Should nuclear energy be phased out?

Should nuclear energy be phased out?

  • Total voters
    35
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
146 replies · 14K views
cyrusabdollahi said:
Its the dangers of getting it into space that worries me. Space is supposed to be something we explore, not pollute.
Would you be opposed to dumping nuclear waste into the Sun? If so, why?

- Warren
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, not at all. As long as you can tell me with 99.9% certainty that that rocket ant going to come down into a city or a water source because of some sort of a fluke in the deisgn, (sorta like NASA mixing up units and crashing on mars), or that they won't make stupid moves because of time constraints and pressures, (sorta like NASA challenger) when dealing with dangerous materials. As you said, one launch every other day, would be a daunting strain on NASA to keep up. Not to mention, all those rockets are one time uses. And this is something that we will have to pay for, forever.
 
Last edited:
Regarding your fears about transportation, here is some interesting reading:
About twenty million packages of all sizes containing radioactive materials are routinely transported worldwide annually on public roads, railways and ships.

These use robust and secure containers. At sea, they are generally carried in purpose-built ships.

Since 1971 there have been more than 20 000 shipments of spent fuel and high-level wastes (over 50 000 tonnes) over more than 30 million kilometres.

There has never been any accident in which a container with highly radioactive material has been breached, or has leaked.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip51.htm
 
chroot said:
I have to agree that sending our nuclear waste into our space is not a very sensible option.
Just to be clear, I want to restate that I agree - mostly for economic reasons. Ie.
My research indicates that there are 441 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, each of which produces about 25-30 tons of high-level waste per year. While this waste is relatively small -- only 3 cubic meters per year -- it is very heavy.
I also read that the US has 52,000 tons in storage now that would also need to be dealt with.
The space shuttle orbiter weighs about 100 tons at launch (and it only goes to LEO), and the Saturn V's best payload estimate was only about 52 tons to the moon. This means you'd have to launch the equivalent of a space-shuttle-sized rocket vehicles every other day just to keep up with the job, if not more.
Technically possible, but yes - cost prohibitive. Now if that "Orion" thing ever happens... but I won't go off speculating on when/if that would be possible.
I'd still put my money on transmutation technology. At some point it will become economical, and research in it will accelerate.
There is a lot of crackpottery floating around about transmutation at the moment, which is why I'm heasitant to speculate about it - but I'm an optomist and I'd never bet against technology. In 50 years, it may well be a good option.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
As long as you can tell me with 99.9% certainty that that rocket ant going to come down into a city or a water source because of some sort of a fluke in the deisgn, (sorta like NASA mixing up units and crashing on mars), or that they won't make stupid moves because of time constraints and pressures, (sorta like NASA challenger) when dealing with dangerous materials.
99.9%? 1 in a thousand? That's it? Heck, why are we arguing - we're already there?

NASA has launched roughly 3,000 rockets from Cape Kennedy alone in the past 50 years and not one has ever "come down into a city or water source" (virtually all failures have ended up in the Atlantic - that's why we launch them from the Cape). So that's 1 in 3,000 and counting.

http://www.spaceline.org/statistics/50-years.html

1 in a thousand is several orders of magnitude off what the actual likelihood of some of the scenarios you are describing is.
As you said, one launch every other day, would be a daunting strain on NASA to keep up. Not to mention, all those rockets are one time uses. And this is something that we will have to pay for, forever.
Agreed - so then we digress. Back to the point about doing for the next 50 years what we've done for the past 50: Nothing. What's wrong with it?
 
Another point. Don't those rockets send stuff into Earth orbit. Wouldn't you need a MUCH bigger rocket to send something to the sun? The satern V was used to go to the moon. I would think something at least as big would be needed for the sun, which is further, unless its easier to go to the sun.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
Another point. Don't those rockets send stuff into Earth orbit. Wouldn't you need a MUCH bigger rocket to send something to the sun? The satern V was used to go to the moon. I would think something at least as big would be needed for the sun, which is further, unless its easier to go to the sun.
It would need to be able take a very heavy cargo outside Earth orbit. That in and of itself will take quite a bit as Chroot pointed out. Once to that point though I don't think it would take much more. Just some manuevering thrusters. Set it on a path towards the sun, probably spiralling inward to take advantage of what would more or less be a natural path. That is natural as in it will continue of it's own accord without need for any fuel. It's definitely not a very economic option at this point in time but I really don't think it would take much more to get it on it's way to the sun. Russ or Chroot would likely be more qualified to answer.
 
