Why do you oppose cutting co2 emissions?

[flacaltenn]

Because it actually distracts from the goals of cutting REAL air pollution. So I agree with Muhammed. It's BECAUSE I'm an environmentalist, --- am sick and tired of GW hype BURYING all other enviro issues and the dishonesty of GOVT "science" that classified CO2 as a "pollutant"..

So, as the ardent environmentalist you claim to be, and be specific, what have you done to curtail that ominous "REAL air pollution"? What other "enviro issues" have you significantly advanced? What have you done to raise all these very worthy issues that the "GW hype" has been burying, no "BURYING"?

What aim in the realm of reducing "REAL air pollution" is at odds with burning less FFs? For that has to be the silliest meme the denialists have cooked up so far: The fight against climate change / CO₂ emissions is at odds with, and hurting, other environmental concerns.

GW has knocked most EVERY habitat, species preservation, ocean usage, sustainable farming issue off the front pages for DECADES now. Giant swirling mounds of garbage in the ocean. MASSIVE radioactive hazards at the old national nuclear weapons factories. You name it -- it's been ignored. Bees and frogs and toads and raptors --- UNLESS --- some guy in a lab coat with a grant could blame any of that on GW.

Right now -- some pristine forests can not pass the "particulate and VOC sections" of current clean air regs at certain times of year. It's not a matter of MORE regulation. The issue is to expand our core nuclear power generation and replace the AGING plants that currently supply 18 to 20% of grid. NO -- air pollution involved. Same thing with renewable powered desalinization and hydrogen production OFF GRID. Which is a much smarter of these sketchy unreliable resources.

The EPA HAS LIED and misrepresented CO2 as "carbon" and a pollutant. Time to restore science and perspective to the issues that have TRUE health and enviro consequences to the TOP of the list.

Why are you so bitter??

 

[flacaltenn]

Because it actually distracts from the goals of cutting REAL air pollution. So I agree with Muhammed. It's BECAUSE I'm an environmentalist, --- am sick and tired of GW hype BURYING all other enviro issues and the dishonesty of GOVT "science" that classified CO2 as a "pollutant"..

So, as the ardent environmentalist you claim to be, and be specific, what have you done to curtail that ominous "REAL air pollution"? What other "enviro issues" have you significantly advanced? What have you done to raise all these very worthy issues that the "GW hype" has been burying, no "BURYING"?

What aim in the realm of reducing "REAL air pollution" is at odds with burning less FFs? For that has to be the silliest meme the denialists have cooked up so far: The fight against climate change / CO₂ emissions is at odds with, and hurting, other environmental concerns.

You DO REALIZE that the scientific/engineering solutions for minimizing REAL pollutants from power generation sources is DIFFERENT than the solutions required to reduce CO2 ? Right?? And FORCING CO2 reduction alone is not likely to fix the REAL pollutant problem. Not unless your concept is an highly industrial country running completely on wind mills and solar panels. . You're not one of those ?? Are YA???

 

[Olde Europe]

GW has knocked most EVERY habitat, species preservation, ocean usage, sustainable farming issue off the front pages for DECADES now. Giant swirling mounds of garbage in the ocean. MASSIVE radioactive hazards at the old national nuclear weapons factories. You name it -- it's been ignored. Bees and frogs and toads and raptors --- UNLESS --- some guy in a lab coat with a grant could blame any of that on GW.

Right now -- some pristine forests can not pass the "particulate and VOC sections" of current clean air regs at certain times of year. It's not a matter of MORE regulation. The issue is to expand our core nuclear power generation and replace the AGING plants that currently supply 18 to 20% of grid. NO -- air pollution involved. Same thing with renewable powered desalinization and hydrogen production OFF GRID. Which is a much smarter of these sketchy unreliable resources.

The EPA HAS LIED and misrepresented CO2 as "carbon" and a pollutant. Time to restore science and perspective to the issues that have TRUE health and enviro consequences to the TOP of the list.

Why are you so bitter??

I can tell you why I am bitter. It's because I didn't expect you to buy such a eminently stupid meme.

Of course, every single one of the those environmental hazards you mention is invisible because no one is paying attention to any of them. Sustainable farming is dead, reports on plastic surpassing the amount of living things in the oceans was never even measured, concerns about radiative pollution / costs of dismantling nuclear facilities are not being studied, bees dying unmentioned for years. Ominously though, you seem aware of all these issues. Genuine research in all these fields by you, I presume?

