RIZ

So, Deep-Blue, whose website did you copy that little gem from? I am familiar with all the facts you have presented. They were covered in my course on nuclear physics. Unlike a lot of the greenies who go on at length about nuclear power, I am actually fairly well versed in the science.

Thats nice. Now can you answer the questions on storing the spent fuel in future?

BLUE

It's interesting to read of people decrying 'scientism', or scientific theory in this day and age.
It's all about prophecy, really.
One of the oldest and most widely distributed books in history, the Jewish/Christian Bible, is based on 'scientism'; inasmuch as it was the abilities of the Prophets which made it credible -to the people of the day, and even to some people today.
The first and most important lesson in business studies is that the most successful businesses are those which most accurately predict the future; and plan their budgets accordingly.
The most successful farmers are the one's who accurately predict the coming year's climate, and plan and plant accordingly.
The 'theory' of evolution -and Darwin's natural selection- is so widely accepted by 'hard' scientists because it can and has made accurate predictions; whereas in the field of Intelligent Design, who can credibly claim (in this age) to be able to predict the mind of God?
It's hardly a mystery that the arguably 2 most important 'sciences' to the human condition, Climate and Economics, are so frustratingly unpredictable. They're simply too complex for our present understanding.
Does that mean we should just walk away from the challenge?
In the absence of reliable predictions (I don't know that if I drive at 160k per hour I will definitely have an accident), we have to choose a sensible course. Because I don't know that I will have an accident, does that mean I should drive at 160 kph? Or should I drive at a lower speed for the (dare I use the word) 'collective' good? Recognising of course that if I allow myself the right to speed, I must logically allow everyone the same right.
To me it comes down to a simple question: “What does it matter?”
Will anyone argue the dirty brown haze hanging over every city in the world is a good thing?
That hunting any food species to total extinction is intelligent?
That by the same token, using any valuable resource -oil, coal or uranium- to total depletion is the smart, responsible thing to do?

The age of computers -and computer fallibility- has taught us the wisdom of triple redundancy -if basic biology has failed (for some) to demonstrate the inadvisability of 'putting all one's eggs in one basket' (diversity).
Nothing is more important to our civilisation than electricity, yet where is our triple redundancy?
The idea that base load power can't be supplied (with multiple redundancy, wind, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal...) through non reducible resources is nonsense. Energy can be stored very easily in a number of ways, starting with simply pushing water up hill. This is particularly sensible in Australia, where the vast bulk of Ozzies live between the Dividing Range and the sea. Compressed air is another very simple technology, with zero side effects.
As to the premise of this article, of course environmentalists should admit their mistakes. Everyone should. The beauty of the scientific method is that even failures increase our understanding. This does not in any way invalidate the method, or justify not rising to the challenge of increasing our understanding.
The current strategy of not taking responsibility for our own excesses, and not paying the full price for our lifestyles is simply selfish, and massively irresponsible.
BTW, I refuse to accept that tapping into a non reducible, endless resource must necessarily be more expensive than depleting an irreplaceable resource. That simply doesn't make sense.

"Now can you answer the questions on storing the spent fuel in future?"
Deep-Blue

What questions? So far, all you've made are a bunch of statements - the above quote is the first question you've asked me. I can tell, 'coz questions come with these: ? whereas statements end like this.

"The idea that base load power can't be supplied (with multiple redundancy, wind, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal...) through non reducible resources is nonsense."
-Grim

Not entirely. The only proven renewable technologies which generate base-load power are hydro & geothermal.

"Energy can be stored very easily in a number of ways, starting with simply pushing water up hill."
-Grim

Yes, they do this with the Snowy Mountains hydro system. But they do the pumping using excess power from base-load sources at times of low demand. So insufficient base-load generation capacity precipitated by a shift to entirely renewable energy sources is going to create some headaches. Also, pumped storage systems require suitable reservoirs both above and below the generator, which almost always means building dams. Up here in sunny Newcastle there is presently much wailing and gnashing of teeth from greenies over the construction of a dam for water supply, and they do have some valid points. Certainly the greenies who opposed the Franklin dam had some valid points. Dams can lead to habitat destruction and significant disruption to local ecosystems. Can you really see all the NIMBY greenies of this fair land getting behind a pumped storage system of the massive scale which would be required?

"I refuse to accept that tapping into a non reducible, endless resource must necessarily be more expensive than depleting an irreplaceable resource."
-Grim

Good for you. Using renewables isn't necessarily more expensive than using non-renewables. It simply is more expensive. Which might seem like a rather meaningless distinction, but it matters to logicians.

What questions? So far, all you've made are a bunch of statements - the above quote is the first question you've asked me. I can tell, 'coz questions come with these: ? whereas statements end like this.

Ok. Now I will ask you. ( and remember I support nuclear power ) Its just one of my concerns, since you are the person to ask.

1...In the long term, can the spent-fuel-rods and tailings etc, be safely stored for all time?

2...And what are their plans that include the concerns of the environments since ground water contamination and earth movement are always an on-going event?

Your answers please.

BLU

Hey Riz, the significance of mountains close to the sea is that salt water can be pushed up hill using wave action. The salt water is stored in reservoirs, completely independent of natural water courses, and thereby having minimal environmental impact. The salt water can then be dropped through osmotic filters, and then led through hydro electric turbines. The fresh water can then be inserted into our ailing western rivers. And of course, the salt water reservoirs can be used for fish farming, and restocking the oceans with species humans are driving to extinction.
The idea is not original; the technology exists and is being used (on a tiny scale) in West Aus., where it was invented.
As to "it just is more expensive" you're basically suggesting that having a cake and eating it (to total depletion) is less expensive than having a cake, eating it and still having your cake.
Do your 'logicians' find this logical?
Clearly this highlights an egregious failing in economic calculation -which is probably why RW libertarians are invariably climate denialists.
The irreplaceable 'cake' in the first instance is simply undervalued, as the unborn children of future generations (who will be denied these valuable resources) cannot bid in our marketplace.