Plate tectonics has two driving forces - Slab pull, where a descending slab of cold oceanic lithosphere around 100km thick pulls the rest of the crust along, and 'Ridge Push', where the height difference between a Mid ocean ridge and the equlibrium depth of oceanic crust pushes the crust along. Both of these forces are greater than tides by many orders of magnitude.
Where tides will have the greatest effect is presumably on the shallow angle thrust faults that happen where one place is subducting under another. Tides may affect the timing of a 'quake by a few days/months/years in this case, but they won't change the rate of movement. Triggering a 'quake early will make it *ever so slightly* less intense.
I believe that sugar is a carbohydrate and therefore a hydrocarbon?
No, a Carbohydrate has the generic formula CnH2nOn, wheras a hydrocarbon has the generic formula CnH2n. Furthermore, the conversion between the two is chemically quite challenging.
Anyway, Velikovsky's writings were always entertaining, if not exactly verifiable science.
This is true.. it's just that some people seem to treat them as non-fiction..
Except it wasn't really like that at all... the theory was precipitated hydrocarbons, which would collect on everything like dew.
Actually, he was unclear on this point. For whatever it was to be edible, it would have to be carbohydrates. It appears that Velikovsky didn't understand the difference.
it was just close fly-bys
Which would have been so much more convincing if he had backed it up with an understanding of orbital mechanics.
While many of his theories may seem unbelievable
In his case, 'wild guesses' seems more appropriate. The interesting thing is the extent to which his supporters will shoehorn any astronomical discovery into whatever he said.
other ones like his theory of interplanetary lightning were proven (lightning between Jupiter and Io)
This is a classic example. The flux tube between Jupiter and IO is nothing like 'lightening' and certainly does not have the effect of gouging out great canyons or whatever. Such a phenomina was never declared impossable as far as I know.
It's the WASTE, dumbasses. And the safety; but mostly the waste. Anyone simplifying or discarding the issue as "simple" or not of extreme concern, is simply a tard, unable to rationally discuss the seriousness of this issue.
It is certainly a major issue. There is a set of answers..
First, reprocessing. The plutonium generated has to be recovered and burnt in reactors; this is much easier and safer then burying the stuff, and by definition reduced the amount of uranium mining.
Second, fission products. Luckily, all of these have half-lives of There are also small amounts of other actinides. Those that are unsuitable for inclusion into the batteries mentioned above - because of their long half lives - are certainly safe for burial, by definition.
And of course all of the above is just a stop gap on the way to fusion.
The advantages of algae are that they reproduce themselves and oil is more easily stored. Looks like the combination could be a winner.
This is the issue - wheras electricity can be made by many routes (Nuclear being the cheapest and most practical), fuels for transportation are much harder. Of all the biofuel approaches I've seen, only algal biomass comes close to making a large scale contribution, since it actually considers things like land requirements (deserts, which don't get used for anything much now), and inputs such as nutrients. If you had cheap off-peak nuclear electricity to help with processing and making the inputs, the energy yield would be pretty good as well.
Do you mean there is a zero risk way of doing ANYTHING? Seriously, life involves risks, and therefore every activity involves a risk vs. utility judgement and calculation. Otherwise you'd have to oppose everything.
No, but the problem isn't coal per se, from what I can see, it is the greed and irresponsibility of the power planet owners that cause these deaths.
Coal dosen't have to account for it's externalities. Nuclear does, pretty much uniquely amongst all energy sources considered.
Way to many. Of couse, since it doesn't seem to affect you personally, you continue merrily on in denial.
And you accuse ME of rhetoric? What matters is deaths per kilowatt hour, since that's the only way of comparing options properly.
We have the technology. What we don't have is ethical and responsible leadership.
I agree. The technology is nuclear.
I believe that you can thank all of those who turn their backs on these issues due to the privileges they enjoy.
Environmentalism is itself a luxury; and I believe that those who oppose nuclear power are by definition turning their backs on the solution to most of our environmental problems, as well as the the political problems assocaited with energy dependance.
Go on, justify evil some more. Ignore the suffering of billions. You must be so proud.
