This is a parody gone mad. Green advocates howl about the issues of nuclear waste storage, arguing that nuclear energy becomes impractical due to the need for long term safe storage, in some cases tens of thousands to millions of years, or as the EPA puts it “25,000 generations”. The Yucca Mountain project was shut down in April 2010 because nobody seems to have the will to actually store nuclear waste below ground. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry stockpiles used fuel rods near major cities in holding pools, and they are running out of room. Are we safer this way? I think not. Thanks Obama.
It seems that ‘Carbon storage’ faces the same dilemma. Can it be safely stored for thousands of years? Or will it turn into a tree killing zone like this one below?
Tree Kill Zone, near Mammoth Mountain CA
More here from USGS on the Mammoth Lakes CO2 leak.
CO2 sequestration illustrated below, relies upon putting CO2 directly into underground storage. Ironically, using salt domes, just like Yucca mountain, and even less secure coal mines.
‘Carbon storage’ faces leak dilemma: Study
CCS supporters say the sequestered carbon would slow the pace of man-made warming. It would buy time for politicians to forge an effective treaty on greenhouse gases and wean the global economy off cheap but dirty fossil fuels.
Critics say CCS could be dangerous if the stored gas returns to the atmosphere. They also argue that its financial cost, still unknown, could be far greater than tackling the source of the problem itself.
The new research, published by the journal Nature Geoscience, wades into the debate with an estimate of capturing enough carbon to help limit warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the figure set in last December’s Copenhagen Accord.
…
The gas will have to be stored for tens of thousands of years to avoid becoming a threat to future generations, a scenario similar to that for nuclear waste, it says.
This means less than one percent of the stored volume can be allowed to leak from the chamber per 1,000 years.
===============================
Gee, where have we heard this before?
Both CCS and geoengineering belong in the garbage bin of incredibly idiotic, completely useless, costly, and possibly dangerous ideas. Of course, there are those who stand to profit from it who stand to gain at the expense of all humanity who are pushing them, while the typical Alarmist stance seems to be “we shouldn’t have to resort to this, but because of you skeptics foot-dragging, we may be forced to”. The Alarmists in short are offering us a false choice; either cut back our “carbon” emissions now, or begin CCS and/or geoengineering operations. Freud’s principle of a “death drive” seems to be remarkably apparent in the Alarmists’ campaign against the life-giving gas C02. I really hope some moronic troll comes back with something like “if you think C02 is harmless, try breathing in a paper bag and see how long you last”. Go ahead, make my day.
One of the pernicious aspects of AGW is that it lowers the intelligence levels of its true believers.
This stupid article is a great example.
Having read so much on the latest crisis caused by alarmism, most every solution creates problems worse than the ones they said would be catostrophic.
They tell me they must fight hydraulic fracturing in oil wells. The frac process is done 2 miles from the water table but they say it will dirty the water.
Why doesn’t someone invent “nuclear credits”? You could then have the coal industry buy the nuclear credits and the nuclear industry purchase carbon credits. That way, whenever you have a release of nuclear waste, the coal industry could just plant more trees in the Amazon.
Billy Liar says:
June 28, 2010 at 4:10 am
Most of these techno-weenies who are frightened of things nuclear seem happy enough to stash several micro-curies of Americium-241 (half-life ~460 years) about their house. How weird is that?
__________________________
I take it you are talking about the smoke detectors in every home per requirement by US law?
Dr. Petr Beckman twitted the anti-nuke types about the radiation from granite and radon gas until they made laws to have houses tested for radioactivity. Turns out the low level of radioactive gas seems to help prevent lung cancer.
” …low doses of radiation are good for you. It stimulates the immune system and checks oxidation of DNA through a process known as “radiation hormesis”—and thereby prevents cancer.” http://www.donaldmiller.com/Advantages_of_Nuclear_Power.pdf
“..The radiation hormesis model explains why residents of radon spa areas (in Japan, Germany, and central Europe) and people who live in homes that have high radon levels also have a decreased incidence of cancer. But perhaps the most impressive study that shows just how good low dose radiation can be for you is one just published in the (Spring 2004) Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons…” http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html
Politicians motto: “Never let science get in the way of a good scare story that can be used to control people.”