It depends on what you want to do with it, but yes, sending something to the sun would probably cut the cargo capacity in half or more. There are, however, lower orbits that are stable enough to park trash for thousands of years.
 
No Way.

Im not afraid of Nuclear Technology, and I think the US should deploy more plants... I do think that research needs to be put into Thorium based Nuclear power generation as it is more abundant than uranium, and the byproducts are not weponizable.
 
There are, however, lower orbits that are stable enough to park trash for thousands of years.

I don't think putting trash into orbit is a very appealing idea either :frown:
 
But its sad that you don't care about things like that as well. You should want a clean planet for your kids and their kids. Its faily obvious the solution to the problem should be strict controls on how much energy we use, and looking for cleaner alternatives when possible. If we *really wanted to* we could, as a nation, drastically reduce our power usage. But hey, who cares, drive cars that get 12mph. Dont make things to last, just throw it away we'll make another one. I need to drive a SUV the size of a school bus, because my kids play soccer... :rolleyes: So wastefull...and so stupid. The sad part is that we won't be the ones suffering from our own greed and waste.
 
Last edited:
Whether one is pronuke or antinuke, we're all going to have to figure out something to do with all the high level waste. My vote is for the subductive waste disposal method.

Subductive waste disposal method is the state-of-the-art in nuclear waste disposal technology. It is the single viable means of disposing radioactive waste that ensures non return of the relegated material to the biosphere. At the same time, it affords inaccessibility to eliminated weapons material. The principle involved is the removal of the material from the biosphere faster than it can return. It is considered that ‘the safest, the most sensible, the most economical, the most stable long-term, the most environmentally benign, the most utterly obvious places to get rid of nuclear waste, high-level waste . . . The subductive waste disposal method forms a high-level radioactive waste repository in a subducting plate, so that the waste will be carried beneath the Earth’s crust where it will be diluted and dispersed through the mantle. The rate of subduction of a plate in one of the world’s slowest subduction zones is 2.1 cm annually. This is faster than the rate (1 mm annually) of diffusion of radionuclides through the turbidite sediments that would overlay a repository constructed in accordance with this method. (Rao, 2001, Current Science 81:1534-1546)
This technique has been patented in the U.S., Canada and Australia. The process is described in detail here.

There are two techniques that have been discussed. One is to drill holes thousands of feet deep in the trench, and then emplace the waste. The other is to put the waste in torpedo shaped containers, and then simply drop the containers, which bury themselves deep into the mud which has the consistency of peanut butter. These containers are supposedly designed so they get tighter and tougher the higher the pressure. They will get buried ever deep as turbidite flows are constantly trying to infill the deep trench. Even if a container were breached, the heavy radioactive nucleotides would tend to diffuse downward, rather than up towards the water. This method would be cheap and permanent.

Right now, it costs $10,000 a pound to send things into space (LEO--to boost the stuff out of Earth orbit and set the controls for the heart of the sun costs even more). The reason nuclear is economically viable at all is because uranium costs ~$30 per pound. Once the price gets much above $500 a pound, it's not worth it anymore. That's the problem with nuclear. Until the waste problem is fixed, we just do not know the true cost of a kWh of nuclear energy.
 
Last edited:
Just need to clearify a thing about my comment on shooting the waste into space. I did only mention it as a possibility if the esa phoenix project or similar is succsessfull.
There are no rockets on the phoenix. Just a 4km long track over which the vechicle is electromagneticly accelerated. I am making the big assumption that it would be a lot cheaper than to use the shuttle for instance.

Anyway it wasnt really a hardcore suggestion. More like maby a possibility in 50 years. I don't se the need to build 100 000 year storage sites.

Curys I want a clean planet for my kids and grandkids and that is exactly the reason I am pro nuclear power :)

Drasticly reducing power consumption could maby be a short term solution. But even if you manage to cut down consumption with 50% where are those 50% going to come from?

