PeakOil is You
NIMBY
Re: NIMBY
by threadbear » Sat 26 May 2007, 22:40:52
Nimbyism is a huge part of all of our problems going forward. I don't want a refinery, coal smoke stack, gold mine in my back yard. I don't even want people in my back yard--just critters.
-
threadbear - Expert
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Re: NIMBY
by Baldwin » Sun 27 May 2007, 00:34:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'N')imbyism is a huge part of all of our problems going forward. I don't want a refinery, coal smoke stack, gold mine in my back yard. I don't even want people in my back yard--just critters.
For 50% of the gold, I'd take the bolded.
Only a city man would carry a bag of iron instead of a bag of rice.
-Ling Tan, from the movie Dragon Seed, 1944 (more wisdom from Turner Classic Movies)
-Ling Tan, from the movie Dragon Seed, 1944 (more wisdom from Turner Classic Movies)
-
Baldwin - Coal
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Mon 05 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
Re: NIMBY
by virgincrude » Sun 27 May 2007, 06:01:45
Okay AirlinePilot, so you wouldn’t agree to having something nuklier near you, so who do you think SHOULD have it near them? I know, I know, nice stretches of desert (I’d rather see acres of solar panels/towers/wind turbines and atmospheric moisture collection panels, but that’s just me). If these deserts are dug up for waste storage, we still have to get the waste out there, what are we going to do, use the Egyptian style hydraulics i.e slaves pulling stuff over logs?
That’s why we need the debate, a lot of people think it’s inevitable we will start building more nuclear energy power plants, I know you are a doomer and so you feel the world will end before the foundations are broken, nevertheless, in other parts of the planet (Europe) the slide down the other side of the slope is likely to be a lot slower than in the US. The debate here is pretty much open again, slowly coming into the public sphere. In Iran they have already begun rationing fuel, and if they don’t build nuclear power plants, they will have to ration electricity very soon. Now, Iran has high inflation, rampant unemployment and a stagnant economy. The US is heading that way, it doesn’t mean no nuclear plants will get built.
You said:
“I agree with him, its a non issue that only becomes a political football from lack of knowledge and fear.” Lack of knowledge can be cured, and there are always loads of people waiting to tell others what to think should they get lazy and not decide to find out for themselves. On the one hand, corporate interest combined with political will always give you a rosy picture, on the other, environmentalists and Luddites will always give you a grey picture. Fear is manipulated by both sides.
Tyler_JC said
“Therefore, we could store 1,782 billion cubic inches of radioactive waste in that little hole.” But you’re assuming the only waste from nuclear power are spent bits of uranium. Here’s an interesting bit from
magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/fulltext.html
“A long deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the nation's nuclear facilities, which encompass an acreage equivalent to Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Many smaller sites, the easy ones, have been cleansed, but the big challenges remain. What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscape.
For an idea of scale: Load those tailings into railroad hopper cars, then pour the 91 million gallons of waste into tank cars, and you would have a mythical train that would reach around the Equator and then some.
In a decade real trains and trucks carrying high-level waste may head to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the government's choice, and a controversial one, for a permanent repository. In addition to storing the waste, contaminated soil and groundwater must be treated and stabilized, nuclear reactors decommissioned, buildings demolished, some buried waste exhumed, sorted, and buried again because it wasn't buried right in the first place. The bill for all this will be staggering—perhaps 400 billion dollars over 75 years.”
That’s why we need the debate, a lot of people think it’s inevitable we will start building more nuclear energy power plants, I know you are a doomer and so you feel the world will end before the foundations are broken, nevertheless, in other parts of the planet (Europe) the slide down the other side of the slope is likely to be a lot slower than in the US. The debate here is pretty much open again, slowly coming into the public sphere. In Iran they have already begun rationing fuel, and if they don’t build nuclear power plants, they will have to ration electricity very soon. Now, Iran has high inflation, rampant unemployment and a stagnant economy. The US is heading that way, it doesn’t mean no nuclear plants will get built.
You said:
“I agree with him, its a non issue that only becomes a political football from lack of knowledge and fear.” Lack of knowledge can be cured, and there are always loads of people waiting to tell others what to think should they get lazy and not decide to find out for themselves. On the one hand, corporate interest combined with political will always give you a rosy picture, on the other, environmentalists and Luddites will always give you a grey picture. Fear is manipulated by both sides.