EPA, as confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, was well within its authority to name CO₂ a pollutant. And a fine thing they've done there, for that's exactly what it is.

You DO REALIZE that the scientific/engineering solutions for minimizing REAL pollutants from power generation sources is DIFFERENT than the solutions required to reduce CO2 ? Right?? And FORCING CO2 reduction alone is not likely to fix the REAL pollutant problem. Not unless your concept is an highly industrial country running completely on wind mills and solar panels. . You're not one of those ?? Are YA???

Yeah, because decommissioning a coal-fired plant and replacing it with either a natural gas-fired one, or solar / wind energy, doesn't reduce "REAL" pollutants. There's some alternative facts for you, none of which anyone here can see in this universe. You're not one living in an alternative one, in which "clean coal" is not just a lying buzz-word to deceive the gullible, and nuclear power is unproblematic, are you?

 

[westwall]

Because it actually distracts from the goals of cutting REAL air pollution. So I agree with Muhammed. It's BECAUSE I'm an environmentalist, --- am sick and tired of GW hype BURYING all other enviro issues and the dishonesty of GOVT "science" that classified CO2 as a "pollutant"..

So, as the ardent environmentalist you claim to be, and be specific, what have you done to curtail that ominous "REAL air pollution"? What other "enviro issues" have you significantly advanced? What have you done to raise all these very worthy issues that the "GW hype" has been burying, no "BURYING"?

What aim in the realm of reducing "REAL air pollution" is at odds with burning less FFs? For that has to be the silliest meme the denialists have cooked up so far: The fight against climate change / CO₂ emissions is at odds with, and hurting, other environmental concerns.

Particulates, lead, other heavy metal material exhausted into the atmosphere. All of those are very real pollutants. MTBE for instance is a horrible additive that was used in gasoline to oxygenate it to reduce air pollution. The problem with this GOVERNMENT MANDATED scheme, was it ignored the probable cancer causing effects it had, and the very real threat to the water supply. Well over 1,500 water wells have had to be closed due to MTBE pollution. Pollution that was caused by mandates promulgated by politicians who knew nothing about what they were doing, but listened to YOUR experts.

I was one of those who was finally able to get that crap removed from gasoline. So....what have you done?

 

[flacaltenn]

I can tell you why I am bitter. It's because I didn't expect you to buy such a eminently stupid meme.

Everything I just told is no "stupid meme". It's been espoused by MANY top US enviro- experts who have endorsed a more even-handed approach to public awareness of ALL issues, endorsed nuclear power, and have been very SANE and realistic about expectations for "alternative power". Does the name James Hansen ring a bell? Pretty much has said EVERYTHING I've just told you..

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?

Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy

Top climate change scientists issue open letter to policy influencers - CNN.com

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Editor's note: Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley released an open letter Sunday calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Read more about the letter and the controversy surrounding it

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

As for the rest of what I told you --- NOBODY gives a Tink about sea slugs anymore UNLESS they are endangered by GW. That's where all the research money has shifted to. So unless you propose a GW related "hook and spin" to the story -- the poor creature has been abused and ignored for the past 2 or 3 decades.. ABUNDANTLY clear to anyone who has followed enviro issues as long as I have. The Nature Conservancy is in my will. I live closer to nature than you do and probably have spawned a lower "carbon footprint" than you will. But CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It comes out in your every breath at 4 to 8 times the atmos concentration and is plant food. And if CO2 is a pollutant because it's a GHGas -- then when's the "War on Water Vapor" starting? Because THAT -- is the DOMINANT GHGas.. Crappy science. MASSIVE deception to purposely confuse the public between CO2 and "carbon". Done ON PURPOSE -- for an agenda.

 

[Olde Europe]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

 

[westwall]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Nothing more apparently fake here than your genuine disinterest in discussing the diff between REAL pollution and CO2. Or your apparent lack of knowledge in how the GW media circus has virtually BLACKED-OUT real discussions of 100s of other important enviro issues.

"A bucket of spit"?? So when Mother Jones or ThinkProgress praises the god-awful technologies listed in the "list of energy alternatives" (that are not TRUELY alternatives at all) -- that's a better source for you to avoid all that dissonance from having top scientists tell you otherwise? I listen to the folks who's job it is to keep the lights on. Not politicians, not GW fanatics. But when the great grandpapy of GW fanatics ALSO tells the truth -- that's "a bucket of spit"????