Also the more technology we get the more power we use it seems like. Do you want to stop progress alltogheter?
 
btw this has been one of the most informing threads that I have encountered so far :)
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
But its sad that you don't care about things like that as well.
Why should I care about dirtying-up space? I already asked you for an explanation and you haven't provided one.
You should want a clean planet for your kids and their kids.
What are you talking about?!? The quote you were responding to said nothing about the planet. But if you haven't gathered it from my posts, my position is that we need to immediately build another 200 nuclear plants to take over the capacity currently in the form of coal. Air pollution is the #1 environmental problem facing the world today.
Its faily obvious the solution to the problem should be strict controls on how much energy we use, and looking for cleaner alternatives when possible.
Obvious to you, but how reasonable is that really? You won't be able to get people to give up heating and air conditioning, which is what would be required to cut our usage in half just to eliminate coal power. Even if you could force it, why would you want to? It would utterly destroy the world economy.
If we *really wanted to* we could, as a nation, drastically reduce our power usage.
Of course - if we really wanted to, we could all stop using electricity altogether. The question isn't what is possible, the question is what is reasonable. It is not reasonable to think we can reduce our energy usage by half without significant alteration of our way of life.

Quick question for you: are you really a "dark ages environmentalis" - ie, one who wants to cast-off all the conveniences of modern life? Or do you think it is actually possible to reduce our energy consumption by a significant/meaningful fraction (say, half) without fundamental changes in the way the modern world works?
 
Last edited:
It is not reasonable to think we can reduce our energy usage by half without significant alteration of our way of life.


Oh dear. God forbid we don't use as much heating and air condition, or drive huge cars unnecessarily! If the rest of the world can get by without it, we sure as hell can too. Russ, there are things we can do that are REASONABLE and WOULD make an impact. I am not a dark ages environmentalist. I am just not for blantant waste and total disregard. You mean to tell me you can't drink a glass of cold water when its hot outside? You MUST have the AC turned on all the way, day and night, day in and day out? At least for the winter time people can dress in layers. I am not saing NO airconditioning/heating, I am saying not as MUCH. Use in MODERATION. Europe does not use much airconditioning, and I would say they live in 1st world conditions...eh? Some people might die from the heat, like the old or infants, so they should turn on the AC. But the rest of us should be respectful to our strain on energy consumption and the waste byproducts caused by producing energy and avoid using it. Its called being prudent. You have a bad mentailty of ME ME ME MORE MORE MORE BIGGER BIGGER BIGGER its the unamerican way! If its an inconvience to you, you want to throw it aside and reject it. Well, if you want to do something about energy use, sacrifices are going to have to be made.
 
Last edited:
Today's society is drastically different from what it was a hundred years ago, and it's a safe bet that the difference will be just as drastic in another hundred years. Given this, western societies can plan in various ways. A plan for the future could just as well include a decrease in energy consumption instead of an increase. I find it equally feasible to develop more efficient devices that consume less as to develop more sources of energy. There is no need to fear the dark ages, we're talking of the future. It can be a future of relentless energy production and consumption, or it can be a more sober future of conservation and balance. And still have AC where needed.
 
Words of wisdom. :biggrin:

(Look I am a nice guy see!?)
 
cyrusabdollahi,

The energy crisis is not localized to the US. Other developing countries, like China, stand poised to take the crown of "most wasteful country" in the next century anyway. It just happens that, at the moment, the US is the world's largest consumer of resources per capita -- it won't always be that way, but some country will always be #1.

This discussion does not need to be derailed into a discussion of how the "American lifestyle" is the root of all evil. I agree that proper education and better efforts for conservation are very important, but I disagree that Americans are somehow so different from other people that they can be uniformly characterized as "wasteful" or that they deserve to bear the burden of the entire world's energy problem.

It's true that Europeans get by with lower consumer energy expenditure. Why? Because their homes are generally much, much smaller than American homes. Why are American homes so much bigger? Is it because Americans are greedy bastards who want to see the destruction of the planet? In general, at least: No. It's because America has more land, and larger houses are within the economic means of a larger number of people -- so we buy them.

If the Europeans had more land at their disposal and large houses were relatively cheap, you can bet that few of them would continue to live in 500 sq. ft. apartments. They'd wind up just like Americans. They're not "better people," they just have a different geographic and economic environment.

Your focus on "wasteful Americans" also seems painfully short-sighted. You seem to be concerned about conservation at home: turning off lights when you don't need them, not using air conditioning when a fan might work just as well, and so on. You're missing the much bigger picture: industry uses more energy that residential users. Even if residential users cut their energy use in half (which is perhaps possible, though very difficult to achieve), the total energy consumption of the US would decrease by only 20%. Substantial, but not enough to eliminate the energy crisis.

