Fukushima, No Cause for Alarm

ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Well, let us scope the problem.

No provable AGW, but they want these poison generators to increase poison output to kill Big Oil....nothing else matters.

Poison? Yes, heavy metal? The heaviest. Persistent poison? Yes. Hundreds of thousand of years, ALREADY.

Can be neutralized? NO.

A type of poison that can kill from a distance, and slowly....oh yes. Used already for Terror? Yes.

Well, there can't be that much, can there? Say wha???? I get the facts were they are. This tries to equate
the volume, only, of waste, compared to other fuel and say the volume is smaller. Retards' arguments.

Sophistry, of course. The volume does not matter, only there persistence. And that means that equate these radiation threats to CO2 and AGW.

FALSE! See how the stupid can claim equivilance and fight Big Oil only after they invent the argument to prop up Nuke waste.

How much waste is produced?

As already noted, the volume of nuclear waste produced by the nuclear industry is very small compared with other wastes generated. Each year, nuclear power generation facilities worldwide produce about 200,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, and about 10,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of high-level waste including used fuel designated as waste[SUP]1[/SUP].


In the OECD countries, some 300 million tonnes of toxic wastes are produced each year, but conditioned radioactive wastes amount to only 81,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP] per year.
Click to expand...
changing subject to AGW and your still wrong

how many tonnes of radioactive material does coal produce?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
I think they should just send it all to the moon.

Sure fuck it, the moon is shitty (no weed, no liquor) and (half) glows in the dark anyways.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I think they should just send it all to the moon.

Sure fuck it, the moon is shitty (no weed, no liquor) and (half) glows in the dark anyways.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it is already a heritage site. And no one wants to launch it. No one wants to bury it. And no one wants it transported.

So, it remains on site for natural disaster to poison the planet and collapse the food chains.

That is what AGW will not do. There isn't any.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
yeah, it's posting to itself
posting to itself
well there's nothing to lose
and there's nothing to prove
it be posting to itself
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Doer said:
But, they do just keep going, these mantle breeches. And don't morph it to say, I expect the Syndrome out of Fuk. I don't. But, if was able to get a plume connected the mantle, then that is it. It is more or less a permanent feature in the crust.



Click to expand...
The Yellowstone magma chamber is something special. It is rhyolitic ... viscous siliceous goo pressurized with steam and carbon dioxide ... think very warm soda. If it is depressurized, there is a large fountain of ash.

A hot mass, such as a runaway reactor core, will be tunneling into isostatic material ... no tendency to either suck or spew material. And as it tunnels, it'll disperse into the rock like a smoke plume, quenching the nuclear reaction. You'll have a small volume of radioactive but essentially captive rock buried however deep.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The Yellowstone magma chamber is something special. It is rhyolitic ... viscous siliceous goo pressurized with steam and carbon dioxide ... think very warm soda. If it is depressurized, there is a large fountain of ash.

A hot mass, such as a runaway reactor core, will be tunneling into isostatic material ... no tendency to either suck or spew material. And as it tunnels, it'll disperse into the rock like a smoke plume, quenching the nuclear reaction. You'll have a small volume of radioactive but essentially captive rock buried however deep.
Click to expand...
Really? Because I have looking for good reference.
Cite something?

So, it is impossible to pierce the crust with a meltdown?
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Hemp based fuels release ALOT of CO2, because there's all that carbon that they've absorbed still inside them...which is used as fuel ;)
Click to expand...
Absorb a lot too. I have a feeling you're being a joker though I am not always good at being able to tell.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
But there's no point in that carbon being absorbed only to be released again when it's burnt...
Click to expand...
There is some point if it is off setting carbon that would have been taken from the ground for energy

If we could supply our entire energy needs from what we grow then co2 wouldn't increase

However it is a pipe dream our energy needs are too great
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
It's not a pipe dream. It's been demostrated extremely feasible without impacting food production (in labs). Except hemp is the only crop that's truly viable for dedicated energy production. It produces approximately 10 tonnes of biomass per acre every 90-120 days. Nothing else is in the ball park in terms of biomass production.

It's been estimated as little as 6% of US agricultural lands could produce enough (these estimates are based on lab data and actual energy consumption of the era) energy to supply the entire country (ref: Environmental Chemistry, (4th edition), Stanley E. Manahan, P.W.S. Publishers, Boston, MA, 1979). Minus all the nasty sulfur too. Even if that number no longer holds and is double, that still leaves 3% of US agricultural lands laying fallow (as 15% are fallow at any given time via government incentive).
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
It's not a pipe dream. It's been demostrated extremely feasible without impacting food production (in labs). Except hemp is the only crop that's truly viable for dedicated energy production. It produces approximately 10 tonnes of biomass per acre every 90-120 days. Nothing else is in the ball park in terms of biomass production.

It's been estimated as little as 6% of US agricultural lands could produce enough (these estimates are based on lab data and actual energy consumption of the era) energy to supply the entire country (ref: Environmental Chemistry, (4th edition), Stanley E. Manahan, P.W.S. Publishers, Boston, MA, 1979). Minus all the nasty sulfur too. Even if that number no longer holds and is double, that still leaves 3% of US agricultural lands laying fallow (as 15% are fallow at any given time via government incentive).
Click to expand...
So, do you mean like switchgrass ethanol? What do you mean energy production? I got lost. Absorbing radiowaste and then to producing energy.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
There is some point if it is off setting carbon that would have been taken from the ground for energy

If we could supply our entire energy needs from what we grow then co2 wouldn't increase

However it is a pipe dream our energy needs are too great
Click to expand...
It's still just taking carbon from one source instead of another, no point saying you'll quit the drink but youre allowed to drink vodka...
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
It's still just taking carbon from one source instead of another, no point saying you'll quit the drink but youre allowed to drink vodka...
Click to expand...
Hey?@! What you mean? Vodka is clear. It doesn't count. That doesn't mean I'm a drunk. TAKE IT BACK!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top