Biden cancels all oil, gas drilling leases in Alaskan Arctic wildlife refuge

[KCfromNC]

I hate to sound like a cynic, but it really has devolved to a "I know liberals hate coal so I'll promote that" vs. "I know conservatives hate the idea of replacing coal, so I'll promote the alternatives I know they dislike the most"

Or maybe some people legitimately hope that wind and solar can supplement other forms of non-greenhouse-gas producing energy sources?
Seems like a stretch to try and compare that with stickers literally gloating about how offensive they are to others, but then again, I get how difficult it is to find legitimate ways to make both sides seem equally bad these days.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Or maybe some people legitimately hope that wind and solar can supplement other forms of non-greenhouse-gas producing energy sources?
Seems like a stretch to try and compare that with stickers literally gloating about how offensive they are to others, but then again, I get how difficult it is to find legitimate ways to make both sides seem equally bad these days.

So I make numerous posts defending Biden and denouncing coal...and you choose to pounce on the one snippet that gives you an opportunity to accuse me of "both-sidesism" again... nice


But to the topic at hand, if someone legitimately hopes wind and solar can meaningfully address the problem, they're not taking this issue seriously or they're opting to guard their ignorance on the subject for partisan reasons.

Other nations have tried it, only few have the geographical advantages to actually make it work in any meaningful way. There have been several countries in Europe who've tried to ramp down coal while simultaneously shutting down nuclear energy facilities in order to appeal to certain groups who demanded they "focus on renewables". (like Germany and Spain who had to refire backup their coal plants, or countries like Sweden, Belgium, Greece, and South Korea...who had to end up reversing their nuclear phase-out plans)

 

[durangodawood]

"this truck runs on liberal tears"...

Obvious personal antagonizing.

Likewise, I've seen bumper stickers on hybrids reading "There are no jobs on a dead planet", or ones like this:
View attachment 335876

Right or wrong, just personal opinion about our environmental situation without refence to any other sides feelings.

I hate to sound like a cynic, but it really has devolved to a "I know liberals hate coal so I'll promote that" vs. "I know conservatives hate the idea of replacing coal, so I'll promote the alternatives I know they dislike the most"

I'd have to see actual evidence that just taking these policy positions is about antagonizing the other side rather than just sticking with your sides orthodoxy.

What's ironic is that the left touts themselves as the "follow the science" crowd, and right has touted themselves as the "I'll embrace the alternative" ... yet on the topic of nuclear, neither side is living up to their supposed reputation.


It should be one of the things most people could agree on.

It should. But the stigma of Chernobyl is hard to shake regardless of whether its relevant. If something terrible happens at Zaporizhzhia then theres another couple decades lost. Even if everything is fine, people still will want nuke plants far away from their own house. People will sacrifice together much sooner than they would submit to being singled out for taking a hit.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Obvious personal antagonizing.

Correct

Right or wrong, just personal opinion about our environmental situation without refence to any other sides feelings.

I'd have to see actual evidence that just taking these policy positions is about antagonizing the other side rather than just sticking with your sides orthodoxy.

Showing a picture of windmill power with the phrase "intelligent design" is an obvious dig at the other side.

It's a dig in the same theme as when conservatives employ signage saying Unborn Black Lives Matter. It's taking a slogan/phrase or concept that the other side holds near and dear, and making it about "their own thing" that they know the other side doesn't like.

In that instance, referring to replacing coal with windmills and calling it "intelligent design" is the same as when conservative reference "Black Lives Matter" to refer to their anti-abortion position.

It should. But the stigma of Chernobyl is hard to shake regardless of whether its relevant. If something terrible happens at Zaporizhzhia then theres another couple decades lost. Even if everything is fine, people still will want nuke plants far away from their own house. People will sacrifice together much sooner than they would submit to being singled out for taking a hit.

On that you could be right...it could be part of it...however, how long does a stigma "stick"? Or how long should we allow it to "stick"?

When a group of people who were completely comfortable with an explanation of "well, the science changed" numerous times over a 3 year period, seemingly has a problem of "letting go" of the issues pertaining to outdated science on nuclear, it makes my "partisan hackery" senses tingle.

Seeing "well, the science has changed since last month" as an acceptable answer to one scientific topic of great importance, but then saying "I don't feel comfortable with changing my view on this, remember that thing that happened in back in 1986??" doesn't exactly jive.