What evil am I justifying? Halting global warming? Clearing up the smog? Providing enough energy for everyone to have a decent standard of living? Tell me.
By the way, just to be clear. After much study and thought I have found that there is no perfectly safe, or even acceptably safe method of building nuclear power plants on earth.
There is no completely safe way of doing anything. Do you consider coal power (cf. 1,000,000 deaths per year) acceptably safe? How about personal transportation? How about DIY?
Once you've read through as many studies on operator error in control rooms as I have, then we can talk.
How many people have actually died as a result?
Nuclear Power is Uneconomical
Coal does not have to consider all emissions is its economic calculations. Natural gas and oil are now far more expensive and in short supply. Wind is only cost competitive when other plants are forced to switch off to make way (which is a massive subsidy).
Of the half-trillion dollar cost you cite, how does this work out per kWh?
One example is given here. Output was 75W (30A @2.5V), for a 25kg unit.
So that would only really work if you had a battery electric car - the car would auto-charge whilst stationary. Probably not really an option, for obvious reasons (public paranoia, accident safety).
It is slightly surprising that we don't already use electric cars for short journeys; the only reason they cost more is lack of mass production, and they are cheaper to run. Only problem is the ~100 mile range.
What if Christians are right and man has an imperishable soul?
Then they would have a really hard time explaining things like Altzhiemers, and other neural degenerative diseases.
Otherwise you wouldn't be you after you're dead.
This is in itself a philosophical problem. What is 'you'? You are very much a different person at the age of 10, 20, 30, 40.. and so on. Which version gets to be immortal?
Of course, if the brain was a 'soul interface', then that would imply that 'souls' were entities capable of interacting with the physical world, and hence by definition capable of being studied in their own right.
You have less qualifications than me. And you didn't go to as good a university..
My first degree was in Earth Sciences. If would like to explain to me how you think the earth is young - a precise age and calculations of how you get there would be nice - then go ahead. Somehow I doubt you'll be able to provide a shread of evidence at all..
The really big change is the new flow pattern of the molten rock under the crust, accounting for the vast majority of the mass of the planet
It's not molten. S-Waves propogate through it. Learn some geology.
The friction and pressure of the thick magma against the channels its worn and melted into the crust's underside keeps the skin positioned relative to the rotation of that flowing
Rubbish. Mantle convection rates (through solid creep) are of the same order of velocity as plate tectonics.
The waning, and possible reversal of the magnetic field reflects significant changes in the flows of the molten mass
No, it dosen't.
which might drag the tiny crust (plus oceans and atmosphere, 0.5% of total mass) into a very different rotated position, with the continents/oceans spun around significantly, relative to the constant equator
Never happened before in any of the hundreds of previous reversals. Won't happen this time, either. Feel free to disprive me with detailed calculations of the forces involved and mantle rheology.
Earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves.
Of course. There, there.
Now listen: THIS HAS HAPPENED MANY, MANY TIMES BEFORE. WE CAN SEE IT MANY TIMES IN THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD. THESE EVENTS DO NOT CORRELATE WITH EXTINCTIONS, VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, EARTHQUAKES OR ANY OTHER GEOLOGICAL DISASTERS THAT PEOPLE WANT SO MUCH TO HAPPEN.
I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that, with the exception of a few tons of space probe, we haven't depleted any of the Earth's resources.
If you are talking about Iron.. yes, every bit of Iron used and rusted could in theory be re-used, using energy in one form another. Ditto copper, tin, silicon, gold, etc.
But for energy sources - Oil, Coal and Gas for example - turning the CO2 back into the oil, coal or gas would by definition take more energy than you got in the first place. So these 'Energy' minerals really do get used up, unlike 'traditional' minerals, which merely get changed in concentration.
Well, although there are some environmental drawbacks to hydro power, the reason we don't use it for everything (it is seriously cheap..) is a simple lack of sites. All the best ones are already used.
Not as far as I know. The ice is sitting on bedrock, and that's not going anywhere. I don't think that the hole moves significantly in the course of a year anyway.