Tyler_JC said
“Therefore, we could store 1,782 billion cubic inches of radioactive waste in that little hole.” But you’re assuming the only waste from nuclear power are spent bits of uranium. Here’s an interesting bit from
magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/fulltext.html
“A long deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the nation's nuclear facilities, which encompass an acreage equivalent to Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Many smaller sites, the easy ones, have been cleansed, but the big challenges remain. What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscape.
For an idea of scale: Load those tailings into railroad hopper cars, then pour the 91 million gallons of waste into tank cars, and you would have a mythical train that would reach around the Equator and then some.
In a decade real trains and trucks carrying high-level waste may head to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the government's choice, and a controversial one, for a permanent repository. In addition to storing the waste, contaminated soil and groundwater must be treated and stabilized, nuclear reactors decommissioned, buildings demolished, some buried waste exhumed, sorted, and buried again because it wasn't buried right in the first place. The bill for all this will be staggering—perhaps 400 billion dollars over 75 years.”
-
virgincrude - Tar Sands
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Thu 09 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Al-Mariyya, Al-Andalus
Re: NIMBY
by Tanada » Sun 27 May 2007, 10:03:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('virgincrude', '
')A long deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the nation's nuclear facilities, which encompass an acreage equivalent to Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Many smaller sites, the easy ones, have been cleansed, but the big challenges remain. What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscape.
In a decade real trains and trucks carrying high-level waste may head to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the government's choice, and a controversial one, for a permanent repository. In addition to storing the waste, contaminated soil and groundwater must be treated and stabilized, nuclear reactors decommissioned, buildings demolished, some buried waste exhumed, sorted, and buried again because it wasn't buried right in the first place. The bill for all this will be staggering—perhaps 400 billion dollars over 75 years.”
')A long deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the nation's nuclear facilities, which encompass an acreage equivalent to Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Many smaller sites, the easy ones, have been cleansed, but the big challenges remain. What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscape.
In a decade real trains and trucks carrying high-level waste may head to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the government's choice, and a controversial one, for a permanent repository. In addition to storing the waste, contaminated soil and groundwater must be treated and stabilized, nuclear reactors decommissioned, buildings demolished, some buried waste exhumed, sorted, and buried again because it wasn't buried right in the first place. The bill for all this will be staggering—perhaps 400 billion dollars over 75 years.”
Cute math, make the timeline long enough and every project no matter how meager will appear insurmountable. 400/75=5.33 billion per year, not even a drop in the bucket in the federal budget of 2.8 TRILLION dollars. Also nice of them to pick Rhode Island and Deleware, the two smallest states in the USA.
Come let us reason together, most of that waste you are referring to is weapons program waste left over from the cold war because the Feds didn't do anything to properly contain it the first time. For those zillions of gallons of acid liquid waste the first step is to neutralize it (lime or limestone does a fine job and is 'dirt cheap' lol), then you pour it out into drying pans like they use in Utah and let the sun evaporate off the liquid. Then you scrape off the residue, form it into solid blocks/drums of material and ship that. It takes a while to process so much stuff, but it not a technical challenge. The contaminated soils need to be remediated, expensive but not that expensive.
The 52,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, that is about the size of a football field stacked 12 feet high. Sure doesn't sound so scary in those terms does it?
Those 'scores of tons of plutonium' are schedualed to be remanufactured into MOX fuel and used for energy production, if the feds ever get there thumb out of you know where. The three Pheonix reactors are able to run on 100% MOX cores and could together burn through it all in a decade or so.
Half a million tons of depleted Uranium. Oh the horror, Uranium which is LESS radioactive than it was when we dug it out of the ground, however can we handle that? How about we store it as metal oxide back in some old emptied Uranium mines? No no that's waaaaaay too simple and economic of a solution!
265 million tons of tailings, only half stabilized. Well DUH stabilize the second half, the job is already half done!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Re: NIMBY
by ucosty » Sun 27 May 2007, 12:59:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('virgincrude', 'S')o, if you are pro-nuke, how often do you pose yourself the question: would you accept the government's proposal to build a new power plant in your community? If it's not in your community, it's bound to be someone else's, or in any event, close enough to somebody's back yard. If they reject it, would you voluntarily suggest a change of site to your back yard? If you think it's just inevitable, would you be willing to accept your government's plans to build a nuclear power station right in your back yard?
I would most absolutely accept plans for a nuclear reactor in my community. If they could acquire our back neighbours land for it all the better.
In fact the only thing I would probably not like at all is the fucking protestors that would be there protesting about something or other nuclear related. That would be annoying.
-
ucosty - Wood
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Sydney, Australia