You could try telling the industries to reduce their consumption, but most industries already operate as efficiently as is reasonably possible (they're out to make a profit, of course). Industry, of course, is what has made the US so wealthy and powerful in the first place. If you try to cut US industrial energy use in half, you're quickly going to find that the global economy will suffer dramatically.

In my opinion, consumption is just part of an equilibrium point. As energy costs increase, it will become more and more economically worthwhile to build ultra-efficient homes, or retrofit older homes. We'll see consumption fall as prices go up -- ultimately large-scale economics, not residential users with their fingers on their thermostats, governs the large-scale behavior of the entire energy system.

- Warren
 
The energy crisis is not localized to the US. Other developing countries, like China, stand poised to take the crown of "most wasteful country" in the next century anyway. It just happens that, at the moment, the US is the world's largest consumer of resources per capita -- it won't always be that way, but some country will always be #1.

Yes, I agree. But they should be held equally accountable.

This discussion does not need to be derailed into a discussion of how the "American lifestyle" is the root of all evil. I agree that proper education and better efforts for conservation are very important, but I disagree that Americans are somehow so different from other people that they can be uniformly characterized as "wasteful" or that they deserve to bear the burden of the entire world's energy problem.

I don't think the american way of life is the root of all evil. I think the true lack of any political leadership to do anything serious about the energy problem is the root of the evil. I think the numbers are to the effect that we have less than 5% of the world population but use more energy than any other nation. Granted a lot of that is used in goods. But the way things are going, is anything manufactured in USA anymore? Its all outsourced.

It's true that Europeans get by with lower consumer energy expenditure. Why? Because their homes are generally much, much smaller than American homes. Why are American homes so much bigger? Is it because Americans are greedy bastards who want to see the destruction of the planet? In general, at least: No. It's because America has more land, and larger houses are within the economic means of a larger number of people -- so we buy them.

Well, look back 50 years. The size of an average house was much smaller. People used a lot less, and saved a lot more. Their lives were not in the 'dark ages.'

They're not "better people," they just have a different geographic and economic environment.

I never said they are any better. I am just showing that you can live very well without the need for so many extra niceties that use power.

Even if residential users cut their energy use in half (which is perhaps possible, though very difficult to achieve), the total energy consumption of the US would decrease by only 20%. Substantial, but not enough to eliminate the energy crisis.

Yeah, I think we should put money into making industry more efficient. They would make more money, and we would use less energy, win-win. I think 20% of the power saved by a country that uses the most power in the world is quite a respectable achievment. It would do a lot of good. Look at Japan, highly industrial, but they are also very careful in how they use their power.

As Americans, we should be setting an example to the rest of the world on how we treat the environment and how we use energy. I think there is allot we could do, that would influence other countries as well. And that would have a HUGE impact on the world.
 
Last edited:
cyrusabdollahi said:
Well, look back 50 years. The size of an average house was much smaller. People used a lot less, and saved a lot more. Their lives were not in the 'dark ages.'
Do you have some evidence for this claim about American houses being much smaller 50 years ago?
I never said they are any better. I am just showing that you can live very well without the need for so many extra niceties that use power.
Are you aware that Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US? (Source: DOE 2001 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter2.html )
Yeah, I think we should put money into making industry more efficient. They would make more money, and we would use less energy, win-win.
Do you think you're the first person to realize that more efficient industry yeilds greater profits? Do you think industries are not already trying to maximize their efficiency? Do you have any specific methods by which industries should magically increase their efficiency without affecting their economic position, or do you only argue in vague, uninformed, accusatory tones?
Japan, highly industrial, but they are also very careful in how they use their power.
Japan has nowhere near the energy-intensive industrialization as does the US. You're arguing out of ignorance.
As Americans, we should be setting an example to the rest of the world on how we treat the environment and how we use energy. I think there is allot we could do, that would influence other countries as well. And that would have a HUGE impact on the world.
I agree that we should set an example -- I agree that we, as a nation, could do more to conserve resources. I disagree strongly that there's some magic bullet to be found, or some individual people who deserve to have fingers pointed at them. We happen to live in the most industrialized country in the world, and thus use the most energy. The two go hand-in-hand, and no amount of your enviro-babble cooing (e.g. "Ooh! let's just reduce consumption by 50%! It's not so hard! Let's just eat ice cream in the summer!") is going to cut our energy use in half without affecting every economy on the planet.

