Keystone Pipeline

[Derec]

This oil comes from bitumen...a solid that is scooped out of the ground, taken to a special extraction unit that uses steam and heat and chemicals to extract the liquid out of the bitumen.

Like it or not, there isn't enough light sweet crude to cover worldwide oil demand. Even in Saudi Arabia new production coming online is increasingly heavy and/or sour.

This oil is the dirtiest, most heavy metal laden oil and it already has the carbon footprint of extraction with it.

All oil production has some "carbon footprint of extraction" associated with it. But the large majority of the total carbon emissions come from the burning of the final fuel. And there is makes no difference if the gallon of gasoline or diesel you put in your tank came from Alberta, Venezuela, Texas or Saudi Arabia.

As to heavy metals, other sources of oil suffer from a similar problem. Do you have any source that states that Canadian oil sands have a significantly bigger metal problem than other sources of heavy oil (including Venezuelan oil sands and regular Venezuelan heavy oil which are direct competitors to Athabasca oil sands).

This is heated to help it flow and loaded into a pipeline (XL). The Trans-Canada people want to get this oil to the gulf for worldwide marketing. It may or may not be processed at the Gulf terminus of the pipeline, but it is intended for further travel...in supertankers.

It is primarily intended to be processed in Gulf refineries and further transported by product pipelines to US consumers, especially here in the South East. As such it will reduce or eliminate the amount of oil that would have to be imported (by tanker) from Venezuela. Now, if there is spare refinery capacity additional oil can be imported from Venezuela, processed and exported as value added refined products. But the primary purpose is to supply the domestic market. What would be wrong with exporting any surplus though?

The current price drop in oil is actually Saudi attempt to keep this type of operation from being economically competitive with them.

If that is their aim it will backfire.

People keep forgetting we have already passed world wide 400ppb CO2.

I do not know if CO₂ level was ever as low as 400 ppb. Surely you mean ppm.

Our atmosphere does not have the room for this crap! In terms of carbon....Saudi, Canadian, American, Chinese....climate change does not discriminate and treat any of these carbons any differently. Climate change is not ideological.

Then why should politics discriminate against certain sources of CO₂? Why should Obama continue to block the Keystone Pipeline (he has been dragging his feet on this since he became president!) and even veto congressional bill just for Canadian oil sands to be transported by rail or for us to have to import more Venezuelan heavy oil?
Speaking of transporting oil by rail: Train Derailment Sends Flaming Tanker Into River

 

[OLDMAN]

Yeah, this is nothing compared to coal fired electric plants in China and the US. There are plenty of rivers that could be damned. If you want to solve the problem of co2 from autos, you have to pass a law requiring all autos to be electric, by say 2045? That's a number I just pulled out of my ass by the way.

 

[arkirk]

Like it or not, there isn't enough light sweet crude to cover worldwide oil demand. Even in Saudi Arabia new production coming online is increasingly heavy and/or sour.

This oil is the dirtiest, most heavy metal laden oil and it already has the carbon footprint of extraction with it.

All oil production has some "carbon footprint of extraction" associated with it. But the large majority of the total carbon emissions come from the burning of the final fuel. And there is makes no difference if the gallon of gasoline or diesel you put in your tank came from Alberta, Venezuela, Texas or Saudi Arabia.

As to heavy metals, other sources of oil suffer from a similar problem. Do you have any source that states that Canadian oil sands have a significantly bigger metal problem than other sources of heavy oil (including Venezuelan oil sands and regular Venezuelan heavy oil which are direct competitors to Athabasca oil sands).

This is heated to help it flow and loaded into a pipeline (XL). The Trans-Canada people want to get this oil to the gulf for worldwide marketing. It may or may not be processed at the Gulf terminus of the pipeline, but it is intended for further travel...in supertankers.

It is primarily intended to be processed in Gulf refineries and further transported by product pipelines to US consumers, especially here in the South East. As such it will reduce or eliminate the amount of oil that would have to be imported (by tanker) from Venezuela. Now, if there is spare refinery capacity additional oil can be imported from Venezuela, processed and exported as value added refined products. But the primary purpose is to supply the domestic market. What would be wrong with exporting any surplus though?

The current price drop in oil is actually Saudi attempt to keep this type of operation from being economically competitive with them.

If that is their aim it will backfire.

People keep forgetting we have already passed world wide 400ppb CO2.

I do not know if CO₂ level was ever as low as 400 ppb. Surely you mean ppm.

Our atmosphere does not have the room for this crap! In terms of carbon....Saudi, Canadian, American, Chinese....climate change does not discriminate and treat any of these carbons any differently. Climate change is not ideological.