That's not strictly true; the ice does move gradually from both internal deformation and movement over the bedrock. The trick is to find a place to drill where the movement is either very slow, or outwards in all directions. Towards the edges of the continent (think Beardmore glacier), your hole would shift appreciably day to day.
Another problem you can get is if you drill into a shear zone in the ice, which scrambles the climatic record.
[Paul Ehrlich] and the Club of Rome (noted favorably above) predicted economic collapse and mass famine in 20 years -- in the 70's.
Paul Ehrlich has been excessively pessamistic. But I think you'd be better off researching what the Club of Rome report actually contained before claiming the above, which is false (if widely repeated). Most of their model runs gave serious problems in the first half of this century.
Economics: If oil were running out, the price would be going up.
Have a look at the graph for the 6-year futures price. Oops. This pricing, which is a bit more stable than the spot price, failed to rise during the 1991 crisis.
The (inflation adjusted) price is still way down.
Well, it hasn't exceeded the worst levels ever, yet. And probably won't for a few years, depending on what happens in Iraq. But there are essentially no new major production projects coming on in the 2007-2010 timeframe, which is when you should look out for more interesting times.
It is my contention that the far "Left" and the far "Right" are both closely related variants of totalitarianism.
That's fair enough, and indeed a comparison of the methods of - for instance - Hitler and Stalin - reveals many similarities. But this does not make the Nazis Socialists, any more than boot camp can be called a commune.
In addition, please do not engage in personal insults. You do not know my knowledge of history, or that I am an ideologue.
You appear to be making the argument 'All totalitarians are socialists' [hence all socialists are totalitarians]; this is a distortion of history for what can only be ideological reasons. Ironicaly, this kind of distortion is a favoured trick of totalitarians of all stripes down the ages; it is something to be taken issue with regardless of political viewpoints.
Firstly, it is highly questionable if the "Left" failed to stop Nazism, or even logically could have, as Nazism was an outgrowth of socialism combined with nationalism.
Then why was the left of the day going off to fight in Spain against the Fascists, who were supported by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy? Both of these were more corpratist/nationalist than socialist - indeed, the socalist elements in the Nazi party discovered just how sincere their leadership was about socalism on the night of the long knives. The Nazi party was funded by the largest german cooporations with the express intention of repressing the german communist party. I strongly suggest that you read your history books without ideological filters on next time.
As far as global warming goes.. you are completely wrong to say that we are 'just coming out of an ice age'. Temperatures peaked around 6000 years ago and had been slowly declining since then. Man made global warming is accepted by the vast majority of scientists, whatever you wish to assert; it is the magnitude that is up for debate.
We are often told that nuclear waste is unavoidable, massively dangerous and has a very long half life. This is not strictly true.
We are quite lucky with fission products, because they all have half lives under 35 years. This site gives an overview of the common ones. Sr-90 and Cs-137 have the longest half lives, at around 30 years. The relatively small amount of genuine waste only needs containing (or recycling into nuclear batteries) for a few hundred years, instead of the tens of thousands usually quoted.
The other products should be recycled back into fuel; without reprocessing, nuclear waste does become a major problem. Breeding of fuel - which reduces the amount of uranium mining and the amount of depleted uranium you end up with - should also be used; this extends the fuel supply to over a hundred years (assuming you use it for everything and grow by 5% per year).
Nuclear plants are easiest and most economic to run on a 24/7 basis. This could be achieved by providing an alternate load, in the form of a methanol plant (or choose your favorite liquid fuel); instead of the hard task of regulating the electric grid by switching electric plants on and off, you just vary the rate of liquid fuel production. The fuel than keeps your SUV on the road. With such a set up, even more variable sources such as wind, solar and hydro could easily be plugged in to make more fuel.
Although it sounds fine, it really is a problem for the power companies; retail rates not only include generation costs, but the huge effort that goes on in transmission and load balancing. To be realistic, this sort of metering should be generation costs only.
This part of the precambrian was previously known as the Vendian period. (Ok, the link does give an alternate name, but this news is at least a decade old).
Maybe it's just me, but I rate the functionality of an idea far more highly than its peer acceptance rate.
It is just you. Personally, I look for theories that are consistent with the evidence.