Not to mention, if the people in the US are anything like the ones in Germany, Spain, and Sweden...there seems to be a "aversion to swallowing one's pride" aspect at play. When a group of people have said so much, for so long, that Wind/Solar/Tidal is "the solution" to the energy/environment conundrum, some have a hard time letting go of that. (much like some people on the conservative side have clung to the theories of "trickle down economics"...it's been shown over a period of 40 years that it doesn't work, it doesn't produce the outcome theorizers thought it would, but yet still feel compelled to defend it and insist it's "the solution" and "we just need to stay the course")

I suspect some of the same is happening here. Much like Germany tried to shutdown nuclear power (at the behest of their Green party who wanted them to focus on Wind/Tidal/Solar) while simultaneously trying to scale back coal...environmental activists here also seem unwilling to consider any alternative options to the 3 they staked their case on.

When progressives were saying years ago "we can replace fossil fuels with these 3 options", and conservatives told them "you're crazy, there's no way that'll work", they don't want to come back 20 years later with their tail tucked between their legs. Much like when conservatives pushed trickle-down as the solution to economic woes, and progressives said "you're crazy, the rich guys will just keep all the money for themselves", they don't want to come back and admit they were wrong after the fact because in our hyper-polarized environment, admitting one's own misjudgments is seen as a "sign of weakness" or "lack of resolve"

 

[KCfromNC]

So I make numerous posts defending Biden and denouncing coal...and you choose to pounce on the one snippet that gives you an opportunity to accuse me of "both-sidesism" again... nice

I guess if there were any defense for it, we wouldn't be reading this attempt to make it about me rather than what I wrote. Perhaps some realization that my post made sense.

But to the topic at hand, if someone legitimately hopes wind and solar can meaningfully address the problem, they're not taking this issue seriously or they're opting to guard their ignorance on the subject for partisan reasons.

Which is still far different from the original implication that any such claim was obviously a personal attack against the other part on par with talking about "liberal tears".
So it looks like my post was useful after all.

 

[durangodawood]

Correct


Showing a picture of windmill power with the phrase "intelligent design" is an obvious dig at the other side.

Thats pretty soft stuff compared to "liberal tears".... or the other giant pro-Trump poster I saw where I live that got me banned when I tried to describe it here, even X-ing out the offending words. Plus the person probably believes in wind power quite sincerely.
.

Seeing "well, the science has changed since last month" as an acceptable answer to one scientific topic of great importance, but then saying "I don't feel comfortable with changing my view on this, remember that thing that happened in back in 1986??" doesn't exactly jive.

Except that the land around Chernobyl is considered poisoned and off limits to this day. So the history lives and is not over and done.
.

Not to mention, if the people in the US are anything like the ones in Germany, Spain, and Sweden...there seems to be a "aversion to swallowing one's pride" aspect at play. When a group of people have said so much, for so long, that Wind/Solar/Tidal is "the solution" to the energy/environment conundrum, some have a hard time letting go of that. (much like some people on the conservative side have clung to the theories of "trickle down economics"...it's been shown over a period of 40 years that it doesn't work, it doesn't produce the outcome theorizers thought it would, but yet still feel compelled to defend it and insist it's "the solution" and "we just need to stay the course")

I suspect some of the same is happening here. Much like Germany tried to shutdown nuclear power (at the behest of their Green party who wanted them to focus on Wind/Tidal/Solar) while simultaneously trying to scale back coal...environmental activists here also seem unwilling to consider any alternative options to the 3 they staked their case on.

Yes, there's a lot of inertia around political orthodoxies.
.

When progressives were saying years ago "we can replace fossil fuels with these 3 options", and conservatives told them "you're crazy, there's no way that'll work", they don't want to come back 20 years later with their tail tucked between their legs. Much like when conservatives pushed trickle-down as the solution to economic woes, and progressives said "you're crazy, the rich guys will just keep all the money for themselves", they don't want to come back and admit they were wrong after the fact because in our hyper-polarized environment, admitting one's own misjudgments is seen as a "sign of weakness" or "lack of resolve"

Renewables have made much more progress than the conservatives would ever had thought possible. Obviously they cant cover everything (given current technology) but the push for them has spurred R&D thats only expanded their potential.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Except that the land around Chernobyl is considered poisoned and off limits to this day. So the history lives and is not over and done.