Then why should politics discriminate against certain sources of CO₂? Why should Obama continue to block the Keystone Pipeline (he has been dragging his feet on this since he became president!) and even veto congressional bill just for Canadian oil sands to be transported by rail or for us to have to import more Venezuelan heavy oil?
Speaking of transporting oil by rail: Train Derailment Sends Flaming Tanker Into River

Derec: It's 400ppm you get 5 points for catching the old man in a slip.
The oil in Canada's tar sands should stay there, safely out of the atmosphere, out of our water, and out of our economy.
Other sources of oil do not have the same processing requirements and the heavy metals in tar sands oils are far greater than in the dirtiest conventional oils, such as Venezuelan crude.
I agree this oil should not be shipped on trains. It should stay in the ground.
The forests should remain and the oil should stay out of our supply.
The U.S. does not need this oil. It is intended for export from America.
The Saudis are keeping their oil cheap for the reasons mentioned in my post and it is having the effect they calculated....increased production of SUV's.
A little picture for you:

 

[bilby]

A little picture for you:View attachment 2312

Do you honestly believe that people are under the impression that mining is pretty? Or that its ugliness is in itself a cause for alarm?

 

[Axulus]

arkirk, how do you explain this?

Based on reading your posts, it seems like the kind of society you envision

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, this is nothing compared to coal fired electric plants in China and the US. There are plenty of rivers that could be damned. If you want to solve the problem of co2 from autos, you have to pass a law requiring all autos to be electric, by say 2045? That's a number I just pulled out of my ass by the way.

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

 

[Derec]

Derec: It's 400ppm you get 5 points for catching the old man in a slip.

I'd rather take the 500 points for exposing other flaws in your arguments.

The oil in Canada's tar sands should stay there, safely out of the atmosphere, out of our water, and out of our economy.

Impossible for water. In areas where oil sand deposits are shallow enough to mine they are also shallow enough for rivers (like Athabasca River) to cut right through them leeching hydrocarbons, metals etc. into the water without human intervention.

And do you also think that all coal needs to stay in the ground as well? Because coal is much dirtier than oil sands and open pit mines are no prettier.

Other sources of oil do not have the same processing requirements and the heavy metals in tar sands oils are far greater than in the dirtiest conventional oils, such as Venezuelan crude.

First of all, you have yet to provide the citation concerning relative heavy metal content of Athabasca oil sands vs. other sources of oil.
Second, most of Venezuelan oil reserves is in the form of oil sands. When people talk about Venezuela having biggest oil reserves in the world, they are including Orinoco Belt oil sands. Venezuelan conventional (albeit still heavy) reserves are "only" about 60 MMbbl.

I agree this oil should not be shipped on trains. It should stay in the ground.

I disagree.

The forests should remain and the oil should stay out of our supply.

Only a small percentage of the Boreal forest will be disturbed by the oil sands. Only a minority of the area is minable and in situ process has a much smaller footprint. Lastly, oil sand developers are required by law to restore the areas they disturbed when they are done.
Oil Sands Reclamation

The U.S. does not need this oil. It is intended for export from America.

Despite the shale revolution US still imports a lot of our oil - 9 MMbbl/day. Oil sands from Keystone will (partly) displace imports from Venezuela etc. They will not (in the main) be exported.

The Saudis are keeping their oil cheap for the reasons mentioned in my post and it is having the effect they calculated....increased production of SUV's.

Saudis are probably more concerned about screwing Russia and Iran right now than to worry about American SUVs. Certainly selling 8 MMbbl/day at $80-100 USD/bbl is more lucrative than selling 10 MMbbl/day at $45-65 USD/bbl and has the added benefit that it lessens the intensity of oil production. No, current KSA oil policy is driven by politics, not economics.

A little picture for you

Yes, there is no thread on the Keystone XL pipeline that somebody doesn't post that photo. As if open pit mines are ever pretty be they for coal or copper.

Never mind also that most of oil sands deposits are not minable but are produced "in situ" with a much smaller footprint or that oil sands developments must be reclaimed.

See, others can post photos too.

 

[arkirk]

arkirk, how do you explain this?

Based on reading your posts, it seems like the kind of society you envision

Is this how YOU would be without oil? This cartoon demonstrates YOUR vision for our ultimate future. In case you hadn't noticed, the management of information is becoming less and less energy intense. You pretend to have faith in man's ingenuity, but faced with a genuine environmental problem, you retreat into your own version of the stone age. We need to advance in our science and technology and also our social organization....things you are unalterably opposed to...just stick with coal and oil and the kind of modern the model T gave us....for Ford's sake, stop dragging your feet and get with the program!

 

[arkirk]

I'd rather take the 500 points for exposing other flaws in your arguments.

The oil in Canada's tar sands should stay there, safely out of the atmosphere, out of our water, and out of our economy.

Impossible for water. In areas where oil sand deposits are shallow enough to mine they are also shallow enough for rivers (like Athabasca River) to cut right through them leeching hydrocarbons, metals etc. into the water without human intervention.

And do you also think that all coal needs to stay in the ground as well? Because coal is much dirtier than oil sands and open pit mines are no prettier.

Other sources of oil do not have the same processing requirements and the heavy metals in tar sands oils are far greater than in the dirtiest conventional oils, such as Venezuelan crude.

