Nuclear Power (spun off from Japan earthquake discussion)

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It wasn't the Unknown that did in the reactors. Japan is right smack on the ring of fire. It is known that 9.0 quakes are possible. The reactors were built on a shore where it is known that tsunamis are possible. It's not the Unknown that caused this disaster, it was planning by beaurocrats and engineers who dismissed the possibility that Known dangers could happen.

They prepared for quakes and tsunamis, but thought they can predict nature similar to this statement:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Japan's quake was a 9.0. The max that San Andreas can produce is an 8.0, and that's not under water. Japan's quake was, which caused the tsunami. So while the 'big one' thats coming in california will be bad, it won't be as bad as the one in Japan.

The San Andreas Fault is partly under water, and there are many smaller faults that can become a bigger one.

The Unknown is what is not expected. Who would have expected 10 years ago that a passenger plane hits the Pentagon?
What if a happening like the one in Tunguska hits a nuclear plant? I know it?s very unlikely, but the outcome and especially the long term effects are absolutely unpredictable. Whole countries could be uninhabitable for 100,000?s of years.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

In the US there are PLENTY of places to build nuclear reactors that are not on a fault, not where tsunamis can happen, not where hurricans are a danger, not where flooding can happen, not where there's a lot of tornados, etc.

But they don?t do it. And no one can predict the weather or volcanic activity. Can you guarantee that in these ?safe? places is always enough water in the rivers to cool the fuel rods or is anyone prepared to transport the rods in a harmless way to a ?secured? place?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Humanity didn't get to where it is by having a defeatist attitude. When problems arise we can figure out how to design around them.

Does humanity have a single convincing idea what to do with nuclear waste? And who pays for it?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Tread

They prepared for quakes and tsunamis, but thought they can predict nature similar to this statement:



The San Andreas Fault is partly under water, and there are many smaller faults that can become a bigger one.

The Unknown is what is not expected. Who would have expected 10 years ago that a passenger plane hits the Pentagon?
What if a Meteorite like the one in Tunguska hits a nuclear plant? I know it?s very unlikely, but the outcome and especially the long term effects are absolutely unpredictable. Whole countries could be uninhabitable for 100,000?s of years.



But they don?t do it. And no one can predict the weather or volcanic activity. Can you guarantee that in these ?safe? places is always enough water in the rivers to cool the fuel rods or is anyone prepared to transport the rods in a harmless way to a ?secured? place?



Does humanity have a single convincing idea what to do with nuclear waste? And who pays for it?

There is no doubt in my mind that humanity would be much better off today if nuclear bombs and energy had never been invented. It just adds to all the other human woes we have to contend with.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Tread

What if a happening like the one in Tunguska hits a nuclear plant? I know it?s very unlikely, but the outcome and especially the long term effects are absolutely unpredictable. Whole countries could be uninhabitable for 100,000?s of years.

Tunguska? Seriously? You're worried about a comet striking a nuclear power plant? You say very unlikely, but I still don't think you grasp how unlikely that is. And you're blowing the danger way out of proportion. Not 100,000s of years. More like decades - if this extremely unlikely event happened.

Originally Posted by Tread

But they don?t do it. And no one can predict the weather or volcanic activity.

As long as you build outside of tornado alley, and away from the gulf you'll do fine with the weather. And I'll give you another chance on figuring out how to avoid dangers from volcanoes lol.

Originally Posted by Tread

Does humanity have a single convincing idea what to do with nuclear waste? And who pays for it?

Why not bury it in a subduction zone? Like 1000 ft down or so away from human activity. Even with a half life of 100,000s of years, there's no worries. It's taken down to the earth's mantle.