🚀 go-pugleaf

That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and then
reject the idea soon after.



"Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:

>The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian Academy
>of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by following the
>links from http://www.atse.org.au/

>"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal of
>Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE

>Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport all
>create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share of
>waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community rejection of
>such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY (�not in my back-yard�)
>phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be the child
>of �top down� siting decisions usually based upon a �decide, announce and
>defend (DAD)� policy. There are indications now that a counter culture of
>�volunteer communities� could mitigate or even overcome this rejection
>process.

There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why cannot
we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble cost. We
sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
earned here.
<none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
> problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and then
> reject the idea soon after.
>
>
>
> "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
>
> >The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian
Academy
> >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by following
the
> >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
>
> >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal of
> >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
>
> >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport all
> >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share of
> >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community rejection
of
> >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
> >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be the
child
> >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide, announce and
> >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter culture of
> >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this rejection
> >process.
>
>
>
>

TJ <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote:

> There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. 

Like most of Sydney for instance? ;)

> Why cannot
> we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble cost. We
> sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
> dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
> earned here.


-- 
Peter McCallum
17 Taylor St Mackay Qld 4740 AUSTRALIA
Ph/Fax 07 4951 3524
mccallup@DELETE.THIS.brampton.cqu.edu.au

Hi,

A similar idea, but use a former uranium mine as the repository.  Bind the
waste into a glass/ceramic base (e.g.. Synrock (sp?)) and inter it at the ex
mine.  If it is diluted enough with the binding agent then the waste could
actually be less radioactive than the extracted ore, i.e. the dump would
actually reduce the amount of radiation in the environment.  Also if
plutonium (half life 24,000 years?) and replaced the U238 (half life 4.3
billion years?) then you could argue that the site would be safer sooner
:-).

How fast to sub-sea subduction zones (if that is the correct term) move.
i.e. drum of waste was buried where one part of the crust moves under
another part a few km underwater, how long would it take the waste to move
under the crust.  For that matter, aren't most sub-sea oil wells stable? If
they weren't stable for a geological age then the oil would leak out.

Ross.

TJ <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why
cannot
> we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble cost.
We
> sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
> dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
> earned here.
> <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
> > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and then
> > reject the idea soon after.
> >
> >
...

It is a pity that there are actually not that many areas where there are
no people withing cooee.

And the places that are, are geologically unstable, or have large
groundwater aquifers underneath.

I am all for a dump for our OWN waste, but people from Overseas can deal
with their own problems themselves!


TJ wrote:
> 
> There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why cannot
> we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble cost. We
> sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
> dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
> earned here.
> <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
> > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and then
> > reject the idea soon after.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian
> Academy
> > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by following
> the
> > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> >
> > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal of
> > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> >
> > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport all
> > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share of
> > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community rejection
> of
> > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
> > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be the
> child
> > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide, announce and
> > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter culture of
> > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this rejection
> > >process.
> >
> >
> >
> >

uninhabitable to whom?

--
--
Steve Spence
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
sspence@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
If we don't believe in freedom of speech
for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
--

"TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why
cannot
> we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble cost.
We
> sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
> dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
> earned here.
> <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
> > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and then
> > reject the idea soon after.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian
> Academy
> > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by
following
> the
> > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> >
> > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal of
> > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> >
> > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport
all
> > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share of
> > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community
rejection
> of
> > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
> > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be the
> child
> > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide, announce
and
> > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter culture
of
> > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this rejection
> > >process.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Reverse the question,  who would live there?


"Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> uninhabitable to whom?
>
> --
> --
> Steve Spence
> Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> sspence@webconx.com
> (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> --
>
> "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
> news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why
> cannot
> > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble
cost.
> We
> > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
> > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
> > earned here.
> > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
> > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and then
> > > reject the idea soon after.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian
> > Academy
> > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by
> following
> > the
> > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> > >
> > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal of
> > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> > >
> > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport
> all
> > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share
of
> > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community
> rejection
> > of
> > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
> > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be the
> > child
> > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide, announce
> and
> > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter
culture
> of
> > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this
rejection
> > > >process.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

codeman wrote in message <39176174@news.gj.net>...
>Reverse the question,  who would live there?
>
>
>"Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
>news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>> uninhabitable to whom?
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Steve Spence
>> Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
>> Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
>> X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
>> sspence@webconx.com
>> (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
>> If we don't believe in freedom of speech
>> for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
>> --
>>
>> "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
>> > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why
>> cannot
>> > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble
>cost.
>> We
>> > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
>> > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
>> > earned here.
>> > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
>> > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
>> > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
>> > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and
then
>> > > reject the idea soon after.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian
>> > Academy
>> > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by
>> following
>> > the
>> > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
>> > >
>> > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal
of
>> > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
>> > >
>> > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport
>> all
>> > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share
>of
>> > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community
>> rejection
>> > of
>> > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
>> > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be
the
>> > child
>> > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide,
announce
>> and
>> > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter
>culture
>> of
>> > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this
>rejection
>> > > >process.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Expand the subject,  What does live there?

codeman wrote in message <39176174@news.gj.net>...
>Reverse the question,  who would live there?
>
>
>"Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
>news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>> uninhabitable to whom?
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Steve Spence
>> Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
>> Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
>> X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
>> sspence@webconx.com
>> (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
>> If we don't believe in freedom of speech
>> for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
>> --
>>
>> "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
>> > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why
>> cannot
>> > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble
>cost.
>> We
>> > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
>> > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
>> > earned here.
>> > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
>> > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
>> > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
>> > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and
then
>> > > reject the idea soon after.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian
>> > Academy
>> > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by
>> following
>> > the
>> > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
>> > >
>> > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal
of
>> > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
>> > >
>> > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport
>> all
>> > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share
>of
>> > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community
>> rejection
>> > of
>> > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
>> > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be
the
>> > child
>> > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide,
announce
>> and
>> > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter
>culture
>> of
>> > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this
>rejection
>> > > >process.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

--


"Ross Bradley" <ross@tarms.com> wrote in message
news:957754941.595999@server.tarms.com...
> Hi,
>
> A similar idea, but use a former uranium mine as the repository.  Bind the
> waste into a glass/ceramic base (e.g.. Synrock (sp?)) and inter it at the
ex
> mine.  If it is diluted enough with the binding agent then the waste could
> actually be less radioactive than the extracted ore, i.e. the dump would
> actually reduce the amount of radiation in the environment.  Also if
> plutonium (half life 24,000 years?) and replaced the U238 (half life 4.3
> billion years?) then you could argue that the site would be safer sooner
> :-).
>
> How fast to sub-sea subduction zones (if that is the correct term) move.
> i.e. drum of waste was buried where one part of the crust moves under
> another part a few km underwater, how long would it take the waste to move
> under the crust.  For that matter, aren't most sub-sea oil wells stable?
If
> they weren't stable for a geological age then the oil would leak out.