 

[Otium]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

He is pretty ignorant about all manner of subjects.

 

[Otium]

Because it actually distracts from the goals of cutting REAL air pollution. So I agree with Muhammed. It's BECAUSE I'm an environmentalist, --- am sick and tired of GW hype BURYING all other enviro issues and the dishonesty of GOVT "science" that classified CO2 as a "pollutant"..

So, as the ardent environmentalist you claim to be, and be specific, what have you done to curtail that ominous "REAL air pollution"? What other "enviro issues" have you significantly advanced? What have you done to raise all these very worthy issues that the "GW hype" has been burying, no "BURYING"?

What aim in the realm of reducing "REAL air pollution" is at odds with burning less FFs? For that has to be the silliest meme the denialists have cooked up so far: The fight against climate change / CO₂ emissions is at odds with, and hurting, other environmental concerns.

You DO REALIZE that the scientific/engineering solutions for minimizing REAL pollutants from power generation sources is DIFFERENT than the solutions required to reduce CO2 ? Right?? And FORCING CO2 reduction alone is not likely to fix the REAL pollutant problem. Not unless your concept is an highly industrial country running completely on wind mills and solar panels. . You're not one of those ?? Are YA???

Yes he is. A polemicist disguised as one with scientific knowledge. He is the very sort of marxist who has used environmentalism as a cover for redistributionism and anti capitalism .

Period.

 

[mamooth]

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it.

Sophistry. For example, there's essentially no naturally occurring plutonium on earth, and it only exists in the universe as a little blip here and there. Mankind pretty much did invent all kinds of isotopes here on earth.

The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time.

24,000 years, as with Pu-239, apparently being "vanishingly small".

Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another.

That's crap. There essentially wasn't any Co-60, or Sr-90, or Cs-137 here either, until humans created it.

Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

Then go stand in the Fukushima reactor building. Plenty of lethal stuff there. Sr-90 and Cs-137, 30 year half lives. Co-60, 5 years.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

So it's safe, except where it isn't.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Vaporware. The new miracle reactors have been promised for decades, and they never arrive. Yet the ideologues still swear by them.

The reality-based crowd understand that nuclear power is not cost effective. It has to be safe, but to be safe, it costs too much. Renewables and new storage options are a more cost effective path.

 

[Crick]

Beautiful demonstration as to who it is here, Westie, that doesn't know jack shit about radioactive materials.

 

[mamooth]

Or your apparent lack of knowledge in how the GW media circus has virtually BLACKED-OUT real discussions of 100s of other important enviro issues.

We know that's a fiction you made up, being that we constantly read discussions of non-AGW issues. That is, we know you're peddling a load of crap, so that you can reverse reality and pretend to care about the environment, while pretending your opponents don't care.

What we also see is you and every "libertarian" sucking the ass of the conservative environmental rapists, and spitting hatred at the actual environmentalists. Your politics are environment-raping, therefore you back environment-rape. You can't pretend to be an environmentalist just because you gave a few dollars somewhere.

 

[westwall]

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it.

Sophistry. For example, there's essentially no naturally occurring plutonium on earth, and it only exists in the universe as a little blip here and there. Mankind pretty much did invent all kinds of isotopes here on earth.

The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time.

24,000 years, as with Pu-239, apparently being "vanishingly small".

Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another.

That's crap. There essentially wasn't any Co-60, or Sr-90, or Cs-137 here either, until humans created it.

Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

Then go stand in the Fukushima reactor building. Plenty of lethal stuff there. Sr-90 and Cs-137, 30 year half lives. Co-60, 5 years.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

So it's safe, except where it isn't.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Vaporware. The new miracle reactors have been promised for decades, and they never arrive. Yet the ideologues still swear by them.

The reality-based crowd understand that nuclear power is not cost effective. It has to be safe, but to be safe, it costs too much. Renewables and new storage options are a more cost effective path.

I will demolish your first claim and the rest of your horse poo will follow along with it.

"Cowan described, for example, how some of the neutrons released during the fission of uranium 235 were captured by the more abundant uranium 238, which became uranium 239 and, after emitting two electrons, turned into plutonium 239. More than two tons of this plutonium isotope were generated within the Oklo deposit. Although almost all this material, which has a 24,000-year halflife, has since disappeared (primarily through natural radioactive decay), some of the plutonium itself underwent fission, as attested by the presence of its characteristic fission products. The abundance of those lighter elements allowed scientists to deduce that fission reactions must have gone on for hundreds of thousands of years. From the amount of uranium 235 consumed, they calculated the total energy released, 15,000 megawatt-years, and from this and other evidence were able to work out the average power output, which was probably less than 100 kilowatts—say, enough to run a few dozen toasters."