That's the thing that the pro-nuke crowd seems inclined to overlook: sure, nuclear is safe when everything goes well, when things go bad, they can go really bad. Fukushima is going to take another 30 years to decommission.

 

[Belk]

That's the thing that the pro-nuke crowd seems inclined to overlook: sure, nuclear is safe when everything goes well, when things go bad, they can go really bad. Fukushima is going to take another 30 years to decommission.

This is a pick your poison situation. Renewables can not realistically cover our energy needs at this point. To cover the gap until it can it is either fossil fuels or nuclear.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's the thing that the pro-nuke crowd seems inclined to overlook: sure, nuclear is safe when everything goes well, when things go bad, they can go really bad. Fukushima is going to take another 30 years to decommission.

Except that the land around Chernobyl is considered poisoned and off limits to this day. So the history lives and is not over and done.

Ironically enough, modern nuclear is far safer than fossil fuels...yet the arguments against fossil fuels (mine included) often focus on the environmental impacts. For the people who have safety concerns about nuclear, you'd think conversations surrounding safety would be part of their repertoire when debating phasing out coal.

Point of reference:

The only one of the 3 renewables that's safer than Nuclear is Solar...Wind and Hydro power actually have a slightly higher death rate.


And to put it in perspective, Chernobyl is considered to be "the" nuclear incident...it's the go-to name people mention when discussing the risks. It's the "Hitler of Nuclear Energy", if you will, in the minds of people who oppose it.

The end result of that incident (the worst one that ever happened)?
134 people died between the period of a few weeks after the incident to 2006.
1,000 sq miles of exclusion zone (18 mile radius)

For Fukushima, how many deaths attributed to it? 1
Exclusion zone size? 300 sq miles (~6 mile radius)

Compare that to fossil fuels? They put up more daunting death numbers every year and destroy ecosystems a lot larger than that of an 18 mile radius.

The two worst nuclear disasters in the past 40 years have produced outcomes that are really "drop in the bucket" types of stats in the grand scheme of things.


Nuclear has progressed a lot. The same way a 2023 car is safer, has more rigorous testing standards, etc... than a car from 1986.

A pragmatic look at the numbers should lead people to a reasonable conclusion. The energy source (that's zero emission) that produces 20% of the world's energy supply has, in a period of 40 years, has only killed 135 people and rendered 1300 sq miles (of the 50 million sq mi of land area earth) unusable for the time being. (and context is everything... the big incident was the result of shoddy oversight by the USSR, and 2nd place one was the result of a once in a life time natural disaster)

But as both I and Belk have said...pick you poison. If you want low emission energy, and you want your fridge and lights to work without the impediment of rolling blackouts or having to begrudgingly go back to fossil fuels, nuclear has to be part of the conversation.

 

[rturner76]

I think it's a good decision twofold.....One, we will be protecting a very rich wildlife refuge. Two, we can bank that oil for later when other resources start running dry. There is more damage done by oil than just oil spills. There is pollution from the rigs, the chemicals in the air, waste, and runoff does damage also. While regulated, there are ways around it if you are slick enough. These oil barons are as slick as they come.

 

[Whyayeman]

I think it's a good decision twofold.....One, we will be protecting a very rich wildlife refuge. Two, we can bank that oil for later when other resources start running dry. There is more damage done by oil than just oil spills. There is pollution from the rigs, the chemicals in the air, waste, and runoff does damage also. While regulated, there are ways around it if you are slick enough. These oil barons are as slick as they come.

And of course all that carbon dioxide.

The problem with nuclear power is not the immediate death toll associated with it. It is the inevitable stockpiling of the radio-active waste. It will be there for many thousands of years with a never-ending and impossibly difficult need to keep it secure.

The pollution from fossil fuels is an urgent issue but reparable. The pollution from renewables is pretty well negligible.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And of course all that carbon dioxide.

The problem with nuclear power is not the immediate death toll associated with it. It is the inevitable stockpiling of the radio-active waste. It will be there for many thousands of years with a never-ending and impossibly difficult need to keep it secure.

The pollution from fossil fuels is an urgent issue but reparable. The pollution from renewables is pretty well negligible.