The idea of using subduction zones has been well studied. It would be
impossible to implement (my opinion) because of environmental concerns, even
though it is near/at the top of the methods for permanent disposal.

--


"Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:8f1vof$fas$1@possum.melbpc.org.au...
> The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian
Academy
> of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by following
the
> links from http://www.atse.org.au/
>
> "Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal of
> Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
>
> Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport all
> create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share of
> waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community rejection
of
> such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
> phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be the
child
> of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide, announce and
> defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter culture of
> 'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this rejection
> process.
>
A town in northern Ontario had an abandoned open pit mine and asked to be a
depository of waste from the cities to the south.  Activist groups in the
south shot it down, claiming that each city should deal with the problem
locally rather than export it.  Go figure.

Ross Bradley wrote in message <957754941.595999@server.tarms.com>...
>Hi,
>
>A similar idea, but use a former uranium mine as the repository.  Bind the
>waste into a glass/ceramic base (e.g.. Synrock (sp?)) and inter it at the
ex
>mine.  If it is diluted enough with the binding agent then the waste could
>actually be less radioactive than the extracted ore, i.e. the dump would
>actually reduce the amount of radiation in the environment.  Also if
>plutonium (half life 24,000 years?) and replaced the U238 (half life 4.3
>billion years?) then you could argue that the site would be safer sooner
>:-).
>

problem is the different siotopes and elements that are present in nuclear
waste, BTW Pu is one of the shorter lived fission byproducts, there are
also the water solulable bioaccumulative waste products to deal with, dump
and forget is not an option for nuclear fission wastes, the only safe and
sane option is monitored storage in purpose built storage facilitys.


>How fast to sub-sea subduction zones (if that is the correct term) move.
>i.e. drum of waste was buried where one part of the crust moves under
>another part a few km underwater, how long would it take the waste to move
>under the crust.  For that matter, aren't most sub-sea oil wells stable?
If
>they weren't stable for a geological age then the oil would leak out.


now that is a bit better an option, althoug hte subduction rate is rather
slow, it would take many lifetimes for dumped materials to be safely
subducted under a continental crust. i still favour monitored storage.


ant

>
>Ross.
>
>TJ <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
>news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
>> There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why
>cannot
>> we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble
cost.
>We
>> sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
>> dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
>> earned here.
>> <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
>> news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
>> > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
>> > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and then
>> > reject the idea soon after.
>> >
>> >
>...
>
>

Tim O'Flaherty wrote in message ...
>Expand the subject,  What does live there?
>


well if we are talking about the arid parts of Australia, most of the area
is ruled out as there is the great artesian basin that supplies drinking
and agricultural water for about 2 million people, the rest of Australia's
arid regions are no where near as dry as places like the share or that
south American desert in the rain shadow of the Andes, our arid areas
receive around 250mm  to 500mm of rain a year, thus making them slightly
less desert like then we would like ot imagine, one part of the desert has
the highest density of reptile life anywhere on the planet, and many of
these "useless" desert areas have not been developed for stock so they are
effectively pristine wilderness areas with high global biodiversity
importance. Australia is not really suited as a site for a long term
nuclear waste dump, much of our continental rocks are sedimentary in origin
and what is not is in areas that are economically or environmentally
significant. not to maintain the overwhelming public hostility to the idea
of building an international nuclear waste dump in Australia, electoral
suicide according to the polls and no politician wants to lose office.

the Australian public is strongly opposed to all nuclear technology, we
only have one small research reactor that was built in the 1950's and that
has caused enough problems and public hostility as have our uranium mines.


ant

give me a few hundred acres and I will. there has to be water a few hundred
feet down, and lots of sun for my pv panels. maybe some wind?

--
--
Steve Spence
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
sspence@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
If we don't believe in freedom of speech
for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
--

"codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message news:39176174@news.gj.net...
> Reverse the question,  who would live there?
>
>
> "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > uninhabitable to whom?
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Steve Spence
> > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > sspence@webconx.com
> > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > --
> >
> > "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> > > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why
> > cannot
> > > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble
> cost.
> > We
> > > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
> > > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
> > > earned here.
> > > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> > > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
> > > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and
then
> > > > reject the idea soon after.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the
Australian
> > > Academy
> > > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by
> > following
> > > the
> > > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> > > >
> > > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal
of
> > > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> > > >
> > > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and
transport
> > all
> > > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share
> of
> > > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community
> > rejection
> > > of
> > > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
> > > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be
the
> > > child
> > > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide,
announce
> > and
> > > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter
> culture
> > of
> > > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this
> rejection
> > > > >process.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

The bigest technical dificulty to overcome would be how to place a large object
very deep with in a subduction zone.  A potential asset would be that the
devivery vehicle could be thought of as 'disposable', so if the journy eventualy
destroyed the vehicle, that would not be a prolem.  If some sort of 'motor' or
engin could be devised, that were in some way powered by water pressure, so that
going deeper would inturn propel the vehicle further, a sort of sub-oceanic
ramjet, it would be possible to get the object sufficently deep (several
kilometers).  At this depth, it is concivable that the surounding water would
never come with in so much as a kilometer or two of the surface.  Flow paterns
of water at extreme depths would need to be studied to ensure this.  If, infact
the water at such depths esential stays there, then it would be practicle to
deposit nuclear waste there.  Security would be provided by placeing the
material so deep, that it would be imposible to retreave.  It is a ideal
soloution, and a friendly one, as it is in effect placeing the material in as
close to a natural habitat as radioactive material has available.


indigo wrote:

> --
>
> "Ross Bradley" <ross@tarms.com> wrote in message
> news:957754941.595999@server.tarms.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > A similar idea, but use a former uranium mine as the repository.  Bind the
> > waste into a glass/ceramic base (e.g.. Synrock (sp?)) and inter it at the
> ex
> > mine.  If it is diluted enough with the binding agent then the waste could
> > actually be less radioactive than the extracted ore, i.e. the dump would
> > actually reduce the amount of radiation in the environment.  Also if
> > plutonium (half life 24,000 years?) and replaced the U238 (half life 4.3
> > billion years?) then you could argue that the site would be safer sooner
> > :-).
> >
> > How fast to sub-sea subduction zones (if that is the correct term) move.
> > i.e. drum of waste was buried where one part of the crust moves under
> > another part a few km underwater, how long would it take the waste to move
> > under the crust.  For that matter, aren't most sub-sea oil wells stable?
> If
> > they weren't stable for a geological age then the oil would leak out.
>
> The idea of using subduction zones has been well studied. It would be
> impossible to implement (my opinion) because of environmental concerns, even
> though it is near/at the top of the methods for permanent disposal.

