The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Nuclear energy is carbon free, which makes it an attractive and practical alternative to fossil fuels, as it doesn’t contribute to global warming. We also have the infrastructure for it already in place. It’s nuclear waste that makes fission bad for the environment. And it lasts for so long, some isotopes for thousands of years. Nuclear fuel is comprised of ceramic pellets of uranium-235 placed within metal rods. After fission takes place, two radioactive isotopes are left over: cesium-137 and strontium-90.

These each have half-lives of 30 years, meaning the radiation will be half gone by that time. Transuranic wastes, such as Plutonium-239, are also created in the process. This has a half-life of 24,000 years. These materials are highly radioactive, making them extremely dangerous to handle, even with short-term exposure.

The typical nuclear power plant creates about 2,300 tons of waste annually. 99 reactors are currently employed in the United States. That’s a lot of waste per year. The US is currently stockpiling 75,000 tons of nuclear waste. It is carefully stored and maintained. However, just like anything else it is vulnerable to natural disasters, human error, even terrorism. Storage is also costly. American taxpayers are on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.

So what can be done? Researchers at the University of Bristol in the UK have a solution. Geochemist Tom Scott and colleagues have invented a method to encapsulate nuclear waste within diamonds, which as a battery, can provide a clean energy supply lasting in some cases, thousands of years.

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/scient ... s-of-years" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having worked at an atomic station as a kid, I've always wondered why nuclear wasn't more used.

There's also some thermal pollution from cooling towers, but fish can swim away.

Other than glowing in the dark, I've never noticed any personal health problems from working there.

John, you seem to have the required number of brain cells; you know that the scientific "truths" that are now scientific "falsehoods" would fill up Voyeur's server and burn it out. But, when the vast majority of scientific evidence and the vast majority if scientists support a conclusion it would be insane to ignore it especially when proof of the theory is happening right now.

johnforbes wrote:Having worked at an atomic station as a kid, I've always wondered why nuclear wasn't more used.

There's also some thermal pollution from cooling towers, but fish can swim away.

Other than glowing in the dark, I've never noticed any personal health problems from working there.

Wow Johnnie...now all of a sudden you are a climatologist.

:lol:

Nuclear energy is carbon free, which makes it an attractive and practical alternative to fossil fuels, as it doesn’t contribute to global warming.

Of course it's the logical solution but libtards have shut down those sources all across the country and want all the plants to be shut down, you ask why? Because it would spoil their plans of wealth re-distribution to poor countries, energy prices have to be kept HIGH in rich countries and taxes increased on carbon and costs for alternative energy research forced on businesses so make production in places like the United States cost prohibitive. This will result in the standard of living in wealthy countries to decline while the standard of living in poor countries to rise as the production shifts to their countries; bringing about world wide equality. It's really that simple.

On another thread, I said the precise opposite of what Elkin said.

On the other hand, Elkin is pretending to be a climate scientist.

Which he isn't.

Of course it's the logical solution but libtards have shut down those sources all across the country and want all the plants to be shut down, you ask why? Because it would spoil their plans of wealth re-distribution to poor countries,

Justme...It's tin foil hat time.

http://bigthink.com/laurie-vazquez/scie ... al-warming" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Scientists Accidentally Create Simple Solution to Global Warming

Scientists Accidentally Create Simple Solution to Global Warming

Yep, cut off the Agenda funding and it goes away.

In the entire 154 years of the forum, the shortest thread ever was one I started to permit the global warming folks to list their formal academic credentials in the field.

Interesting, johnny.
I started a thread permitting you to list your credentials in any field whatsoever and it was the same length.
You just never seem to get around to it. :lol:

The left's dirty little secret: global warming has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with economics and politics.

The Right's dirty little secret: global warming denial has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with short-term greed and ignorance of anything not grounded in religious faith.

AssClown, a lot more originality and much fewer silly ass word games please.

Ready? One, two, three...DANCE!

The Right's dirty little secret: global warming denial has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with short-term greed and ignorance of anything not grounded in religious faith.

God does have more influence over our climate than man. Take the profit out of "climate change" and it'll go away, just watch Da Donald do just that. Da Donald will do down in history as stopping climate change!

I'm outraged by Clownhicker's claim that I have no expertise in any field.

Given my background, I have tremendous experience and expertise in any hay field or corn field across this great land.