Posted by J. Clarke on September 16, 2009, 9:05 pm
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>>> Personally I'm fine with the salt mine, the mohole is for those
>>>> loons who want it gone permanently at any cost.
>>
>>> Or in other words, a feelgood solution.
>>
>> If it takes a "feelgood solution" to avoid freezing to death in the
>> dark where's the problem? The difficulties with nuclear power are
>> political, not technological.
> It's some indication of the high regard in which you hold
> the people you're proposing the feelgood solution to.
Huh? People want to feel safe. Applying gross overkill to the disposal of
nuclear waste makes them fe3el safe. Why do you have a problem with this?
Posted by turby on September 17, 2009, 3:51 pm
> If anything goes wrong with the excacation then there are no lumps of glass
> or concreted blocks underwater. What part of "you can't put something in a
> hole in the ground until after you have dug the hole" are you having trouble
> with? And what can go wrong once the concrete blocks and lumps of glass are
> there? Suppose the hole collapses. Then you have the stuff buried, move
> down a couple of miles and drill another hole.
Simple. Like sending a man to the moon. Just build a big rocket, put a
man in a can at the top, and he's there. Yup, real simple.
Another question - how do you get all those "lumps" from the reactors
to the bottom of the ocean safely? On trains that can't derail and
ships that can't sink?
> And you keep harping on "canisters". There are no "canisters", there are
> concrete blocks and lumps of glass.
Concrete and glass break. Man has not made anything that is permanent
and unmalleable.
> Is the richest nation in the world suddenly that poor?
Actually, yes. The mohole project was stopped because they ran out of
money. What's the national debt now?
Posted by J. Clarke on September 17, 2009, 5:40 pm
turby wrote:
>>
>> If anything goes wrong with the excacation then there are no lumps
>> of glass or concreted blocks underwater. What part of "you can't put
>> something in a hole in the ground until after you have dug the hole"
>> are you having trouble with? And what can go wrong once the concrete
>> blocks and lumps of glass are there? Suppose the hole collapses.
>> Then you have the stuff buried, move down a couple of miles and
>> drill another hole.
> Simple. Like sending a man to the moon. Just build a big rocket, put a
> man in a can at the top, and he's there. Yup, real simple.
So your objection is that we shouldn't try something because it might
actually be difficult?
> Another question - how do you get all those "lumps" from the reactors
> to the bottom of the ocean safely? On trains that can't derail and
> ships that can't sink?
Load them on the Enterprise or get the Savannah out of mothballs or rent a
Russian ice breaker. If one of those sinks, the lumps of concrete and glass
are the least of your worries.
>> And you keep harping on "canisters". There are no "canisters", there
>> are concrete blocks and lumps of glass.
> Concrete and glass break. Man has not made anything that is permanent
> and unmalleable.
So they break, so what? Now you have two lumps of concrete or glass. Big
hairy deal.
>> Is the richest nation in the world suddenly that poor?
> Actually, yes. The mohole project was stopped because they ran out of
> money. What's the national debt now?
So you're saying that Project Mohole was stopped because it bankrupted the
US? I'm sorry, but you're confusing a political decision with a lack of
means.
Posted by Rob Kleinschmidt on September 17, 2009, 4:25 pm
> The trouble with the land site is that it's got to be safe for the people
> running around inside it with forklifts.
Robotics as needed.
Posted by J. Clarke on September 17, 2009, 5:41 pm
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>> The trouble with the land site is that it's got to be safe for the
>> people running around inside it with forklifts.
> Robotics as needed.
So go tell the people who are running it that that will solve all their
problems.
XML Sitemap
>>>> loons who want it gone permanently at any cost.
>>
>>> Or in other words, a feelgood solution.
>>
>> If it takes a "feelgood solution" to avoid freezing to death in the
>> dark where's the problem? The difficulties with nuclear power are
>> political, not technological.
> It's some indication of the high regard in which you hold
> the people you're proposing the feelgood solution to.