Hmmm, give you a few hundred acres, anywhere, and you will move there?  No
matter how isolated and desolate it may be?   Is that right?   No
objections, no buts?   OK, I will give you a two hundred acres on the
"sunny" side of the Moon.  Go for it.


"Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
news:e5SR4.58026$R4.291836@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> give me a few hundred acres and I will. there has to be water a few
hundred
> feet down, and lots of sun for my pv panels. maybe some wind?
>
> --
> --
> Steve Spence
> Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> sspence@webconx.com
> (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> --
>
> "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message news:39176174@news.gj.net...
> > Reverse the question,  who would live there?
> >
> >
> > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > uninhabitable to whom?
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Steve Spence
> > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > --
> > >
> > > "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> > > > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia.
Why
> > > cannot
> > > > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble
> > cost.
> > > We
> > > > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed
for
> > > > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to
be
> > > > earned here.
> > > > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> > > > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > > > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
> > > > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and
> then
> > > > > reject the idea soon after.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the
> Australian
> > > > Academy
> > > > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by
> > > following
> > > > the
> > > > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the
Disposal
> of
> > > > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> > > > >
> > > > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and
> transport
> > > all
> > > > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its
share
> > of
> > > > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community
> > > rejection
> > > > of
> > > > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
> > > > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be
> the
> > > > child
> > > > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide,
> announce
> > > and
> > > > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter
> > culture
> > > of
> > > > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this
> > rejection
> > > > > >process.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Hi,

During WWII a bomb called 'GrandSlam' was designed by Barnes Wallis.
Basically a 10 ton bomb constructed to penetrate 20+ feet of concrete.
So.... resurect the design.  Instead of explosive insert a few ton of waste
and drop it in very deep water (several km) with a muddy bottom.  Assuming
that it can be aerodynamically (or is that hydrodynamically) designed it may
be possible that it could get up enough speed to safetly bury itself in the
sea floor.

BTW.  I'm not serious about this sort of disposal.  I think that plutonium
should be viewed as the sort of stuff that you get rid of when you clean out
your house.  You find a need for it the next day :-)


Bullwinkle J. Moose <mcx2@tcac.net> wrote in message
news:39186F24.9D1EBB6A@tcac.net...
> The bigest technical dificulty to overcome would be how to place a large
object
> very deep with in a subduction zone.  A potential asset would be that the
> devivery vehicle could be thought of as 'disposable', so if the journy
eventualy
> destroyed the vehicle, that would not be a prolem.  If some sort of
'motor' or
> engin could be devised, that were in some way powered by water pressure,
so that
> going deeper would inturn propel the vehicle further, a sort of
sub-oceanic
> ramjet, it would be possible to get the object sufficently deep (several
> kilometers).  At this depth, it is concivable that the surounding water
would
> never come with in so much as a kilometer or two of the surface.  Flow
paterns
> of water at extreme depths would need to be studied to ensure this.  If,
infact
> the water at such depths esential stays there, then it would be practicle
to
> deposit nuclear waste there.  Security would be provided by placeing the
> material so deep, that it would be imposible to retreave.  It is a ideal
> soloution, and a friendly one, as it is in effect placeing the material in
as
> close to a natural habitat as radioactive material has available.
>
>
> indigo wrote:
>
> > --
> >
> > "Ross Bradley" <ross@tarms.com> wrote in message
> > news:957754941.595999@server.tarms.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > A similar idea, but use a former uranium mine as the repository.  Bind
the
> > > waste into a glass/ceramic base (e.g.. Synrock (sp?)) and inter it at
the
> > ex
> > > mine.  If it is diluted enough with the binding agent then the waste
could
> > > actually be less radioactive than the extracted ore, i.e. the dump
would
> > > actually reduce the amount of radiation in the environment.  Also if
> > > plutonium (half life 24,000 years?) and replaced the U238 (half life
4.3
> > > billion years?) then you could argue that the site would be safer
sooner
> > > :-).
> > >
> > > How fast to sub-sea subduction zones (if that is the correct term)
move.
> > > i.e. drum of waste was buried where one part of the crust moves under
> > > another part a few km underwater, how long would it take the waste to
move
> > > under the crust.  For that matter, aren't most sub-sea oil wells
stable?
> > If
> > > they weren't stable for a geological age then the oil would leak out.
> >
> > The idea of using subduction zones has been well studied. It would be
> > impossible to implement (my opinion) because of environmental concerns,
even
> > though it is near/at the top of the methods for permanent disposal.
>

As someone posted months earlier....what color is the sky on your
planet.

There are no solutions. Monitored storage is the only choice for now
but subject to terrorism. I don't like monitored storage but the only
sensible method for now.

nuclear power is the most expensive boondoggle ever.

"Ross Bradley" <ross@tarms.com> wrote:

>Hi,

>During WWII a bomb called 'GrandSlam' was designed by Barnes Wallis.
>Basically a 10 ton bomb constructed to penetrate 20+ feet of concrete.
>So.... resurect the design.  Instead of explosive insert a few ton of waste
>and drop it in very deep water (several km) with a muddy bottom.  Assuming
>that it can be aerodynamically (or is that hydrodynamically) designed it may
>be possible that it could get up enough speed to safetly bury itself in the
>sea floor.

