Nuclear Power

[DRSB]

Not a good time to buy land in Florida!

Last year, a massive 583-square-kilometre (225-square-mile) chunk of the Pine Island Glacier - a vast section of ice that holds the West Antarctic ice sheet together - broke free, heading out into the ocean to eventually melt and raise sea levels across the world.

Now, new evidence from satellite imagery suggests that this break was caused by a rupture in the shelf 32 kilometres (20 miles) inland, indicating that the glacier is actually breaking apart from the inside, and not the periphery, as scientists had long suspected. And even worse - a second inland rift is now reportedly forming.

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-west-an ... chers-find

[JimC]

Even though serious proposals have been tabled recently to bury radioactive waste in my neighbourhood I am in favour of electricity production using nuclear reactors. It is a lot cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel source. Still, looking at the estimated uranium reserves, it can only be a stopgap measure. Even coal and shale oil resources will outlast them.

I have always though that a useful possibility in Oz would be a nuclear power plant (or plants) next to an outback Uranium mine, complete with an enrichment facility, and underground waste storage. This means overall security could be excellent, and no long-distance transport of fuel rods or waste. A one-stop-shop...

[Hermit]

Even though serious proposals have been tabled recently to bury radioactive waste in my neighbourhood I am in favour of electricity production using nuclear reactors. It is a lot cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel source. Still, looking at the estimated uranium reserves, it can only be a stopgap measure. Even coal and shale oil resources will outlast them.

I have always though that a useful possibility in Oz would be a nuclear power plant (or plants) next to an outback Uranium mine, complete with an enrichment facility, and underground waste storage. This means overall security could be excellent, and no long-distance transport of fuel rods or waste. A one-stop-shop...

Generating electricity near the energy source does not make economic sense. The cost of power masts and lines, and the need for constant maintenance and repair plus transmission loss makes it heaps cheaper to transport the uranium to a nuclear reactor that is located relatively near the area where the electricity is consumed. South Australia's electricity prices are the highest in Australia because we import the majority of it from Victoria. A couple of months ago 22 main masts were flattened by a storm, which caused a chain reaction that finished up leaving the entire state without power. Some areas went without it for a week. So, no, not a useful possibility.

[Seth]

The low level stuff can be a bit of a problem, but we've got a lot of desert.

A LOT! A fuck-ton in fact. I've just driven through much of it. Anybody who says the planet is overpopulated has never been to Nevada.

[Seth]

I have no intrinsic objection to nuclear power, as long as the engineering is done expertly, and good systems are in place for waste management.

That is not always the case..

True. So don't hire French or Russian engineers. I'd hire Israeli engineers. They can make them bomb-proof...literally.

[Seth]

Not a good time to buy land in Florida!

Last year, a massive 583-square-kilometre (225-square-mile) chunk of the Pine Island Glacier - a vast section of ice that holds the West Antarctic ice sheet together - broke free, heading out into the ocean to eventually melt and raise sea levels across the world.

Now, new evidence from satellite imagery suggests that this break was caused by a rupture in the shelf 32 kilometres (20 miles) inland, indicating that the glacier is actually breaking apart from the inside, and not the periphery, as scientists had long suspected. And even worse - a second inland rift is now reportedly forming.

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-west-an ... chers-find

Well, except for one small problem with the physics...the ice they are talking about was already floating in the ocean, which is why it could "break loose" in the first place. Therefore, its mass is already accounted for in existing sea levels, and because ice shrinks when it melts, sea levels will actually go down microscopically when it melts.

Only ice that is on land and has not yet entered the ocean can increase the volume of the ocean. Derp de derp derp.

See the kind of fucknut pseudo-science the MSM/AGW conspirators try to foist off on the credulous public?

[Seth]

Even though serious proposals have been tabled recently to bury radioactive waste in my neighbourhood I am in favour of electricity production using nuclear reactors. It is a lot cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel source. Still, looking at the estimated uranium reserves, it can only be a stopgap measure. Even coal and shale oil resources will outlast them.

I have always though that a useful possibility in Oz would be a nuclear power plant (or plants) next to an outback Uranium mine, complete with an enrichment facility, and underground waste storage. This means overall security could be excellent, and no long-distance transport of fuel rods or waste. A one-stop-shop...