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Russ said:
Why should I care about dirtying-up space? I already asked you for an explanation and you haven't provided one.
Leaving aside environmental ethics, there are practicle problems with using Earth orbit as a dumping ground. Already Norad keeps track of thousands of manmade space objects, most of which serve no useful function anymore. These are a hazard to space navigation. And if any of the nuclear waste containers collided with each other or something else, they will break apart into hundreds or thousands of smaller particles that increase the threat. We're back to the question of intergenerational ethics again: it's morally wrong that we dump the problem of monitoring thousands of radioactive packages in Earth orbit onto future generations. Moreover, as space travel becomes more common, there would little to prevent a bad guy with a spaceship to go get one of the containers to make nuke bombs or dirty bombs out of. Until a space elevator or something similar is built that can reliably launch trash into the sun, the idea that nuke waste can be sent into space is idle speculation at best.

The subductive waste disposal method, however, is a concrete proposal that is economical and permanent, and it might just work.

Cyrus said:
Yeah, I think we should put money into making industry more efficient. They would make more money, and we would use less energy, win-win. I think 20% of the power saved by a country that uses the most power in the world is quite a respectable achievment. It would do a lot of good. Look at Japan, highly industrial, but they are also very careful in how they use their power.
One technology that could do this that is right around the corner is LED lighting. These are an order of magnitude more efficient per lumen than incandescent light bulbs. Even florescent lights are now old-fashioned.

Another thing residential and industrial users can do is purchase wind electricity futures, which are now available in most places. You wouldn't be directly conserving, but at least you can make sure your energy is coming from a green source. The government could institute a CO2 credit trading system like their is for sulpher dioxide.

One other thing the government can do is ensure that the price of dirty electricity reflects the true cost of that electricity--i.e., make sure all externalities are priced into what the consumer pays for each kilowatt-hour. As I have written elsewhere (http://andystest.typepad.com/renewables/2006/01/are_renewables_.html#comments ), if this were done, the unfair competitive advantage that coal and nuclear have over renewables would be eliminated.

chroot said:
Do you have some evidence for this claim about American houses being much smaller 50 years ago?
Yeah, just drive around some older neighborhoods, and you'll be able to see for yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One other thing that has been swept under the rug so far is the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation. If a terrorist ever sets off a nuke in lower Manhattan or Long Beach, it will most likely be constructed out of uranium diverted from "peaceful" energy production. Should the nuclear industry be required to pay for such damages?

Think about it this way: if nuclear energy had never caught on at all anywhere in the world, how would the world be a different place today? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island would never have happened. North Korea and Pakstan would not have the bomb. The current embroglio with Iran wouldn't be happening. There would be little to no nuclear waste to be disposed of.

There might be more coal plants burning now, but the example of Denmark shows that we might have a lot more renewables going as well.

What about the military cost of containing nations like North Korea and Iran who have or are about to have nuclear weapons as a result of widespread nuclear power plants? Is this not an externality that is not reflected in the price of a nuclear kWh? We choose to ignore these issues at our peril. To my way of thinking, if there is ever a future nuclear exchange with a country that would not have nuke were it not for all the uranium floating around in the hundreds of NPP's in the world, then nuclear power will not have been worth it; I don't care if the world's oceans would be a foot higher than they are now.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
(Look I am a nice guy see!?)
Sure, and don't sweat it. Disagreements happen, so do agreements. And I don't hold grudges (too heavy).

chroot said:
Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US
It's colder up north though. Since economies and lifestyles are very similar, this difference could be just heating costs.

WarrenPlatts said:
there are practicle problems with using Earth orbit as a dumping ground.
I wouldn't like my planet to share an orbit with all this waste either. Dumping in the Sun would be a more permanent solution, but a more costly one. As I understand it, you need to cancel out the speed of the Earth's orbit in order to achieve this. If you don't then the load will simply assumes a lower orbit instead of truly falling in. So adding up escape velocity of 11.2 km/s and our planet's orbital speed of about 30 km/s, each load has to be accelerated to 41.2 km/s to achieve the result. If anyone has information on the fuel and rocket cost required to do this for a ton of material, we can guesstimate the cost of such permanent disposal.