>BTW.  I'm not serious about this sort of disposal.  I think that plutonium
>should be viewed as the sort of stuff that you get rid of when you clean out
>your house.  You find a need for it the next day :-)


>Bullwinkle J. Moose <mcx2@tcac.net> wrote in message
>news:39186F24.9D1EBB6A@tcac.net...
>> The bigest technical dificulty to overcome would be how to place a large
>object
>> very deep with in a subduction zone.  A potential asset would be that the
>> devivery vehicle could be thought of as 'disposable', so if the journy
>eventualy
>> destroyed the vehicle, that would not be a prolem.  If some sort of
>'motor' or
>> engin could be devised, that were in some way powered by water pressure,
>so that
>> going deeper would inturn propel the vehicle further, a sort of
>sub-oceanic
>> ramjet, it would be possible to get the object sufficently deep (several
>> kilometers).  At this depth, it is concivable that the surounding water
>would
>> never come with in so much as a kilometer or two of the surface.  Flow
>paterns
>> of water at extreme depths would need to be studied to ensure this.  If,
>infact
>> the water at such depths esential stays there, then it would be practicle
>to
>> deposit nuclear waste there.  Security would be provided by placeing the
>> material so deep, that it would be imposible to retreave.  It is a ideal
>> soloution, and a friendly one, as it is in effect placeing the material in
>as
>> close to a natural habitat as radioactive material has available.
>>
>>
>> indigo wrote:
>>
>> > --
>> >
>> > "Ross Bradley" <ross@tarms.com> wrote in message
>> > news:957754941.595999@server.tarms.com...
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > A similar idea, but use a former uranium mine as the repository.  Bind
>the
>> > > waste into a glass/ceramic base (e.g.. Synrock (sp?)) and inter it at
>the
>> > ex
>> > > mine.  If it is diluted enough with the binding agent then the waste
>could
>> > > actually be less radioactive than the extracted ore, i.e. the dump
>would
>> > > actually reduce the amount of radiation in the environment.  Also if
>> > > plutonium (half life 24,000 years?) and replaced the U238 (half life
>4.3
>> > > billion years?) then you could argue that the site would be safer
>sooner
>> > > :-).
>> > >
>> > > How fast to sub-sea subduction zones (if that is the correct term)
>move.
>> > > i.e. drum of waste was buried where one part of the crust moves under
>> > > another part a few km underwater, how long would it take the waste to
>move
>> > > under the crust.  For that matter, aren't most sub-sea oil wells
>stable?
>> > If
>> > > they weren't stable for a geological age then the oil would leak out.
>> >
>> > The idea of using subduction zones has been well studied. It would be
>> > impossible to implement (my opinion) because of environmental concerns,
>even
>> > though it is near/at the top of the methods for permanent disposal.
>>

hmm... the moon, well I could make it livable, with enough cash, but the
topic is Australia, and yes, I would do it just to prove it's possible.
Isolation and desolation are relative terms.

--
--
Steve Spence
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
sspence@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
If we don't believe in freedom of speech
for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
--

"codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message news:3918d1c8@news.gj.net...
> Hmmm, give you a few hundred acres, anywhere, and you will move there?  No
> matter how isolated and desolate it may be?   Is that right?   No
> objections, no buts?   OK, I will give you a two hundred acres on the
> "sunny" side of the Moon.  Go for it.
>
>
> "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> news:e5SR4.58026$R4.291836@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > give me a few hundred acres and I will. there has to be water a few
> hundred
> > feet down, and lots of sun for my pv panels. maybe some wind?
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Steve Spence
> > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > sspence@webconx.com
> > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > --
> >
> > "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message news:39176174@news.gj.net...
> > > Reverse the question,  who would live there?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > > uninhabitable to whom?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > Steve Spence
> > > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> > > > > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia.
> Why
> > > > cannot
> > > > > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for
sizeble
> > > cost.
> > > > We
> > > > > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed
> for
> > > > > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas
to
> be
> > > > > earned here.
> > > > > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > > > > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the
waste
> > > > > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer
and
> > then
> > > > > > reject the idea soon after.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the
> > Australian
> > > > > Academy
> > > > > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by
> > > > following
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the
> Disposal
> > of
> > > > > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and
> > transport
> > > > all
> > > > > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its
> share
> > > of
> > > > > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community
> > > > rejection
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my
back-yard')
> > > > > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could
be
> > the
> > > > > child
> > > > > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide,
> > announce
> > > > and
> > > > > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter
> > > culture
> > > > of
> > > > > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this
> > > rejection
> > > > > > >process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

No one ever claimed that any alternate methods could be put into imediate use,
they all requier s certain degree of  research.  Longer term monitored storage
can not be put into imediate use iether, no suitable, acceptable sites have yet
been located, and all known potential suitable canadates fail under the criterion
of acceptability because people object to all of them.  What these alternative
methods, perticuarly the use of subductions zone, offer, is a method that could
potentialy be both suitable, and acceptable, to virtualy every one.  In addition,
if research were carried our agressivly, it could possible be put into use long
befor any suitable, acceptable, site for long term monitored storage could be
found and prepared.

The great mistake of nuclear power was the lack of forthought.  The by-products
generated by it are easily contained at the site (unlike the use of fossil
fuels), So they are not released into the environment, but, you have to find some
place where you can put them for a very long time.  Not thought about that. Even
now, few people are.

Eventualy, a switch to a fuel like ethanol would be very wise.  Argicultural
bi-products (the part of the plants no one eats) provide an out standing source
material for the production of ethanol.  The by-product from producing ethanol
makes a good live-stock feed, or a good base for fertilizers that do not lead to
the break disapearance of top soil.  With high efficency intenal combustion
engins combined with ethanols high oxygen content, and a good catalitic
converter, the emsions would be minimal, And the production of the raw material
for the production of ethanol removes such emmisions from the air so there is an
overall zero net increase in atmospheric levels of those various emmision.  The
only modifaction needed to make a petrol engin use ethanlon is a slight
alteration of the fuel injection system, so existing technology (like a '57 Bell
Air :) could be very easily converted to use ethanol.  the same trasportation and
distrobution systems coud be used, over all, it is an easy enough switch.  When
used with a distributed Solar system, and perhapse also a suplimentative wind
based system, as well as fuel cells, distributed ofcoarse, a potential
electirical system that does not have any negative impact on the environment
could be implimented with allmost no noticable change to the end users.  They
would still drive there cars, go the same fueling stations, etc... Perhapse the
only noticable differences would be lower cost at the fuel pumps, fewer farmers
in economic distress (by opening up a new market for a product they all ready
produce), smal solar cells ontop of telaphone poles, and fuel cells in the
basments of various buildings and homes, and fewer black outs becuase the
electirical grid would be distributed so knocking out a few nodes wouldn't have
much effect on the system overall.  The Solar cells wouldn't be very noticed, who
looks in the basement?  over all, the change would be unnoticed, but very
welcome.