I call bullshit. That's how you get fired, or at least get a black mark on your research record which cripples your career.
I call prove it.
The vast majority of true pioneers, willing to avidly and openly explore genuinely revolutionary ideas, get pilloried for years, sometimes decades, and many die scorned only to have people come around to an understanding of what they were doing long after they're safely buried.
Nice use of the old False Dichotomy argument there. Apparently Newtonian gravity, the Periodic table, quantum physics, etc, etc. were not revolutions(!), but the discovery of a glacial lake dam burst was. Hmmm.
Geology is an especially good subject for this, swince although people have been studying geology in general (or gathering evidence), the basic framework was not really put in place until the 1970s with the development of plate tectonics. Accurate radiometric dating, micropalentology, stable isotope analysis and many other techniques are also pretty recent - yet often essential in proving or disproving old theories. In turn this means that old educated guesses can be proven or disproven. To point that out and then whine on about heresey is, quite frankly, just silly.
It's a brave and stubborn scientist who candidly investigates truly novel theories.
It's also a very brave scientist/person who can turn around and say 'I was wrong' when the evidence disproves their pet theory. Could you do that?
Have you considered the vast economic disruption that would be caused by stopping all CO2 emissions instantly?
Ironically, the biggest single change - moving to an all-Nuclear electric grid with off-peak electricity used to make some liquid fuel (Methanol being my preference) would actually lead to cheaper and more reliable electricity, as well as slashing CO2 emissions.
Of course, suggesting a technically feasable and affordable solution that requires no major lifestyle changes, eliminates acute pollutants (SO2, soot, noise) and has a lifetime >500 years will obviously getyou shouted down by everyone and their kid brother...
Slashdot Mirror
Plate tectonics has two driving forces - Slab pull, where a descending slab of cold oceanic lithosphere around 100km thick pulls the rest of the crust along, and 'Ridge Push', where the height difference between a Mid ocean ridge and the equlibrium depth of oceanic crust pushes the crust along. Both of these forces are greater than tides by many orders of magnitude.
Where tides will have the greatest effect is presumably on the shallow angle thrust faults that happen where one place is subducting under another. Tides may affect the timing of a 'quake by a few days/months/years in this case, but they won't change the rate of movement. Triggering a 'quake early will make it *ever so slightly* less intense.
I believe that sugar is a carbohydrate and therefore a hydrocarbon?
No, a Carbohydrate has the generic formula CnH2nOn, wheras a hydrocarbon has the generic formula CnH2n. Furthermore, the conversion between the two is chemically quite challenging.
Anyway, Velikovsky's writings were always entertaining, if not exactly verifiable science.
This is true.. it's just that some people seem to treat them as non-fiction..
Except it wasn't really like that at all... the theory was precipitated hydrocarbons, which would collect on everything like dew.
Actually, he was unclear on this point. For whatever it was to be edible, it would have to be carbohydrates. It appears that Velikovsky didn't understand the difference.
it was just close fly-bys
Which would have been so much more convincing if he had backed it up with an understanding of orbital mechanics.
While many of his theories may seem unbelievable
In his case, 'wild guesses' seems more appropriate. The interesting thing is the extent to which his supporters will shoehorn any astronomical discovery into whatever he said.
other ones like his theory of interplanetary lightning were proven (lightning between Jupiter and Io)
This is a classic example. The flux tube between Jupiter and IO is nothing like 'lightening' and certainly does not have the effect of gouging out great canyons or whatever. Such a phenomina was never declared impossable as far as I know.
It's the WASTE, dumbasses. And the safety; but mostly the waste. Anyone simplifying or discarding the issue as "simple" or not of extreme concern, is simply a tard, unable to rationally discuss the seriousness of this issue.
It is certainly a major issue. There is a set of answers..
First, reprocessing. The plutonium generated has to be recovered and burnt in reactors; this is much easier and safer then burying the stuff, and by definition reduced the amount of uranium mining.
Second, fission products. Luckily, all of these have half-lives of There are also small amounts of other actinides. Those that are unsuitable for inclusion into the batteries mentioned above - because of their long half lives - are certainly safe for burial, by definition.