Nuclear power and the environment - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Environmental issues, effects, and impacts of nuclear energy and uranium production.

www.eia.gov

5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel

Get up to speed with these five fast facts about spent nuclear fuel.

www.energy.gov

Actually, it's not as daunting as you're making it sound with regards to dealing with waste.

THE U.S. GENERATES ABOUT 2,000 METRIC TONS OF SPENT FUEL EACH YEAR​

This number may sound like a lot, but the volume of the spent fuel assemblies is actually quite small considering the amount of energy they produce.

The amount is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

And, the clean energy generated from this fuel would be enough to power more than 70 million homes—avoiding more than 400 million metrics tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

If we take that a step further, U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.


So, knowing that we're still (at a minimum) 50-100 years away from being able to refine wind/solar/tidal energy to the point where they can actually service the need...doesn't it make sense to get on board with nuclear?

Nobody is suggesting that everyone has to abandon researching and improving on the other 3 and their valid use as a supplement. But we need to be realistic here... If nations want to do an immediate cease and desist on coal, you'll need a stop gap. Right now, the other 3 just aren't there yet. (as a dozen nations in Europe have found out and had to go crawling back to coal)

 

[Whyayeman]

Nuclear power and the environment - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Environmental issues, effects, and impacts of nuclear energy and uranium production.

www.eia.gov

5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel

Get up to speed with these five fast facts about spent nuclear fuel.

www.energy.gov

Actually, it's not as daunting as you're making it sound with regards to dealing with waste.

THE U.S. GENERATES ABOUT 2,000 METRIC TONS OF SPENT FUEL EACH YEAR​

This number may sound like a lot, but the volume of the spent fuel assemblies is actually quite small considering the amount of energy they produce.

The amount is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

And, the clean energy generated from this fuel would be enough to power more than 70 million homes—avoiding more than 400 million metrics tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

If we take that a step further, U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.


So, knowing that we're still (at a minimum) 50-100 years away from being able to refine wind/solar/tidal energy to the point where they can actually service the need...doesn't it make sense to get on board with nuclear?

Nobody is suggesting that everyone has to abandon researching and improving on the other 3 and their valid use as a supplement. But we need to be realistic here... If nations want to do an immediate cease and desist on coal, you'll need a stop gap. Right now, the other 3 just aren't there yet. (as a dozen nations in Europe have found out and had to go crawling back to coal)

If it was simply spent fuel that had to be kept secure you might be right. In addition to that all all irradiatedmaterials that have been used in nuclear power stations have to be retained. This amounts to a very great deal.

We don't know that the time scale you claim is correct. We cannot know the future. And I don't trust these figures or the complacency that lies behind them. After the Chernobyl incident the winds blew from the East. Radio-active thorium was found on Welsh hills. I was walking in the mountains at the time and decided to get advice. It was - you'd better wash all your clothes. Welsh meat could not be eaten for years.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If it was simply spent fuel that had to be kept secure you might be right. In addition to that all all irradiatedmaterials that have been used in nuclear power stations have to be retained. This amounts to a very great deal.

We don't know that the time scale you claim is correct. We cannot know the future. And I don't trust these figures or the complacency that lies behind them. After the Chernobyl incident the winds blew from the East. Radio-active thorium was found on Welsh hills. I was walking in the mountains at the time and decided to get advice. It was - you'd better wash all your clothes. Welsh meat could not be eaten for years.

According to the UN, The earliest reasonable estimate is 2050 and would require $4 Trillion in investments for the foreseeable future...and as we've seen with prior estimates, they have to constantly keep pushing them back.

Robert Giegengack, professor emeritus of earth and environmental science in the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, agrees the transition won’t be easy, “but it is inevitable.”

Moving to renewables could take as long as 100 years, he said. Eric Orts, the director of Wharton’s Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership (IGEL) and a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, also sees a fairly hard road ahead, but it’s an achievable goal. “I don’t think it’s an easy transition at all,” he said. “But I do think it’s possible, and we definitely need to move in that direction.”

So what's your ideal plan here?

Continue to rely on coal to make up the huge difference between what wind/solar/tidal can provide, and what we actually need?

 

[Whyayeman]

According to the UN, The earliest reasonable estimate is 2050 and would require $4 Trillion in investments for the foreseeable future...and as we've seen with prior estimates, they have to constantly keep pushing them back.

So what's your ideal plan here?

Continue to rely on coal to make up the huge difference between what wind/solar/tidal can provide, and what we actually need?

