The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Storing the raw waste till the end of time is ignorant. There is no advantage to doing this.
When the raw waste separated from the fuel, the unwanted waste is reduced 85% to 95%.
The 2nd gen mixed oxide fuel is reblended with depleted uranium, which there is no shortage of and is marginally more radioactive than enriched uranium 1st Gen fuel. The MOX has a shelf life of at least a few hundred thousand years.

The concentrated nuclear by products lose 99.9% of their radioactivity after 40 years. Not "forever".

It's only "till the end of time" if you read what people with English majors have to say about nuclear related subjects and believe the fuel should be used one and thrown away.
I thought you people believed in things like recycling?

The United states recycled nuclear waste until 2004 I believe.

The point is that you have to store whatever waste you produce until it isn't harmful anymore. Toxic, nuclear, carbon dioxide, whatever. No cherry picking.

I do not like the "You people" quote that much btw.
You and I can have different opinions and don't need to agree.
Surely you wouldn't like to be a member of the group of people who label everyone they don't agree with as weirdos?

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Fun fact: Texas exists in order that Mexico not have access to the mouth of the Mississippi River.

I did not mouth that, never mind the Mississippi River...

[freebeard]

I prefer all y'all. It's more inclusive.

The point is that you have to store whatever waste you produce until it isn't harmful anymore.

New Scientist:Radiation-eating bacteria could make nuclear waste safer
NSF: X-treme Microbes — Radiation Eaters

Actually I came back to the thread to post this. I like Answers with Joe and this one's on climate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZB1YtQtHjE

[Xist]

I label everyone with whom I agree "weirdos."

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by freebeard

That equation has two sides. Attack the usage side.

An oddly unpopular view, when you consider that it's on an efficiency forum. One of our largest threads and aside from denial, the biggest argument seems to be about the best way to build our way out of energy scarcity.

[oil pan 4]

People who agree with me tend to be the well informed weirdos, trouble makers who question authority and most of all don't trust authority.

Actually if the concentrated nuclear waste isotopes were melted into and blended with glass it wouldn't be harmful to anyone as long as no one spent a lot of time right on top of the glass monolith. Placing the glass in an abandoned mine would almost be over kill. Then in as little as 200 to 300 years it would be barely distinguishable from things with naturally occurring elevated levels of radiation like granite or bananas.
So it's only "dangerous forever" if it's not recycled and not disposed of properly.
With the way politics are, by the time the government decides what to do with the glass monoliths the radio isotopes may decay to where they could be tossed in a land fill.

Obviously the best way to create a lot more usable energy is nuclear. I believe in the US something like 96 or 97 nuclear reactors on 47 or 48 sites pride between 15 and 20% of energy needs. The US has spent billions of dollars on wind and solar and it barely carved out a noticeable sliver on the old energy production pie chart.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

That equation has two sides. Attack the usage side.

GDP growth is energy consumption growth. And the only way to pay back the interest on all of the money that has been borrowed recently is to grow at a faster rate. Use energy at a faster rate. We would need an entirely new socio-economic model to procure a more graceful landing after the age of oil. Austerity will be forced on us after the crash.

[Fat Charlie]

My neighbor idling her pickup while waiting for her kid didn't produce any value. It was consumption that added to the local gas station's bottom line, and all the way up the supply chain, but no actual value was produced by that energy usage.

[Xist]

A UK firm managing assets of $1.2 trillion will pull its investment from companies that fail to act on climate change.

[oil pan 4]

So now they have to resort to extortion to push the climate change agenda.
This is great news.
Soon it's going to come crashing down.