And of course all of the above is just a stop gap on the way to fusion.
The advantages of algae are that they reproduce themselves and oil is more easily stored. Looks like the combination could be a winner.
This is the issue - wheras electricity can be made by many routes (Nuclear being the cheapest and most practical), fuels for transportation are much harder. Of all the biofuel approaches I've seen, only algal biomass comes close to making a large scale contribution, since it actually considers things like land requirements (deserts, which don't get used for anything much now), and inputs such as nutrients. If you had cheap off-peak nuclear electricity to help with processing and making the inputs, the energy yield would be pretty good as well.
Untrue rhethoric
Do you mean there is a zero risk way of doing ANYTHING? Seriously, life involves risks, and therefore every activity involves a risk vs. utility judgement and calculation. Otherwise you'd have to oppose everything.
No, but the problem isn't coal per se, from what I can see, it is the greed and irresponsibility of the power planet owners that cause these deaths.
Coal dosen't have to account for it's externalities. Nuclear does, pretty much uniquely amongst all energy sources considered.
Way to many. Of couse, since it doesn't seem to affect you personally, you continue merrily on in denial.
And you accuse ME of rhetoric? What matters is deaths per kilowatt hour, since that's the only way of comparing options properly.
We have the technology. What we don't have is ethical and responsible leadership.
I agree. The technology is nuclear.
I believe that you can thank all of those who turn their backs on these issues due to the privileges they enjoy.
Environmentalism is itself a luxury; and I believe that those who oppose nuclear power are by definition turning their backs on the solution to most of our environmental problems, as well as the the political problems assocaited with energy dependance.
Go on, justify evil some more. Ignore the suffering of billions. You must be so proud.
What evil am I justifying? Halting global warming? Clearing up the smog? Providing enough energy for everyone to have a decent standard of living? Tell me.
By the way, just to be clear. After much study and thought I have found that there is no perfectly safe, or even acceptably safe method of building nuclear power plants on earth.
There is no completely safe way of doing anything. Do you consider coal power (cf. 1,000,000 deaths per year) acceptably safe? How about personal transportation? How about DIY?
Once you've read through as many studies on operator error in control rooms as I have, then we can talk.
How many people have actually died as a result?
Nuclear Power is Uneconomical
Coal does not have to consider all emissions is its economic calculations. Natural gas and oil are now far more expensive and in short supply. Wind is only cost competitive when other plants are forced to switch off to make way (which is a massive subsidy).
Of the half-trillion dollar cost you cite, how does this work out per kWh?
One example is given here. Output was 75W (30A @2.5V), for a 25kg unit.
So that would only really work if you had a battery electric car - the car would auto-charge whilst stationary. Probably not really an option, for obvious reasons (public paranoia, accident safety).
It is slightly surprising that we don't already use electric cars for short journeys; the only reason they cost more is lack of mass production, and they are cheaper to run. Only problem is the ~100 mile range.
What if Christians are right and man has an imperishable soul?
Then they would have a really hard time explaining things like Altzhiemers, and other neural degenerative diseases.
Otherwise you wouldn't be you after you're dead.
This is in itself a philosophical problem. What is 'you'? You are very much a different person at the age of 10, 20, 30, 40.. and so on. Which version gets to be immortal?
Of course, if the brain was a 'soul interface', then that would imply that 'souls' were entities capable of interacting with the physical world, and hence by definition capable of being studied in their own right.
all this rambling just means that
You have less qualifications than me. And you didn't go to as good a university..
My first degree was in Earth Sciences. If would like to explain to me how you think the earth is young - a precise age and calculations of how you get there would be nice - then go ahead. Somehow I doubt you'll be able to provide a shread of evidence at all..
The really big change is the new flow pattern of the molten rock under the crust, accounting for the vast majority of the mass of the planet
It's not molten. S-Waves propogate through it. Learn some geology.
The friction and pressure of the thick magma against the channels its worn and melted into the crust's underside keeps the skin positioned relative to the rotation of that flowing
Rubbish. Mantle convection rates (through solid creep) are of the same order of velocity as plate tectonics.