Unfortunatly we would still need to find a place to put all the nuclear waste we
have stockpiled over the years... subduction zones?  well, if research went on
while the electrical and transport systems were being shirted to thier new,
distributed, environmentaly friendly implementations, a way to make it work could
probably be worked out, and started.

So, how to kick it all off?



Quarks like a duck wrote:

> As someone posted months earlier....what color is the sky on your
> planet.
>
> There are no solutions. Monitored storage is the only choice for now
> but subject to terrorism. I don't like monitored storage but the only
> sensible method for now.
>
> nuclear power is the most expensive boondoggle ever.
>

Hi,

After joining this thread (and suggesting the idea of subduction zone
internment for N waste) I actually got around to doing a web search for the
idea and found:

http://www.law.fsu.edu/transnational/issues/7-1/wacz.html

It appears that the idea of a "torpedo-shaped metal "penetrometers," " has
been examined already.  The article says that the US dropped funding for the
study in 1986 due to budget cuts and a leaning towards land based disposal.
The article also raises the legal implications of this type of disposal
given current international treaties.

Anyway... there are very few new ideas.  I suppose that it pays to look (or
at least search) before putting finger to keyboard.  The questions stills
remains though.  What are the best ways to store the waste (not in order of
priority or seriousness).

1. Dump it in the local land fill.
2. Dump it in the ocean.
3. Vitrify and store in a subterranean repository.
4. Vitrify & dump sub-sea.
5. Recycle and burn (in the nuclear sense).
6. Feed it to whales (do whales beach themselves because their bodies have
an actinite/transuranic deficiency? :-)
7. Store it above ground in leaky drums.
8. (This idea from Jerry Pournelle I think - or was it Larry Niven).  Turn
it into currency.  Then your coins could literally burn a hole in your
pocket.
9. Bank on future technology helping out.  We can't easily burn/recycle much
of the waste now, but in a few decades this may be possible.  Look at
storage that will last for 100s of years.  Assuming that in the future
society will be at least technologically advanced as we are then they should
also be able to store it for 100s of years.
10. Convert a decommissioned nuclear power plants to storage facilities.
The containment/reactor buildings should be strong, water-proof and secure
already.
11. Decommission the NORAD facility in Colorado (if that's where it is) and
put the stuff in there.  You already have a big hole in a mountain that
should be reasonably secure.
12. Go to an underground nuclear testing site. Drill a hole to where a bomb
was exploded.  Pour the waste down.  Plug the hole. Forget about it.  The
site is already hot.  The bomb cavity should be essentially lined with
glass. It would be very hard for a terrorist to recover any of the material.

Any other suggestions?

As I see it, we have (at least) two responsibilites to the future:
1. Don't leave too big a mess for them to clean up.
2. Don't deprive them of a potentially valuable resource.  They are going to
be really pissed off with us that we used all the oil/gas, don't annoy them
of putting a valuable resource like plutonium where it can't possibly be
recovered.


Another question.  How much waste is there to store at the moment? I see
quotes in the form of '000s tons but can't visualize this.  Assuming average
density of 1000kg/m^3 (ie water) then 1000 tonne of waste is about 10m^3.
So, how big is the hole in the Yucca mountains?

"Ross Bradley" <ross@tarms.com> wrote:

>Hi,

>After joining this thread (and suggesting the idea of subduction zone
>internment for N waste) I actually got around to doing a web search for the
>idea and found:

>http://www.law.fsu.edu/transnational/issues/7-1/wacz.html

>It appears that the idea of a "torpedo-shaped metal "penetrometers," " has
>been examined already.  The article says that the US dropped funding for the
>study in 1986 due to budget cuts and a leaning towards land based disposal.
>The article also raises the legal implications of this type of disposal
>given current international treaties.

>Anyway... there are very few new ideas.  I suppose that it pays to look (or
>at least search) before putting finger to keyboard.  The questions stills
>remains though.  What are the best ways to store the waste (not in order of
>priority or seriousness).

>1. Dump it in the local land fill.
>2. Dump it in the ocean.
>3. Vitrify and store in a subterranean repository.
>4. Vitrify & dump sub-sea.
>5. Recycle and burn (in the nuclear sense).
>6. Feed it to whales (do whales beach themselves because their bodies have
>an actinite/transuranic deficiency? :-)
>7. Store it above ground in leaky drums.
>8. (This idea from Jerry Pournelle I think - or was it Larry Niven).  Turn
>it into currency.  Then your coins could literally burn a hole in your
>pocket.
>9. Bank on future technology helping out.  We can't easily burn/recycle much
>of the waste now, but in a few decades this may be possible.  Look at
>storage that will last for 100s of years.  Assuming that in the future
>society will be at least technologically advanced as we are then they should
>also be able to store it for 100s of years.
>10. Convert a decommissioned nuclear power plants to storage facilities.
>The containment/reactor buildings should be strong, water-proof and secure
>already.
>11. Decommission the NORAD facility in Colorado (if that's where it is) and
>put the stuff in there.  You already have a big hole in a mountain that
>should be reasonably secure.
>12. Go to an underground nuclear testing site. Drill a hole to where a bomb
>was exploded.  Pour the waste down.  Plug the hole. Forget about it.  The
>site is already hot.  The bomb cavity should be essentially lined with
>glass. It would be very hard for a terrorist to recover any of the material.

>Any other suggestions?

>As I see it, we have (at least) two responsibilites to the future:
>1. Don't leave too big a mess for them to clean up.
>2. Don't deprive them of a potentially valuable resource.  They are going to
>be really pissed off with us that we used all the oil/gas, don't annoy them
>of putting a valuable resource like plutonium where it can't possibly be
>recovered.


>Another question.  How much waste is there to store at the moment? I see
>quotes in the form of '000s tons but can't visualize this.  Assuming average
>density of 1000kg/m^3 (ie water) then 1000 tonne of waste is about 10m^3.
>So, how big is the hole in the Yucca mountains?


The US already has more than 4 times the amount of waste that Yucca
Mountain can store due to thermal limits.

Codeman: There is no "sunny side" of the moon

"Ross Bradley" <ross@tarms.com> wrote
<<<snip>>>
> 8. (This idea from Jerry Pournelle I think - or
was it Larry Niven).  Turn
> it into currency.  Then your coins could
literally burn a hole in your
> pocket.

Larry Niven. "Yet Another Modest Proposal: The
Roentgen Standard".