Of course not. There is no ideal plan, only desperate measures to avert the cataclysm of global heating.

There needs to a a reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If that is not achieved very soon nothing else matters much. It is an issue of survival. Your argument is akin to deciding on the best design of lifeboats when the ship is foundering.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of course not. There is no ideal plan, only desperate measures to avert the cataclysm of global heating.

There needs to a a reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If that is not achieved very soon nothing else matters much. It is an issue of survival. Your argument is akin to deciding on the best design of lifeboats when the ship is foundering.

Correct, and Nuclear is currently the best lifeboat. Incidentally...lifeboat decisions are pretty darn important so not sure why you're trying to trivialize it in that way for the analogy. The people on the Titanic probably wished folks had some more in-depth lifeboat discussions right around the time they were up to their neck in icy cold water.

And not only that, it's safer than 2 of the 3 much less effective (in terms of energy production) "lifeboats" being pushed really hard at the moment in terms of directly related deaths, being responsible for fewer than 200 deaths in the past 50 years, produces an amount of waste in a 100 year time period that could fit in a football stadium (we would be so lucky if the same was true of plastic, we've currently got the "Great Pacific Plastic Patch" floating around in the ocean that's 3 times the land mass of France), yet, the anti-nuclear energy crowd seems to be a lot more concerned about the "what ifs" of nuclear instead of the "what's actually happenings" of plastic.


Is it even remotely possible that this whole thing is a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing match between the "I love coal because it agitates the liberals" and the "I love wind/solar/tidal because it agitates the conservatives" crowds? (causing both groups to miss the forest for the trees)

Perhaps a better analogy would be if one group was pushing for a car because it went fast (but only had a thin layer of Styrofoam for protection vs the group that was pushing for cars that only went 7 MPH. The former is shortsighted, the latter is pushing for a solution that doesn't remotely match the need.

In summary...for anyone who's serious about addressing the climate issues caused by fossil fuels, nuclear has to be part of the conversation for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, they're just "doing it for the likes". Rejecting nuclear energy is the embodiment of "making better the enemy of perfect"

 

[rturner76]

And of course all that carbon dioxide.

The problem with nuclear power is not the immediate death toll associated with it. It is the inevitable stockpiling of the radio-active waste. It will be there for many thousands of years with a never-ending and impossibly difficult need to keep it secure.

The pollution from fossil fuels is an urgent issue but reparable. The pollution from renewables is pretty well negligible.

I'm not a big fan of nuke energy but if we are careful we can store it in sealed facilities. The immediate problem with nuclear energy is the possibility of meltgown which gets reduced more and more as we obtain new technologies. Some say we could just blast that junk into outer space but what if the spacecraft flounders and contaminates a big section of land. Then there is always the security risks. Renewal is best agreed. It's just that our solar and wind technology is not efficient enough to power a country like the USA with over 300 million people, let alone China with over a billion. Energy is dirty and risky no matter how one collects it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

And not only that, it's safer than 2 of the 3 much less effective (in terms of energy production) "lifeboats" being pushed really hard at the moment in terms of directly related deaths, being responsible for fewer than 200 deaths in the past 50 years

That's not as much a win for nuke as you're purporting it to be. From my position well outside the energy industry, it seems to me that nuclear facilities are regulated far more heavily than wind and solar - nuke plants are treated almost like top secret military facilities (I've been on the highway with a nuclear fuel convoy and it is WILD), whereas craigslist is full of solar installation jobs paying $18-20/hr. So, in spite of orders of magnitude more oversight, nuke still only manages to be as safe as some dudebros who'll climb on your roof for marginally more money than the folks at McDonald's.

, produces an amount of waste in a 100 year time period that could fit in a football stadium (we would be so lucky if the same was true of plastic, we've currently got the "Great Pacific Plastic Patch" floating around in the ocean that's 3 times the land mass of France), yet, the anti-nuclear energy crowd seems to be a lot more concerned about the "what ifs" of nuclear instead of the "what's actually happenings" of plastic.

That's just the fuel and that's assuming we could just leave it in a pile, which we couldn't. That figure doesn't include any of the required containment infrastructure. Replacing fossil fuels would quadruple that number.