Did CO2 kill those trees????
Methane would appear to be a more likely culprit to me.
Well, someone mentioned Lake Nyos already but still, here’s the quote from Wikipedia:
‘Lake Nyos is a crater lake in the Northwest Region of Cameroon, located about 200 miles (322 km) northwest of Yaoundé.[1] Nyos is a deep lake high on the flank of an inactive volcano in the Oku volcanic plain along the Cameroon line of volcanic activity. A natural dam of volcanic rock hems in the lake waters.
A pocket of magma lies beneath the lake and leaks carbon dioxide (CO2) into the water, changing it into carbonic acid. Nyos is one of only three known lakes to be saturated with carbon dioxide in this way, the others being Lake Monoun, 100 km (62 mi) away SSE, and Lake Kivu in Rwanda. On August 21, 1986, possibly triggered by a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby villages.[2] Though not completely unprecedented, it was the first known large-scale asphyxiation caused by a natural event. To prevent a repetition, a degassing tube that syphons water from the bottom layers of water to the top allowing the carbon dioxide to leak in safe quantities was installed in 2001, though additional tubes are needed to make the lake safe.[3]
Today, the lake also poses a threat due to its weakening natural wall. A geological tremor could cause this natural dike to give way, allowing water to rush into downstream villages all the way into Nigeria and allowing much carbon dioxide to escape.’
There’s lots more on the subject but I think just the introductory paragraph should give us pause for thought. Lake Nyos is not the only ‘Killer Lake.’
It seems odd to me that a basic fact seems to never be brought up when discussing CO2 (and nuclear material, for that matter).
Being at the bottom of a rather substantial gravity well, as we find ourselves, the total mix of elements we have today is basically the same amount of elements that have been sitting around, here at the bottom of the well, since. . .hmm. . .about the time that the growing accretion of materials substantially cleared the orbital path around the sun, which was (quickly does some math, which will not be displayed in public) around a few billion years ago. Give or take the random addition of smaller bits of matter in the form of asteroids or other naturally occuring ‘space junk’ as it were.
So, since it’s all been here, all along, I’m often curious about the hoo-ha concerning exactly where these various materials happen to be, at any particular given moment, or over a particular period of time. They obviously haven’t remained completely static in the same locations they congealed in as the planet cooled. Which would seem, since none have been added, and none subtracted, that there is quite likely to be some sort of cyclic mechanism which has developed along the way to move things about. And that these cyclic methods don’t merely consist of physically moving the materials from point a to point b, but also includes the chemical (or nuclear, in the case of things radioactive) transformations of same.
Well, as I’m being beat about the head and shoulders for being such an obtuse simpleton, allow me to continue. Since the hoo-hah about CO2 appears to stem from man’s ability to use such chemical reactions (and also, to manipulate radioactive materials to concentrate or exploit the energy transaction), and the resulting by products, which, basically is a zero sum game with regards to the amount of carbon and oxygen one started with – my basic question is this –
Why would any truly serious person consider simply sweeping stuff physically under the rug, so to speak? If the ‘problem’ is the result of a chemical reaction, how is a physical activity going to remedy the situation in the least, other than to exacerbate the supposed ‘imbalances’ (which appears to be the gist of the hysteria) being created? Is this all an elaborate set up, once we’ve ‘sequestered’ the material (CO2)(with emphasis on the O2 for this example) for great rounds of wailing and gnashing of teeth that we’re basically about to smother ourselves due to asphyxiation from lack of oxygen?
Here’s a radical idea – how about simply participating in a fully cyclic set of activities, instead of simply obssessing about one sided ones? As mentioned by several previous commentors, sequestration through chemical processes which we are already quite aware of – such as – and this is really almost too darned oversimplisitic, I’ll grant – GROWING THINGS! Yes – using nature’s own little dirt and sunlight processing machines to magically eliminate our CO2 “problem”. And not just to have rather odd and apparently useless by products, such as. . FOOD, or BUILDING MATERIALS, but substances which can be used to fuel not just the animate, but the inanimate, as well – such as those little microbes that ‘eat’ CO2 and H2O, and poop – Diesel Fuel!