Published in 1985 in a Niven short story
collection named "Limits"
A textfile is available for the story at
http://www.textfiles.com/humor/nukwaste

It was an amusing revisit to the original satire
by Jonathan Swift.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Darren

Ian Mair wrote:

> The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian Academy
> of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by following the
> links from http://www.atse.org.au/
>
> "Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal of
> Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
>
> Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport all
> create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share of
> waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community rejection of
> such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY (�not in my back-yard�)
> phenomenon.

Thank you for the info, Ian,
Our son a few days ago was a the Beverley Uranium Mine S.A., and a place called
Lee Creek in South Australia.
The group he is with were peacefully demonstrating, with members of the
aboriginal community, on the whole issue of uranium mining mining and liklihood
of using the desert areas of Australia to dispose of the plutonium waste. A
channel Seven photographer was assaulted as the police moved in with pepper
spray.
The group are journeying up through the north of Australia, and will head to
Kakadu, under the banner of "Earthdream 2000".
The group were not paid protesters..are not into drug culture, and are not
"ferals". They seriously believe that we have to make a stand on this 'out of
sight out of mind" attitude of Australian companies and even the Australian
public.It applies  also, when it comes to physical maltreatment of protesters by
police.
I say good luck to them.  Son could be in his well- paid computer job in
Melbourne but has chosen to go north with his friends in a convoy of vans.
Sincerely
Diana Allen in Melbourne

Well Steve, an isolated area (supposedly undesirable for human habitat)  was
the topic and  a particular part of Australia was the example.  I suggested
the moon as being totally ridiculous.  I serious doubt that given all the
money in the world that you could sustain life for a long period of time on
the moon at this time in human existence.    Either way, pack your bags and
move to either the moon or to that desolate part of Australia that gentleman
suggested. Never to return I might add.   Nothing was said about financing
your move or how you would live.  That's up to you.


"Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
news:uHbS4.60889$R4.306571@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> hmm... the moon, well I could make it livable, with enough cash, but the
> topic is Australia, and yes, I would do it just to prove it's possible.
> Isolation and desolation are relative terms.
>
> --
> --
> Steve Spence
> Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> sspence@webconx.com
> (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> --
>
> "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message news:3918d1c8@news.gj.net...
> > Hmmm, give you a few hundred acres, anywhere, and you will move there?
No
> > matter how isolated and desolate it may be?   Is that right?   No
> > objections, no buts?   OK, I will give you a two hundred acres on the
> > "sunny" side of the Moon.  Go for it.
> >
> >
> > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:e5SR4.58026$R4.291836@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > give me a few hundred acres and I will. there has to be water a few
> > hundred
> > > feet down, and lots of sun for my pv panels. maybe some wind?
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Steve Spence
> > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > --
> > >
> > > "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message
news:39176174@news.gj.net...
> > > > Reverse the question,  who would live there?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > > > uninhabitable to whom?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> > > > > > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in
Australia.
> > Why
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for
> sizeble
> > > > cost.
> > > > > We
> > > > > > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are
imposed
> > for
> > > > > > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas
> to
> > be
> > > > > > earned here.
> > > > > > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > > > > > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the
> waste
> > > > > > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer
> and
> > > then
> > > > > > > reject the idea soon after.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the
> > > Australian
> > > > > > Academy
> > > > > > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed
by
> > > > > following
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the
> > Disposal
> > > of
> > > > > > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and
> > > transport
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its
> > share
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share.
Community
> > > > > rejection
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my
> back-yard')
> > > > > > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it
could
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > child
> > > > > > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide,
> > > announce
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a
counter
> > > > culture
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this
> > > > rejection
> > > > > > > >process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

>>Another question.  How much waste is there to store at the moment? I see
>>quotes in the form of '000s tons but can't visualize this.  Assuming
average
>>density of 1000kg/m^3 (ie water) then 1000 tonne of waste is about 10m^3.
>>So, how big is the hole in the Yucca mountains?
>
>
>The US already has more than 4 times the amount of waste that Yucca
>Mountain can store due to thermal limits.
>


Not to neglect the rest of your questions, the issue is why are we
contemplating making more when we haven't answered these questions.  Can we
seriously consider
increasing nuke power by 50 or 100 fold when we can't deal with this smaller
fraction?   We are not talking about one shot, but a way of life forever!!
This ball and chain we are forging for our descendants will only get larger
and larger.  And we are supposed to believe that nukes will use _LESS_
land?? Ridiculous.  Four Yucca Mountains in 40 years.  Now multiply that by
50 to account for a major nuke expansions and multiply by the time we expect
to keep using nukes.  It's no wonder they want to bury it and forget it.

Regards, Tim O'Flaherty

Here, Here

ant wrote:
> 
> Tim O'Flaherty wrote in message ...
> >Expand the subject,  What does live there?
> >
> 
> well if we are talking about the arid parts of Australia, most of the area
> is ruled out as there is the great artesian basin that supplies drinking
> and agricultural water for about 2 million people, the rest of Australia's
> arid regions are no where near as dry as places like the share or that
> south American desert in the rain shadow of the Andes, our arid areas
> receive around 250mm  to 500mm of rain a year, thus making them slightly
> less desert like then we would like ot imagine, one part of the desert has
> the highest density of reptile life anywhere on the planet, and many of
> these "useless" desert areas have not been developed for stock so they are
> effectively pristine wilderness areas with high global biodiversity
> importance. Australia is not really suited as a site for a long term
> nuclear waste dump, much of our continental rocks are sedimentary in origin
> and what is not is in areas that are economically or environmentally
> significant. not to maintain the overwhelming public hostility to the idea
> of building an international nuclear waste dump in Australia, electoral
> suicide according to the polls and no politician wants to lose office.
> 
> the Australian public is strongly opposed to all nuclear technology, we
> only have one small research reactor that was built in the 1950's and that
> has caused enough problems and public hostility as have our uranium mines.
> 
> ant

