RE: Hydrogen as SCAM?

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 16:13:12 MST

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "RE: Parallel Universes"

    Charles Hixson wrote:
    > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
    >
    >> Ev Mick wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> In a message dated 02/03/2003 10:29:46 AM Central Standard Time,
    >>> kmb@kai-m-becker.de writes:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> If Uranium would be as inert and safe for the biosphere as coal or
    >>> gas, and if the process from Uranium to energy and the disposal of
    >>> the waste would be as safe as with coal or gas, I'd agree with you.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Would you agree then that it would be safe were nuclear wastes to be
    >>> dropped into tectonic plate subduction zones? Kind of
    >>> remote...that.....removed from the biosphere altogether I'd say.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >> ### Subduction zones are geologically pretty unstable, and are
    >> covered with water - so it's very difficult to drill tunnels, the
    >> tunnels can get damaged by earthquakes, and the waste can get
    >> dissolved in water (as in black smoker vents). Also, the removal
    >> from biosphere would take geological amounts of time (hundreds of
    >> thousands of years), compared to a few thousand years for the
    >> radionuclides to decay.
    >>
    >> Deep burial in dry rock is better. It is just as effective in
    >> removing the waste from the biosphere.
    >>
    >> Rafal
    >>
    > How about reasonably deep burial (no need to be excessive), but
    > vitrify it first. If that doesn't seem sufficient, then embed the
    > glass into asphalt, and bury that.

    ### I am all for it.

      Leeching out of glass is slow,
    > but leeching out of glass covered with asphalt would take??? If
    > you're really paranoid, you could encase the whole thing in powdered
    > plaster.

    ### Titanium alloy would be even better.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 08:22:21 MST