Oh, look, a sustainable loop! We don’t have to invent and build fancy metal machines – Mother Gaia has come to OUR rescue for a change!
Oh, and btw, yes, Carter was a complete idiot, about nuclear reprocessing, as well as a long list of other things short of tying his shoes. For low level substances, for which there is no other viable use, sure, put it back in the ground (you know, where it came from) – but for more energetic materials, which are busily, as we speak (or read) half-lifing themselves into uselessness to the genus Homo Sapiens, every moment we “store” such material and do not take advantage of the energy transaction, is a moment we lose. Forever. Since we do not have the technology to complete that particular cycle, yet. When we start manipulating stars and such, the discussion may be resumed. Until then, “storing” heavy radioactives such as uranium and plutonium is just plain stupid and wasteful. Put it to use for maximum benefit. Re-process it and get about boiling some water to spin some turbines.
I think I’ll stop now, and allow my sheer ignorance to be mocked, ridiculed, and the explanations flow as to exactly why I’m being a simpleton about all this. The joy of WUWT allows me to do so, without having to worry about the ad hominem, which is something that would hurt my feelings, the true crime against nature. Heh.
It’s strange how irrational fears of nuclear energy and CO2 both typically come from the same group of people, and excessive costs are created by exagerating risks.
On nuclear, I”ve seen comments that GenIV designs may be able to use existing waste as fuel but not found any decent descriptions of how that works.
On CO2 sequestration, that just seems pointless to take a potentially useful product and bury it at some crossroads. It would seem far more sensible to me to use it, perhaps for synthesising methane and making synthetic fuel.
Natural gas contaminates the soil with methane, causing methane-consuming bacteria to multiply and suck up the oxygen in the soil. That interrupts the crucial exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide between the soil and air, and carbon dioxide, methane and other components in natural gas build up and contaminate the tree’s roots. The roots die and the tree follows, said Carl Cathcart, a certified arborist hired by the trust.
How synthetic FUEL can be Green and subsidized?
By making carbon sequestration through synthesizing FUEL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel
…so the production of fuel and its comsumption will be absolutely “green”
While I consider his decision to be unfortunate, he was well qualified to make it because he was our only president with nuclear reactor training.
Such as it was. His duties at his assignment to the Division of Reactor Development in Schenectady consisted of attending a not-for-credit *introductory* course in nuclear reactors at Union College — a “Nuclear Power for Dummies” class.
Fuel reprocessing need not be done nor long-term disposal of spent fuel at the level needed for our current and future US nuclear reactors, if here in the US we would start building CANDU reactors. Designed in Canada when they had neither the large metalworking ability to make a large steel reactor vessel for a LWR, nor uranium enrichment, the CANDU design uses fuels considered too low grade for the “traditional” nuclear plants, originally natural (un-enriched) uranium. It is rather flexible in the fuels it can use, and has been shown to be able to use our “waste” nearly directly.
Basically here in the US we are sitting on a pile of money, wondering how much more money it’ll take to forever bury it in the ground.
I still support reprocessing due to its benefits. For one:
This is included to indicate generally how much more energy can be extracted with CANDU reactors given their flexibility in fuel supply, and because fuel that is too depleted for even CANDU’s can still be reprocessed.
Also:
With both CANDU reactors and reprocessing, our current stockpile of “spent” fuel will provide us many decades of clean reliable energy, no new uranium need be mined, and our really-long-term nuclear waste disposal needs will be far smaller.
And maybe by the time we’d have to start digging up some fresh fuel they’ll finally have figured out how to make viable fusion reactors. 😉
So Mammoth Mountain is a volcano, which are known to emit CO2. This has nothing to do with carbon sequestration. Volcanoes are notoriously uncontrolled (maybe the biggest understatement I’ve ever made!), and the theory is that some of the CO2 was not vented, but trapped underground somehow, just like natural gas, and recently something changed that allowed it to escape to the surface, where the high soil gas concentration (~90%) killed the trees.