The density of the garbage patch is 3.1 particles per cubic yard, with the average particle being described as like a piece of confetti. Let's be generous and make that a 0.25" cube, that would be 0.048 cu inches of material per cubic yard of water. There are 46656 cubic inches in a cubic yard, so that means that the garbage patch is 0.0001038% plastic. If the patch has an estimated surface area of 1.6 million square miles, that would mean that 1.66 square miles of that is actually plastic.

1.66 sq miles is certainly larger than a football field, but it's not three-times-the-size-of-France bigger. And plastic doesn't render the surrounding material unusable for a century.

I'm not even a nuke hater. But downplaying the risks is not a good way to convince me that the proper precautions will be taken if we ramp it up.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's not as much a win for nuke as you're purporting it to be. From my position well outside the energy industry, it seems to me that nuclear facilities are regulated far more heavily than wind and solar - nuke plants are treated almost like top secret military facilities (I've been on the highway with a nuclear fuel convoy and it is WILD), whereas craigslist is full of solar installation jobs paying $18-20/hr. So, in spite of orders of magnitude more oversight, nuke still only manages to be as safe as some dudebros who'll climb on your roof for marginally more money than the folks at McDonald's.

Referring to a one-off solar job on an individual house or shed is very different than solar as a "public utility" or as core city infrastructure.

I doubt the extent of labor that goes into these (the mega solar farms in Germany)

Is the same handful of 18/hour dudebros who can attach some panels to one side of your roof.

Germany has dozens of these massive ones (and tons of smaller ones)

Their combined power generation per year is ~60,000 GWh.

Point of reference:
About 1.5 million photovoltaic systems were installed around the country in 2014, ranging from small rooftop systems, to medium commercial and large utility-scale solar parks.

Solar power accounted for an estimated 8.2 per cent of electricity in Germany in 2019

That's just the fuel and that's assuming we could just leave it in a pile, which we couldn't. That figure doesn't include any of the required containment infrastructure. Replacing fossil fuels would quadruple that number.

The density of the garbage patch is 3.1 particles per cubic yard, with the average particle being described as like a piece of confetti. Let's be generous and make that a 0.25" cube, that would be 0.048 cu inches of material per cubic yard of water. There are 46656 cubic inches in a cubic yard, so that means that the garbage patch is 0.0001038% plastic. If the patch has an estimated surface area of 1.6 million square miles, that would mean that 1.66 square miles of that is actually plastic.

1.66 sq miles is certainly larger than a football field, but it's not three-times-the-size-of-France bigger. And plastic doesn't render the surrounding material unusable for a century.

I'm not even a nuke hater. But downplaying the risks is not a good way to convince me that the proper precautions will be taken if we ramp it up.

You're correct...the size I was referring to was the entire garbage patch itself, not just the plastics...I stand corrected

Obviously, there needs to be good safety practices in place...but the amount of waste itself is negligible.

All of the waste that the U.S. nuclear industry has created since the 1950s takes up relatively little space, and it’s all safely contained. The energy density of nuclear fuel means that nuclear plants produce immense amounts of energy with little byproduct. In fact, the entire amount of waste created in the United States would fill one football field, 10 yards deep. By comparison, a single coal plant generates as much waste by volume in one hour as nuclear power has during its entire history.

Here’s another way to think about it. Imagine you are holding a hockey puck. In that puck is everything you need to power your home, feed you, transport you, power your vacations, produce your clothing and provide heat for your entire life. It also contains all the byproducts and waste you would generate by doing so.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You're correct...the size I was referring to was the entire garbage patch itself, not just the plastics...I stand corrected
View attachment 336049

Obviously, there needs to be good safety practices in place...but the amount of waste itself is negligible.

lol derp, I got my units wrong. According to what you quoted, it's 1.6 million sq km, not sq miles. So, 0.62 sq mi.

...just working this out now because I'm curious...

One football field is 0.002 sq mi., or 1/310 the 0.62 sq mi surface area of a consolidated plastic patch.

If the football field of nuclear waste is 10m deep, then spreading the waste out to an equivalent 0.62 sq mi area would make it 10m/310 thick, or about 0.03m, which is about an inch.

What my numbers never accounted for was how deep in the water column the garbage patch extends - I couldn't find those numbers in 30s, and I don't really care enough to look more. But given the average density of the particles, I wouldn't be surprised if, when condensed, its thickness was in the low single digit inches.

I'm actually surprised the quantities are that close to each other.