For those of us that either have a clue, or live in Australia (or both)
we know that there really isn't that many uninhabited places, there is
always someone living somewhere.  (for some reason that is
inconsequential)

codeman wrote:
> 
> Well Steve, an isolated area (supposedly undesirable for human habitat)  was
> the topic and  a particular part of Australia was the example.  I suggested
> the moon as being totally ridiculous.  I serious doubt that given all the
> money in the world that you could sustain life for a long period of time on
> the moon at this time in human existence.    Either way, pack your bags and
> move to either the moon or to that desolate part of Australia that gentleman
> suggested. Never to return I might add.   Nothing was said about financing
> your move or how you would live.  That's up to you.
> 
> "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> news:uHbS4.60889$R4.306571@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > hmm... the moon, well I could make it livable, with enough cash, but the
> > topic is Australia, and yes, I would do it just to prove it's possible.
> > Isolation and desolation are relative terms.
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Steve Spence
> > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > sspence@webconx.com
> > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > --
> >
> > "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message news:3918d1c8@news.gj.net...
> > > Hmmm, give you a few hundred acres, anywhere, and you will move there?
> No
> > > matter how isolated and desolate it may be?   Is that right?   No
> > > objections, no buts?   OK, I will give you a two hundred acres on the
> > > "sunny" side of the Moon.  Go for it.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:e5SR4.58026$R4.291836@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > > give me a few hundred acres and I will. there has to be water a few
> > > hundred
> > > > feet down, and lots of sun for my pv panels. maybe some wind?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > Steve Spence
> > > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message
> news:39176174@news.gj.net...
> > > > > Reverse the question,  who would live there?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > > > > uninhabitable to whom?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > > > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > > > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > > > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > > > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > > > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > > > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> > > > > > > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in
> Australia.
> > > Why
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for
> > sizeble
> > > > > cost.
> > > > > > We
> > > > > > > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are
> imposed
> > > for
> > > > > > > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > > > earned here.
> > > > > > > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > > > > > > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the
> > waste
> > > > > > > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer
> > and
> > > > then
> > > > > > > > reject the idea soon after.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the
> > > > Australian
> > > > > > > Academy
> > > > > > > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed
> by
> > > > > > following
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the
> > > Disposal
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and
> > > > transport
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its
> > > share
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share.
> Community
> > > > > > rejection
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my
> > back-yard')
> > > > > > > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it
> could
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > child
> > > > > > > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide,
> > > > announce
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a
> counter
> > > > > culture
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this
> > > > > rejection
> > > > > > > > >process.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

Tim O'Flaherty wrote:
>...
> >The US already has more than 4 times the amount of waste that Yucca
> >Mountain can store due to thermal limits.
> >
> 
> Not to neglect the rest of your questions, the issue is why are we
> contemplating making more when we haven't answered these questions.

Tim. It seems that the question is not can we safely store this junk,
but when we will decide to allow any one of the proposed schemes to be
implemented. "we" have rammed a bung up the hole of this particular
horse, removed it's balls, and refused to feed or water it, hoping
apparently that it will eventually die. I wonder frankly if we have more
to fear from our grandchildren laughing at us for being so afraid of
nuclear power that we actually made it worse by failing to safely store
the waste when we could easily have done so, or if they will curse us
for the dark and miserable conditions that we leave them in by killing
this useful power source off.

I read your other post and thanks for the briefing of Australia.  Everyone
(including myself) thinks their part of the world is unworthy of nuclear
waste storage.  I agree there really isn't that many uninhabited places on
earth.  There sure are allot of sparcely populated areas however.


"Ben J" <keldarNOSPAM@engineer.com> wrote in message
news:391B9564.3DB0EF89@engineer.com...
> For those of us that either have a clue, or live in Australia (or both)
> we know that there really isn't that many uninhabited places, there is
> always someone living somewhere.  (for some reason that is
> inconsequential)
>
> codeman wrote:
> >
> > Well Steve, an isolated area (supposedly undesirable for human habitat)
was
> > the topic and  a particular part of Australia was the example.  I
suggested
> > the moon as being totally ridiculous.  I serious doubt that given all
the
> > money in the world that you could sustain life for a long period of time
on
> > the moon at this time in human existence.    Either way, pack your bags
and
> > move to either the moon or to that desolate part of Australia that
gentleman
> > suggested. Never to return I might add.   Nothing was said about
financing
> > your move or how you would live.  That's up to you.
> >
> > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:uHbS4.60889$R4.306571@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > hmm... the moon, well I could make it livable, with enough cash, but
the
> > > topic is Australia, and yes, I would do it just to prove it's
possible.
> > > Isolation and desolation are relative terms.
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Steve Spence
> > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > --
> > >
> > > "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message
news:3918d1c8@news.gj.net...
> > > > Hmmm, give you a few hundred acres, anywhere, and you will move
there?
> > No
> > > > matter how isolated and desolate it may be?   Is that right?   No
> > > > objections, no buts?   OK, I will give you a two hundred acres on
the
> > > > "sunny" side of the Moon.  Go for it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:e5SR4.58026$R4.291836@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > > > give me a few hundred acres and I will. there has to be water a
few
> > > > hundred
> > > > > feet down, and lots of sun for my pv panels. maybe some wind?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message
> > news:39176174@news.gj.net...
> > > > > > Reverse the question,  who would live there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > > > > > uninhabitable to whom?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > > > > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > > > > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > > > > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > > > > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > > > > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > > > > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at
all.
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> > > > > > > > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in
> > Australia.
> > > > Why
> > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for
> > > sizeble
> > > > > > cost.
> > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are
> > imposed
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from
overseas
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > earned here.
> > > > > > > > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > > > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities
get
> > > > > > > > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve
the
> > > waste
> > > > > > > > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities
volunteer
> > > and
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > reject the idea soon after.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the
> > > > > Australian
> > > > > > > > Academy
> > > > > > > > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be
viewed
> > by
> > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the
> > > > Disposal
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy
and
> > > > > transport
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb
its
> > > > share
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share.
> > Community
> > > > > > > rejection
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my
> > > back-yard')
> > > > > > > > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it
> > could
> > > be
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > child
> > > > > > > > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a
'decide,
> > > > > announce
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a
> > counter
> > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome
this
> > > > > > rejection
> > > > > > > > > >process.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

I might add that the most undesirable location (for me personally) and most
suitable for nuclear waste, would be downtown New York City. I am sure there
are a few million people who would disagree with me on this so please don't
flame me, I admit defeat.