Yup...except for the transmission losses it's a great idea. Would require a massive investment in high capacity power lines. Superconductors would do the trick if they were commercially viable and cheap enough to string thousands of miles. Still, it's not a bad idea at all, particularly since I don't think there's anybody around outback uranium mines to bitch about it.

[pErvinalia]

Even though serious proposals have been tabled recently to bury radioactive waste in my neighbourhood I am in favour of electricity production using nuclear reactors. It is a lot cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel source. Still, looking at the estimated uranium reserves, it can only be a stopgap measure. Even coal and shale oil resources will outlast them.

I have always though that a useful possibility in Oz would be a nuclear power plant (or plants) next to an outback Uranium mine, complete with an enrichment facility, and underground waste storage. This means overall security could be excellent, and no long-distance transport of fuel rods or waste. A one-stop-shop...

Remember you need a permanent and reliable water source for a nuclear plant.

[DRSB]

Even though serious proposals have been tabled recently to bury radioactive waste in my neighbourhood I am in favour of electricity production using nuclear reactors. It is a lot cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel source. Still, looking at the estimated uranium reserves, it can only be a stopgap measure. Even coal and shale oil resources will outlast them.

The new generation nuclear plants recycle the existing waste to generate a manifold amount of energy while reducing the radioactivity in the process so that the waste must be buried for 100 years, nowhere near the 10'000 ones currently expected for the waste of the old generation plants. A win-win really!

[DRSB]

Not a good time to buy land in Florida!

Last year, a massive 583-square-kilometre (225-square-mile) chunk of the Pine Island Glacier - a vast section of ice that holds the West Antarctic ice sheet together - broke free, heading out into the ocean to eventually melt and raise sea levels across the world.

Now, new evidence from satellite imagery suggests that this break was caused by a rupture in the shelf 32 kilometres (20 miles) inland, indicating that the glacier is actually breaking apart from the inside, and not the periphery, as scientists had long suspected. And even worse - a second inland rift is now reportedly forming.

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-west-an ... chers-find

Well, except for one small problem with the physics...the ice they are talking about was already floating in the ocean, which is why it could "break loose" in the first place. Therefore, its mass is already accounted for in existing sea levels, and because ice shrinks when it melts, sea levels will actually go down microscopically when it melts.

Only ice that is on land and has not yet entered the ocean can increase the volume of the ocean. Derp de derp derp.

See the kind of fucknut pseudo-science the MSM/AGW conspirators try to foist off on the credulous public?

Why? The article says a second rift is forming that has not yet entered the ocean.

[Animavore]

The article clearly states it was an inland glacier (the link to the original article says 20 miles in) which broke off and headed out to the ocean.

Denialists fail yet again.

[rainbow]

Not a good time to buy land in Florida!

Last year, a massive 583-square-kilometre (225-square-mile) chunk of the Pine Island Glacier - a vast section of ice that holds the West Antarctic ice sheet together - broke free, heading out into the ocean to eventually melt and raise sea levels across the world.

Now, new evidence from satellite imagery suggests that this break was caused by a rupture in the shelf 32 kilometres (20 miles) inland, indicating that the glacier is actually breaking apart from the inside, and not the periphery, as scientists had long suspected. And even worse - a second inland rift is now reportedly forming.

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-west-an ... chers-find

Well, except for one small problem with the physics...the ice they are talking about was already floating in the ocean, which is why it could "break loose" in the first place. Therefore, its mass is already accounted for in existing sea levels, and because ice shrinks when it melts, sea levels will actually go down microscopically when it melts.

Only ice that is on land and has not yet entered the ocean can increase the volume of the ocean. Derp de derp derp.

Glaciers are ice on land.

Icebergs are bits of glacial ice that have broken off and are floating freely in the ocean.

Stop displaying your ignorance.

[pErvinalia]

Did anyone honestly expect anything else from him?

[DRSB]

Kindly merge with the Atomenergie-thread!

[cronus]

Kindly merge with the Atomenergie-thread!

Risking a critical mass and China Syndrome.