WarrenPlatts said:
The subductive waste disposal method, however, is a concrete proposal that is economical and permanent, and it might just work.
It's an intriguing concept, but aren't there a lot of unknowns as to what truly happens at the core of the Earth? Have these geological theories been verified? The concern of course is about just throwing our waste in some inaccessible area that is outside our control and assuming that everyting will be fine.
 
Are you aware that Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US? (Source: DOE 2001

Well, the majority of their electricity is from hydroelectric. We can't say that 60% of our power is from a clean alternative. I got this info from:http://archive.wn.com/2004/11/03/1400/canadaenergy



Canadian electricity generation in 1999 totaled 567.2 billion kilowatt hours (bkwh), of which 60% was hydropower, 26% was conventional thermal power (oil, gas, and coal), 12% was nuclear generation, and 1% was derived from other renewable sources.


From your own source:

Canada is the G-7’s largest per capita electricity consumer. To a considerable extent, this is because of Canada’s large, hydro-powered aluminum-manufacturing sector. Between 1980 and 2001, Canadian per capita power consumption increased an average of 1.0% per year, from 13,100 kwh to 16,200 kwh.

As for my mention of Japan,
Japan has nowhere near the energy-intensive industrialization as does the US. You're arguing out of ignorance.

Perhaps I was not clear. What I was trying to convey was the fact that the standard of living in Japan has gone up significantly in the last ~30 years, while the power consumption has remained relatively neutral. Thats was my point. Not to compare its energy use to the US. To show that a lot of countries CAN, if they WANT TO, try to model themselves after Japan. (Small countries). If you get enough countries to do this, it will add up big in the end, because many 3rd world developing countries can remain moderately netural as they indusrialize.

I admit I have little facts right now. I will have to do some digging to get some stuff up for you warren, my appologies. I have not had time to do an extensive search.



P.S. Its not environmental babble, history has already shown us the nasty conditions of the industrial revolution. I don't think we want to revert back to those conditions when its within our powers to avoid it. In the long term ~100-150 years, if things don't get better, and we are not careful in how we consume, we will have lots of chemical waste accumulating from years and years of dumping unnecessarily.

We had a mission in the 60's to get into space, and we did it. If the government is to show any seriousness in tackling the problem of energy, there should be a national movement to encourage math engineering and physics, to study fusion and other potential energy sources to try and come up with a solution. You should see significant improvements on how energy is used on a global scale.
 
Last edited:
Orefa said:
[Subductive waste disposal is] an intriguing concept, but aren't there a lot of unknowns as to what truly happens at the core of the Earth? Have these geological theories been verified? The concern of course is about just throwing our waste in some inaccessible area that is outside our control and assuming that everyting will be fine.
The theory of plate tectonics is one of the most well-confirmed scientific theories known to humankind. There is a lot less disagreement among geologists regarding the reality of plate tectonics than there is among cosmologists regarding the reality of the Big Bang.

Any waste wouldn't make it to the Earth's core, it would eventually get mixed into the Earth's mantle. Eventually, some of the material might resurface through volcanic eruptions; however, the radioactive material would have decayed long before this could happen. The waste will get sucked down faster than it can diffuse upward, so there is little chance of contaminating seawater.

Rao 2001 said:
The waste will be carried beneath the Earth’s crust where it will be diluted and dispersed through the mantle. The rate of subduction of a plate in one of the world’s slowest subduction zones is 2.1 cm annually. This is faster than the rate (1 mm annually) of diffusion of radionuclides through the turbidite sediments that would overlay a repository constructed in accordance with this method. The subducting plate is naturally predestined for consumption in the Earth’s mantle. The subducting plate is constantly renewed at its originating oceanic ridge. The slow movement of the plate would seal any vertical fractures over a repository at the interface between the subducting plate and the overriding plate.

Note that faster plates move at a rate closer to 10 cm per year.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
Well, the majority of their electricity is from hydroelectric.
And your point? Are you suggesting that all countries should be able to produce 60% of their energy from hydro? This obviously is not the sort of thing one can legislate; there are only so many rivers.