"Ben J" <keldarNOSPAM@engineer.com> wrote in message
news:391B9564.3DB0EF89@engineer.com...
> For those of us that either have a clue, or live in Australia (or both)
> we know that there really isn't that many uninhabited places, there is
> always someone living somewhere.  (for some reason that is
> inconsequential)
>
> codeman wrote:
> >
> > Well Steve, an isolated area (supposedly undesirable for human habitat)
was
> > the topic and  a particular part of Australia was the example.  I
suggested
> > the moon as being totally ridiculous.  I serious doubt that given all
the
> > money in the world that you could sustain life for a long period of time
on
> > the moon at this time in human existence.    Either way, pack your bags
and
> > move to either the moon or to that desolate part of Australia that
gentleman
> > suggested. Never to return I might add.   Nothing was said about
financing
> > your move or how you would live.  That's up to you.
> >
> > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:uHbS4.60889$R4.306571@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > hmm... the moon, well I could make it livable, with enough cash, but
the
> > > topic is Australia, and yes, I would do it just to prove it's
possible.
> > > Isolation and desolation are relative terms.
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Steve Spence
> > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > --
> > >
> > > "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message
news:3918d1c8@news.gj.net...
> > > > Hmmm, give you a few hundred acres, anywhere, and you will move
there?
> > No
> > > > matter how isolated and desolate it may be?   Is that right?   No
> > > > objections, no buts?   OK, I will give you a two hundred acres on
the
> > > > "sunny" side of the Moon.  Go for it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:e5SR4.58026$R4.291836@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > > > give me a few hundred acres and I will. there has to be water a
few
> > > > hundred
> > > > > feet down, and lots of sun for my pv panels. maybe some wind?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > "codeman" <codeman@gj.net> wrote in message
> > news:39176174@news.gj.net...
> > > > > > Reverse the question,  who would live there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Steve Spence" <steve.spence@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:LWwR4.54953$R4.276555@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > > > > > uninhabitable to whom?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > > Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> > > > > > > Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> > > > > > > X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> > > > > > > sspence@webconx.com
> > > > > > > (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> > > > > > > If we don't believe in freedom of speech
> > > > > > > for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at
all.
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "TJ" <tjlim@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:39162523@news.rivernet.com.au...
> > > > > > > > There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in
> > Australia.
> > > > Why
> > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for
> > > sizeble
> > > > > > cost.
> > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are
> > imposed
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from
overseas
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > earned here.
> > > > > > > > <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > > > > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities
get
> > > > > > > > > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve
the
> > > waste
> > > > > > > > > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities
volunteer
> > > and
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > reject the idea soon after.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the
> > > > > Australian
> > > > > > > > Academy
> > > > > > > > > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be
viewed
> > by
> > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the
> > > > Disposal
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy
and
> > > > > transport
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb
its
> > > > share
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share.
> > Community
> > > > > > > rejection
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my
> > > back-yard')
> > > > > > > > > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it
> > could
> > > be
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > child
> > > > > > > > > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a
'decide,
> > > > > announce
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a
> > counter
> > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome
this
> > > > > > rejection
> > > > > > > > > >process.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

"wmbjk" <wmbjk@ctaz.com> wrote in message
news:Qmx_4.225$N25.44097@news-west.eli.net...
>
> "Dewey & Lucy Thompson" <dlthompson@socket.net> wrote in message
> news:sjkttood5ri181@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Actually, Murray makes quite a salient point.  When you are looking at
> risk,
> > you really should evaluate ALL risks.
>

> PS    I DO get the point about evaluating risks, I just think it's one of
> the lamest raps on PV so far.
>
>
Yes, but you're quite happy to hypothesize on the risks of nuclear waste
disposal.  Why one and not the other?

Ant, I'm Australian, and I realized after posting that it was probably a
contraction of Anthony.  My apologies; it was a case of Usenet finger--I
pushed the Send button too quickly.

Apart from that lapse, however, I did play the ball, not the man.  And if
you're trying to accuse me of right-wing thought (by association), you would
be mistaken.  I'm as worried about climate change as most "clean energy"
advocates -- I just have a different perspective.

I grew up in Sydney and Canberra, so I know the climate.  BC is rainier than
most of Australia, sure, but the same constraints apply:

-Extremely dilute energy source.
-Roofs that don't point in the right direction.
-Low PV efficiency.
-Risk in manufacturing and installation.
-Reduced functionality in inclement weather.
-Aesthetics
-Cost
-Battery and inverter inefficiencies.

...and so on.  None of these is a show-stopper, and I think solar is great
for remote and other off-grid locations.  I just don't see how you plan to
get reliable baseload.

I'm a little frustrated with the climate change debate: the business lobby
pretends either that it isn't happening or that it'll be good for us, and
the environmentalists pretend that the solutions are simple (Solar panels on
every rooftop!  Wind! Biomass! 50% increase in home energy efficiency!)

The problem is this:  I can hold a kg of wood in my hand: that's 1 kWh, give
or take. Coal: 3kWh.  Oil:  4kWh.  Gas:  about 6kWh.  Uranium: 400,000kWh.
How much in a handful of sunlight or wind?  By my rough calculation (1 hand
= about 0.018 sq.m x 1kW per sq.m for sunlight) = 0.018kW times however many
hours you hold it out.  I know someone's going to miss the point and jump on
me for a ludicrous comparison, but that IS the point.  I don't know wind, by
the way - I suspect it's better than sun.


"ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote in message
news:2oE_4.8819$N4.323789@ozemail.com.au...
>
> seems like a case of playing the man not the issues, of course murry would
> take one of the less sunny parts of north America, i should have been more
> precise in my terms and said the USA excluding Alaska. but i suspect that
> BC has good wind resources, perhaps the potential for micro hydro plants.
> certainly for all of mainland Australia the rule applies.
>
> BTW ant is a contraction of Anthony, common in Australia. funny how some
> people take offence at a name. another reason for the spamblock is many
> people i know of who dont use them and post to political groups end up
> getting threatened and intimidated, we have a case pending at the moment
> where a political worker misused his access to the electoral role to
obtain
> a paesons full name and home address, even went round there, and the same
> person has apparently made threats against the safety of other
participants
> of the newsgroup, like most far right political thinkers he believes that
> violence is an acceptable political tool if his ideas have not been
> accepted. so hiding ones identity is prudent, it is interesting that it is
> only the left wing and environmental agitators who seem to get the death
> threats and intimidation when they are doing nothing more then speakingthe
> truth.
>
>
> ant
>
>
> "In the United States, free markets have contributed to social breakdown
> on a scale unknown in any other developed country. Families are weaker
> in America than in any other developed country. At the same time,
> social order has been propped up by a policy of mass incarceration ...
> Levels of inequity resemble those of Latin American countries more than
> those of any European society." - John Gray - British Conservative
> Politician under Margaret Thatcher - "False Dawn" - The Decline of
> Global Capitalism.
>
>
>