The waning, and possible reversal of the magnetic field reflects significant changes in the flows of the molten mass
No, it dosen't.
which might drag the tiny crust (plus oceans and atmosphere, 0.5% of total mass) into a very different rotated position, with the continents/oceans spun around significantly, relative to the constant equator
Never happened before in any of the hundreds of previous reversals. Won't happen this time, either. Feel free to disprive me with detailed calculations of the forces involved and mantle rheology.
Earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves.
Of course. There, there.
Now listen: THIS HAS HAPPENED MANY, MANY TIMES BEFORE. WE CAN SEE IT MANY TIMES IN THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD. THESE EVENTS DO NOT CORRELATE WITH EXTINCTIONS, VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, EARTHQUAKES OR ANY OTHER GEOLOGICAL DISASTERS THAT PEOPLE WANT SO MUCH TO HAPPEN.
Perhaps more like: float oiluse = 1.0; float economy, population = 1.0, standardofliving; float technology = 1.0; try { for(ever) { oiluse = oiluse*1.05; technology = technology*1.05; economy = oiluse*technology; population = population*1.05; standardofliving = economy/population; } } catch(OilRunOutException) { population = 0; }
I'm not too optimistic about coal bed methane until gas prices increase substantially.
Actually, CBM already accounts for 8% of US natural gas production (and this increase came before the price run-up of the last 3 years).
Gas Hydrates, on the other hand, have the problem that they don't appear to actually exist in any usable form, which is a problem.
I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that, with the exception of a few tons of space probe, we haven't depleted any of the Earth's resources.
If you are talking about Iron.. yes, every bit of Iron used and rusted could in theory be re-used, using energy in one form another. Ditto copper, tin, silicon, gold, etc.
But for energy sources - Oil, Coal and Gas for example - turning the CO2 back into the oil, coal or gas would by definition take more energy than you got in the first place. So these 'Energy' minerals really do get used up, unlike 'traditional' minerals, which merely get changed in concentration.
Well, although there are some environmental drawbacks to hydro power, the reason we don't use it for everything (it is seriously cheap..) is a simple lack of sites. All the best ones are already used.
Speaking from the UK.. this is true, and it means that the Norwegans got all of our pollution at no extra charge.
Not as far as I know. The ice is sitting on bedrock, and that's not going anywhere. I don't think that the hole moves significantly in the course of a year anyway.
That's not strictly true; the ice does move gradually from both internal deformation and movement over the bedrock. The trick is to find a place to drill where the movement is either very slow, or outwards in all directions. Towards the edges of the continent (think Beardmore glacier), your hole would shift appreciably day to day.
Another problem you can get is if you drill into a shear zone in the ice, which scrambles the climatic record.
Hey, wow, learn some jistory and economics
Good idea. Go to it.
[Paul Ehrlich] and the Club of Rome (noted favorably above) predicted economic collapse and mass famine in 20 years -- in the 70's.
Paul Ehrlich has been excessively pessamistic. But I think you'd be better off researching what the Club of Rome report actually contained before claiming the above, which is false (if widely repeated). Most of their model runs gave serious problems in the first half of this century.
Economics: If oil were running out, the price would be going up.
Have a look at the graph for the 6-year futures price. Oops. This pricing, which is a bit more stable than the spot price, failed to rise during the 1991 crisis.
The (inflation adjusted) price is still way down.
Well, it hasn't exceeded the worst levels ever, yet. And probably won't for a few years, depending on what happens in Iraq. But there are essentially no new major production projects coming on in the 2007-2010 timeframe, which is when you should look out for more interesting times.
It is my contention that the far "Left" and the far "Right" are both closely related variants of totalitarianism.
That's fair enough, and indeed a comparison of the methods of - for instance - Hitler and Stalin - reveals many similarities. But this does not make the Nazis Socialists, any more than boot camp can be called a commune.
In addition, please do not engage in personal insults. You do not know my knowledge of history, or that I am an ideologue.
You appear to be making the argument 'All totalitarians are socialists' [hence all socialists are totalitarians]; this is a distortion of history for what can only be ideological reasons. Ironicaly, this kind of distortion is a favoured trick of totalitarians of all stripes down the ages; it is something to be taken issue with regardless of political viewpoints.