Orefa said:
It's colder up north though. Since economies and lifestyles are very similar, this difference could be just heating costs.
But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half. It appears to me that those damn arrogant, wasteful Canadians aren't wearing nearly enough sweaters, and their wasteful, disgraceful lifestyle is driving the whole planet into ruin. That's what you meant, right cyrusabdollahi? Or was your irrational attack limited only to the US, which actually uses less energy per capita?

DOE said:
To a considerable extent, this is because of Canada’s large, hydro-powered aluminum-manufacturing sector.
Hey, no problem, let's remove the industry. Canada used 403 million BTU per capita in 2001, while its entire industry used 2,680,111 terajoules, or 78.4 million BTU per capita (with a population of 32.4 million people). That means that Canadian residential users alone -- the ones who apparently are such arrogants pricks that they won't wear sweaters to save our planet -- used almost as much energy (324 million BTU per capita) as the average US citizen including its industry (342 million BTU per capita).

It's amazing what you can learn when you read, isn't it cyrusabdollahi? Do you still think the "wasteful US lifestyle" is responsible for our worldwide energy crisis?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter2.html
http://www.cieedac.sfu.ca/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANADA

cyrusabdollahi said:
Perhaps I was not clear. What I was trying to convey was the fact that the standard of living in Japan has gone up significantly in the last ~30 years, while the power consumption has remained relatively neutral.
You really need to brush up on those reading skills before entering these kinds of debates.

DOE said:
Japan’s per capita energy consumption increased an average of 1.7% per year between 1980 and 1996. From 1997 to 2001, however, its annual growth rate was -0.1%, which likely reflects the country’s economic downturn. Japan’s low overall per capita consumption rate is indicative of Japan’s comparatively smaller share of energy intensive industries.

DOE said:
The United States remains the second largest per capita electricity consumer in the G-7 behind Canada. U.S. per capita electricity consumption grew at a comparatively modest pace between 1980 and 2001 -- an average of 1.5% per year

You call 1.7% annually flat? JAPAN'S ENERGY CONSUMPTION GREW FASTER THAN THE US' CONSUMPTION!

And I can't even believe that you're willing to give Canada a break because it has energy-intensive aluminum industries, yet you pride Japan as the trend-setter in energy consumption, when it lacks those industries.

You have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

cyrusabdollahi said:
if things don't get better, and we are not careful in how we consume, we will have lots of chemical waste accumulating from years and years of dumping unnecessarily.
Chemical waste?? I thought this thread was about nuclear power! Quit trying to change the subject to support your enviro-babble!

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half. It appears to me that those damn arrogant, wasteful Canadians aren't wearing nearly enough sweaters, and their wasteful, disgraceful lifestyle is driving the whole planet into ruin. That's what you meant, right cyrusabdollahi? Or was your irrational attack limited only to the US, which actually uses less energy per capita?

Im not attacking the US. I have pride in our nation, despite what you may think. Just because I criticize does not mean that I hate the US. And no, my panties are not in a bunch. I was not attacking the US, as you claim.

the ones who apparently are such arrogants pricks that they won't wear sweaters to save our planet. That's what you meant, right cyrusabdollahi?

But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half.
I never said anything of the sort about Candians, you did. I also never said wearing sweaters would cut it in half, you took my words out of context, thanks. You are putting words in my mouth. Now this is just getting out of hand. I am not going to get into a shouting match with you, that was not my intention. End of discussion, goodbye.
 
Last edited:
Azael said:
Trying to controll the population of the rich countries would be totally wasted effort since many of those countries already have aging and diminishing populations. Only imigration keeps the numbers up.

In china, india, middle east population controll would help to prevent a explosion in power usage. But in the western world I se no need for it at all, it would probably hurt our societs a lot to try and keep population growth down.

Goverments need to step in and restrict energy consumption if anything is to be done.

But if the people have a chooise totally giving up some quality of life or wanting more nuclear power plants no one would vote no to nuclear power. I sure as hell wouldnt.
I snoozed off there, but to reply to this (and other member's posts), I was referring to population control globally (which would decrease the need to enter richer countries illegally):

Conservative Christian allies of the president are pressing the U.S. foreign aid agency to give fewer dollars to groups that distribute condoms or work with prostitutes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10789265/

These religious groups with no experience in grant programs are vying for the funds to promote promiscuity, which has yet to show effectiveness.

So I take it that methane isn't of interest?
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll

News Should nuclear energy be phased out in the USA?

  • WarrenPlatts
  • · Replies 9 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
9