The difference between this natural CO2 trapping and well-engineered CO2 sequestration is that responsible engineering of sequestration would deposit the critical liquid CO2 in a geological formation that was deep enough so that the pressure would keep it as a liquid, and in a geological situation that was known to be tectonically stable and proven capable of holding it for geologically significant time periods (spent oil pools).
This is beside the point of whether CO2 capture and sequestration is required, as others have pointed out it adds considerably to the cost of electricity. The process is useful in oil production, enhancing and extending production from oil fields by maintaining pressure and decreasing oil viscosity. Ironically, because the oil is burned in vehicles after production, there is no real sequestration until the oil field is finally depleted.
Geoff S @ur momisugly 3:56,
Well said Geoff, your observations on the ‘intractable problem’ of nuke waste are spot on. It’s also seldom mentioned that a lot of the ‘nuclear waste’ is simply stuff like uniforms, cleaning cloths, etc, that have simply been used at the nuclear facility, and are therefore ‘contaminated’.
As you touch on in your post, nuclear waste is a solved problem, but it is not in the interests of the chattering classes to admit that. It must remain as ‘problem’ with which to beat the evil energy companies whenever they suggest that nuke power might be a good idea.
The fact that we can store it, reprocess it, dump it into one of the mid-ocean subduction zones, or lob it into the sun is unacceptable. As you note about CO2, it cannot be solved, it must remain as a problem, no solution is allowed.
“Furthermore, there have been plenty of presidents since Jimmy Carter and none had the testicular fortitude to reverse Jimmy’s ban until George Bush II.”
At the moment, US nuclear power plants are running on recycled nuclear bombs, and after the latest rounds of bomb cuts between the US and Russia we will probably have enough recycled nuclear bombs to run our nuclear plants another 10 years.
Personally, I would rather live next to nuclear power plant waste awaiting recycling/ disposal then live next to nuclear bombs awaiting recycling/disposal.
“This is a parody gone mad.”
Oh.My.God, the genepool is rotting. We’ll be prosimians by 2020.
How to control Nuclear waste: Reprocess! use it..
Carbon dioxide sequestration has never sound like a good idea.
It is just another idea. Following the idea to its logical end, the questions arise as to how we can reliably store pressurized gas under ground for thousands of years, and what do we do with it at the end of the planned sequestration period?
First, there is no reliable way to store anything for thousands of years. You must plan on the stuff leaking, and it would be wise to design calibrated leaks so that you can plan on how much gas gets leaked into the atmosphere.
Secondly, there is no way to plan for anything over thousands of years. There is no way to estimate the unintended consequences of sequestering so much pressurized gas for so long. You cannot calculate the risks.
Carbon dioxide sequestration is just another idea.
End of story.
Perhaps putting BP in charge of CO2 sequestration would make people realize that deep drilling is not exactly foolproof!
What exactly would be wrong with dumping spent rods and other heavier-than-water nuclear waste into a subducting Pacific trench, after encasing in concrete, steel, glass or some such? It would be far out of the food chain, shielded by miles of overlying water, and eventually would get sucked into the earth, not to reemerge for a billion years or so. A lot cheaper than shooting it into the sun…
@ur momisugly Gail Combs
check out wikipedia on radiation hormesis. Another case of people with an agenda hijacking wikipedia. Professionals in the field don’t like radiatio hormesis because it makes their jobs unnecesary. Applies to most forms of chemical pollution, too. So, the environazis don’t like the subject, either.
Wouldn´t it be cheaper to sequestrate all Gwrs. and store all of them following the procedures for garbage disposal? ☺
Well sequestration of CO2 is sequestration of OXYGEN !!
With no apparent let-up in the rate of deforestation, and despite tree farming to combat that; we humans can ill afford to sequester Oxygen.
The words “Criminally Insane” are the ones I would use to describe those people promoting carbon sequestration.
“”” Enneagram says:
June 28, 2010 at 5:51 am
How synthetic FUEL can be Green and subsidized?
By making carbon sequestration through synthesizing FUEL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel “””
That is an oxymoron. Fuel cannot be both green and subsidized.