Firstly, it is highly questionable if the "Left" failed to stop Nazism, or even logically could have, as Nazism was an outgrowth of socialism combined with nationalism.
Then why was the left of the day going off to fight in Spain against the Fascists, who were supported by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy? Both of these were more corpratist/nationalist than socialist - indeed, the socalist elements in the Nazi party discovered just how sincere their leadership was about socalism on the night of the long knives. The Nazi party was funded by the largest german cooporations with the express intention of repressing the german communist party. I strongly suggest that you read your history books without ideological filters on next time.
As far as global warming goes.. you are completely wrong to say that we are 'just coming out of an ice age'. Temperatures peaked around 6000 years ago and had been slowly declining since then. Man made global warming is accepted by the vast majority of scientists, whatever you wish to assert; it is the magnitude that is up for debate.
We are often told that nuclear waste is unavoidable, massively dangerous and has a very long half life. This is not strictly true.
We are quite lucky with fission products, because they all have half lives under 35 years. This site gives an overview of the common ones. Sr-90 and Cs-137 have the longest half lives, at around 30 years. The relatively small amount of genuine waste only needs containing (or recycling into nuclear batteries) for a few hundred years, instead of the tens of thousands usually quoted.
The other products should be recycled back into fuel; without reprocessing, nuclear waste does become a major problem. Breeding of fuel - which reduces the amount of uranium mining and the amount of depleted uranium you end up with - should also be used; this extends the fuel supply to over a hundred years (assuming you use it for everything and grow by 5% per year).
Nuclear plants are easiest and most economic to run on a 24/7 basis. This could be achieved by providing an alternate load, in the form of a methanol plant (or choose your favorite liquid fuel); instead of the hard task of regulating the electric grid by switching electric plants on and off, you just vary the rate of liquid fuel production. The fuel than keeps your SUV on the road. With such a set up, even more variable sources such as wind, solar and hydro could easily be plugged in to make more fuel.
Although it sounds fine, it really is a problem for the power companies; retail rates not only include generation costs, but the huge effort that goes on in transmission and load balancing. To be realistic, this sort of metering should be generation costs only.
This part of the precambrian was previously known as the Vendian period. (Ok, the link does give an alternate name, but this news is at least a decade old).
Maybe it's just me, but I rate the functionality of an idea far more highly than its peer acceptance rate.
It is just you. Personally, I look for theories that are consistent with the evidence.
I call bullshit. That's how you get fired, or at least get a black mark on your research record which cripples your career.
I call prove it.
The vast majority of true pioneers, willing to avidly and openly explore genuinely revolutionary ideas, get pilloried for years, sometimes decades, and many die scorned only to have people come around to an understanding of what they were doing long after they're safely buried.
Nice use of the old False Dichotomy argument there. Apparently Newtonian gravity, the Periodic table, quantum physics, etc, etc. were not revolutions(!), but the discovery of a glacial lake dam burst was. Hmmm.
Geology is an especially good subject for this, swince although people have been studying geology in general (or gathering evidence), the basic framework was not really put in place until the 1970s with the development of plate tectonics. Accurate radiometric dating, micropalentology, stable isotope analysis and many other techniques are also pretty recent - yet often essential in proving or disproving old theories. In turn this means that old educated guesses can be proven or disproven. To point that out and then whine on about heresey is, quite frankly, just silly.
It's a brave and stubborn scientist who candidly investigates truly novel theories.
It's also a very brave scientist/person who can turn around and say 'I was wrong' when the evidence disproves their pet theory. Could you do that?
Have you considered the vast economic disruption that would be caused by stopping all CO2 emissions instantly?
Ironically, the biggest single change - moving to an all-Nuclear electric grid with off-peak electricity used to make some liquid fuel (Methanol being my preference) would actually lead to cheaper and more reliable electricity, as well as slashing CO2 emissions.
Of course, suggesting a technically feasable and affordable solution that requires no major lifestyle changes, eliminates acute pollutants (SO2, soot, noise) and has a lifetime >500 years will obviously getyou shouted down by everyone and their kid brother...