The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor

 

[westwall]

Beautiful demonstration as to who it is here, Westie, that doesn't know jack shit about radioactive materials.

Yeah, and it's you. You hurl an insult but have nothing to back it up. That is the very definition of trolling. Consider yourself warned and then look at the Scientific American article I posted that demolishes your butt buddies claims. EVERY radioactive isotope that is used in nuclear power, and in bombs has been formed naturally. Every. Single. One.

Now toddle off home junior. You're way out of your league.

 

[mamooth]

Although almost all this material, which has a 24,000-year halflife, has since disappeared

So like I said, no Plutonium on earth.

I'll let you know when I need more of my statements confirmed by your sources.

EVERY radioactive isotope that is used in nuclear power, and in bombs has been formed naturally. Every. Single. One.

In tiny traces, with then decayed away, so that none remained on earth, and humans had to invent them.

As is the case on nearly every topic, you're way out of your league here, dope. You bluff and bluster and pretend to be an expert, but you're just a clueless dweeb who is too stupid to understand how clueless he is. You're not a scientist, and never were. You were a petroleum geologist, a glorified technician. You never had any training or skill in actual science, and it shows, being as you're completely unable to use common sense or engage in critical thinking.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it.

Sophistry. For example, there's essentially no naturally occurring plutonium on earth, and it only exists in the universe as a little blip here and there. Mankind pretty much did invent all kinds of isotopes here on earth.

The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time.

24,000 years, as with Pu-239, apparently being "vanishingly small".

Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another.

That's crap. There essentially wasn't any Co-60, or Sr-90, or Cs-137 here either, until humans created it.

Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

Then go stand in the Fukushima reactor building. Plenty of lethal stuff there. Sr-90 and Cs-137, 30 year half lives. Co-60, 5 years.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

So it's safe, except where it isn't.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Vaporware. The new miracle reactors have been promised for decades, and they never arrive. Yet the ideologues still swear by them.

The reality-based crowd understand that nuclear power is not cost effective. It has to be safe, but to be safe, it costs too much. Renewables and new storage options are a more cost effective path.

So -- what is the "half-life" of all that heavy metal battery waste that renewables and electric cars that is gonna go into the waste stream? Pretty sure that stuff is toxic beyond the radioactive life of plutonium last time I checked...

That vaporware is something I intend to invest in as soon it goes public. Because YOU know and I know, that compact reactors ARE possible without the massive land and containment and cooling requirements of 40 yr old, "boiling water" reactors. In fact, if anyone CARED -- that could be demonstrated in a span of 2 to 4 years.

 

[mamooth]

So -- what is the "half-life" of all that heavy metal battery waste that renewables and electric cars that is gonna go into the waste stream? Pretty sure that stuff is toxic beyond the radioactive life of plutonium last time I checked...

There are no heavy metals in lithium batteries, so just what are you talking about?

 

[westwall]

Although almost all this material, which has a 24,000-year halflife, has since disappeared

So like I said, no Plutonium on earth.

I'll let you know when I need more of my statements confirmed by your sources.

EVERY radioactive isotope that is used in nuclear power, and in bombs has been formed naturally. Every. Single. One.

In tiny traces, with then decayed away, so that none remained on earth, and humans had to invent them.

As is the case on nearly every topic, you're way out of your league here, dope. You bluff and bluster and pretend to be an expert, but you're just a clueless dweeb who is too stupid to understand how clueless he is. You're not a scientist, and never were. You were a petroleum geologist, a glorified technician. You never had any training or skill in actual science, and it shows, being as you're completely unable to use common sense or engage in critical thinking.

Oh? Two tons is none? And not all of it had disappeared either, so...where did you learn how to read... dumb ass!

 

[Old Rocks]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Safe?

Ben Lovejoy

The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is the area which was evacuated after the disaster. Entry requires a government permit, and exit requires a full body scan to show that your radiation dose is within the allowable limits.

As long as you do not go where the guides tell you not to, you will probably come out within allowable limits. There is no way it can be considered a safe area.