thread is actually the one that points that out)

plus the effect on the enviroment of nuclear is less than the other dirty methods we use to generate electricity

if we just did not go down the route of using uranium as a fuel just to be able to get depleted uranium for weapons we might not have had the bad experiences that linger in peoples minds when they hear nuclear power stations
 
Last edited:
elf_lord_ZC5 said:
Just makes it someone elses problem a few hundred years later, but we won't be around so who cares.
Click to expand...
as if coal power does any different , the impact on the enviroment exists in some form or another
nuclear is actually cleaner than most

but yea the propaganda is a thing
 
leon.davibe said:
agreed but , we advance and there are already advancement to re use this waste and with every cycle it is reused the window for which it is radioactive shrinks, so no we don't have to hope the comtainers last 100k years

plus the effect on the enviroment of nuclear is less than the other dirty methods we use to generate electricity

if we just did not go down the route of using uranium as a fuel just to be able to get depleted uranium for weapons we might not have had the bad experiences that linger in peoples minds when they hear nuclear power stations
Click to expand...
Exactly they are looking at recycling it to the point where it's even less radiation and the half life drops
 
elf_lord_ZC5 said:
They might be good, may have made a good, effort to see that they are very tough. But they cannot guarantee that they are indestructable, only that they have made a best effort solution. The same as youf internet service provider does. Between nature, [ volcano ? ] and human stupidity, all bets are off.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the idea is to store this stuff deep underground in areas of low groundwater and high geological stability stretching back 1 million years.

Places like Japan are up schit's creek.

As to human stupidity, there are warning systems being designed assuming that, in the future, whatever inhabits this world might have lost written language.
 
leon.davibe said:
agreed but , we advance and there are already advancement to re use this waste and with every cycle it is reused the window for which it is radioactive shrinks, so no we don't have to hope the containers last 100k years (just realised this video in the thread is actually the one that points that out)

plus the effect on the enviroment of nuclear is less than the other dirty methods we use to generate electricity

if we just did not go down the route of using uranium as a fuel just to be able to get depleted uranium for weapons we might not have had the bad experiences that linger in peoples minds when they hear nuclear power stations
Click to expand...
Show me where they are reusing it.
 
i do think solar will save us from load shedding and save smaller companies

but it won't save SA's economy, solar takes up a lot of space to satisfy big industry and when those industries run 24hrs no matter how much space you have the costs would just sky rocket so high to make it all but impossible

for that we need a utility preferebly by nuclear , but coal can do in themean time

all solar will do is be life support for SA kinda like keeping a brain dead person alive with life support
unfortunately if we don't see a change we are F*****
 
wingnut771 said:
Show me where they are reusing it.
Click to expand...
not yet like the video states the nuclear plants development followed the route of one use so the containers just has to last long enough for us to realise or take advantage of what we have
 
leon.davibe said:
not yet like the video states the nuclear plants development followed the route of one use so the containers just has to last long enough for us to realise or take advantage of what we have
Click to expand...
Well they did have it in the 60s... but development stopped cause of greenies.
 
Lupus said:
Well they did have it in the 60s... but development stopped cause of greenies.
Click to expand...
i think it had more to do with trying to prevent others from generating their own plutonium by depleteing the uranium

merica wanted others to not have a big gun too, cause then they would have to build a bigger one , america loves to compensate
 
leon.davibe said:
agreed but , we advance and there are already advancement to re use this waste and with every cycle it is reused the window for which it is radioactive shrinks, so no we don't have to hope the containers last 100k years (just realised this video in the thread is actually the one that points that out)

plus the effect on the enviroment of nuclear is less than the other dirty methods we use to generate electricity

if we just did not go down the route of using uranium as a fuel just to be able to get depleted uranium for weapons we might not have had the bad experiences that linger in peoples minds when they hear nuclear power stations
Click to expand...

The world also recovers a hell of a lot faster from fossil fuel abuse than it does from nuclear abuse.
 
elf_lord_ZC5 said:
The world also recovers a hell of a lot faster from fossil fuel abuse than it does from nuclear abuse.
Click to expand...
Yeah 100 000 years for the earth is fast

What Happens AFTER Global Warming?

What happens to our heat-trapping fossil fuel emissions after we release them, how long will they persist, and what might life be like in a warming - and then cooling - world?
www.nature.com
www.theguardian.com

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet

Report warns temperatures likely to rise by more than 1.5C bringing widespread extreme weather
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Irreversible

Yet you're panicking about waste we actively trace, mark and know about, plus even 70 years of nuclear power all the high level nuclear waste is a football field.
 
elf_lord_ZC5 said:
The world also recovers a hell of a lot faster from fossil fuel abuse than it does from nuclear abuse.
Click to expand...
i have only read/seen a little bit of content and all i get is that nuclear is subject to a lot of propaganda

and that the world was always gonna be fine, many don't get it the rising temperatures affecting crops etc will affect us for food security

the world has existed billions of years before us and will likely exist/flourish long after us
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X