Results 1 to 10 of 19
Threaded View
-
09-11-2008, 08:00 PM #19
OPSenior Member
O'Reilly interviews Obama, part 4
Yeah, I was going to touch on this but my post was already long enough as it was. They didn't take radioactive contamination into consideration when they were building the first and second generation of nuclear power plants, but now they're definitely looking at that. One thing they're doing is developing new alloys that absorb neutrons but don't transmute into radioactive isotopes with long half-lives. They can use these alloys in areas where neutron radiation levels are high. Even though these alloys don't produce long-lived radioactive isotopes, they often break down into elements that have a negative impact on properties of the alloy, so they would need to be replaced, but they wouldn't need to be classified as radioactive waste.
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Engineers are still pretty good at designing these things, and even if it did leak it'd be way underground far below groundwater levels. As long as it stays there, no problem, at least in the subduction zones. Another thing they can do is mix it in with glass. That way, you can smash it all up and the waste still won't leak out. The main problem with subduction zones is that the people that live in those areas still don't want nuclear waste anywhere near them. (Not in my backyard!)The Yucca mountain idea is one way to handle it, the subduction zone idea is another. The French store it all above ground in special facilities. The idea is that they want to be able to monitor it and correct any leaks or other problems easily. If you put it inside a mountain and something happens, the whole confined environment becomes so dangerous, you might never be able to get in and fix it. If you put it into a suduction zone, and it begins to leak before its 1000 years is up, you propably never could get in to correct it.
One issue is that wind is most active in the morning and evening, and solar cuts out at night. Also, solar panels are expensive and require manufacturing processes that produce lots of pollution. But presumably if we got really cool nanotech, we could solve that problem. I wrote a short sci-fi story for a writing class in college in which all roads and parking lots were made out of a self-repairing organic substance that also collected solar energy. I still think that would be awesome.I think wind and solar are the way to go. It is not cost effective now, but its cost goes down all the time, and the cost of fossil fuels goes up. Eventually they will be the same. But if you could quanitify the cost of the pollution involved with fossil fuels, wind and solar would probably already be cheaper.
Similar Threads
-
Obama/O'Reilly Part 2
By Psycho4Bud in forum PoliticsReplies: 8Last Post: 09-10-2008, 09:17 PM -
O'Reilly interviews Obama, part 3
By khronik in forum PoliticsReplies: 4Last Post: 09-10-2008, 06:31 PM -
Obama To Appear On O'Reilly Factor
By kuyutha in forum PoliticsReplies: 32Last Post: 09-08-2008, 09:32 PM -
Colbert vs. O'Reilly
By Zimzum in forum GreenGrassForums LoungeReplies: 27Last Post: 01-18-2007, 08:52 AM -
Bill O' Reilly
By idontgivenames in forum PoliticsReplies: 21Last Post: 10-25-2006, 02:34 PM










Register To Reply
Staff Online