First of all, you have yet to provide the citation concerning relative heavy metal content of Athabasca oil sands vs. other sources of oil.
Second, most of Venezuelan oil reserves is in the form of oil sands. When people talk about Venezuela having biggest oil reserves in the world, they are including Orinoco Belt oil sands. Venezuelan conventional (albeit still heavy) reserves are "only" about 60 MMbbl.

I agree this oil should not be shipped on trains. It should stay in the ground.

I disagree.

The forests should remain and the oil should stay out of our supply.

Only a small percentage of the Boreal forest will be disturbed by the oil sands. Only a minority of the area is minable and in situ process has a much smaller footprint. Lastly, oil sand developers are required by law to restore the areas they disturbed when they are done.
Oil Sands Reclamation

The U.S. does not need this oil. It is intended for export from America.

Despite the shale revolution US still imports a lot of our oil - 9 MMbbl/day. Oil sands from Keystone will (partly) displace imports from Venezuela etc. They will not (in the main) be exported.

The Saudis are keeping their oil cheap for the reasons mentioned in my post and it is having the effect they calculated....increased production of SUV's.

Saudis are probably more concerned about screwing Russia and Iran right now than to worry about American SUVs. Certainly selling 8 MMbbl/day at $80-100 USD/bbl is more lucrative than selling 10 MMbbl/day at $45-65 USD/bbl and has the added benefit that it lessens the intensity of oil production. No, current KSA oil policy is driven by politics, not economics.

A little picture for you

Yes, there is no thread on the Keystone XL pipeline that somebody doesn't post that photo. As if open pit mines are ever pretty be they for coal or copper.

Never mind also that most of oil sands deposits are not minable but are produced "in situ" with a much smaller footprint or that oil sands developments must be reclaimed.

See, others can post photos too.

So your idea is that the only way we can live is to hack up the surface of the earth, pollute our AIR and WATER and then go back and TRY TO RECLAIM THE LAND from the pollution? You treat natural ecosystems like they are something we can remove and replace at will. You do not recognize the reality of ecological services over which we have little control at all. You refuse to recognize the progressive pollution of our industrial society and the many natural cycles we are interrupting with our voracious appetite for sub surface minerals.

You fail to realize that when we move petroleum and heavy metals to the surface, it interferes with the biotic potential of the surface of the earth, with oligodynamic poisoning. You demonstrate a primative lack of comprehension of the significance of our pollution of OUR ENVIRONMENT. Strip mines are actually very difficult andalmost impossible to reclaim. How do you deal with 130 sq. mi. of petrochemical sludge ponds? Your thinking about the environment is narrow and the product of an inadequate education.

 

[arkirk]

Yeah, this is nothing compared to coal fired electric plants in China and the US. There are plenty of rivers that could be damned. If you want to solve the problem of co2 from autos, you have to pass a law requiring all autos to be electric, by say 2045? That's a number I just pulled out of my ass by the way.

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

Is it any better if they spawn in oil and heavy metal polluted rivers? Not really. I do agree that things are already pretty heavily dammed. Actually in our state, some dams are being REMOVED. Dams trap solids in river flows and this destroys things like river deltas, beaches, coastal wetlands, etc. Just the same, Oldman's ideas at least don't involve more petrochemical and I assume nuclear pollution that are a byproduct of YOUR THINKING.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

arkirk, how do you explain this?

Based on reading your posts, it seems like the kind of society you envision

Is this how YOU would be without oil? This cartoon demonstrates YOUR vision for our ultimate future. In case you hadn't noticed, the management of information is becoming less and less energy intense. You pretend to have faith in man's ingenuity, but faced with a genuine environmental problem, you retreat into your own version of the stone age. We need to advance in our science and technology and also our social organization....things you are unalterably opposed to...just stick with coal and oil and the kind of modern the model T gave us....for Ford's sake, stop dragging your feet and get with the program!

You have an impossible vision of the future. The reality of what you envision is the cartoon.

- - - Updated - - -

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

Is it any better if they spawn in oil and heavy metal polluted rivers? Not really. I do agree that things are already pretty heavily dammed. Actually in our state, some dams are being REMOVED. Dams trap solids in river flows and this destroys things like river deltas, beaches, coastal wetlands, etc. Just the same, Oldman's ideas at least don't involve more petrochemical and I assume nuclear pollution that are a byproduct of YOUR THINKING.

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

 

[NobleSavage]

Is this how YOU would be without oil? This cartoon demonstrates YOUR vision for our ultimate future. In case you hadn't noticed, the management of information is becoming less and less energy intense. You pretend to have faith in man's ingenuity, but faced with a genuine environmental problem, you retreat into your own version of the stone age. We need to advance in our science and technology and also our social organization....things you are unalterably opposed to...just stick with coal and oil and the kind of modern the model T gave us....for Ford's sake, stop dragging your feet and get with the program!

You have an impossible vision of the future. The reality of what you envision is the cartoon.

- - - Updated - - -

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

Is it any better if they spawn in oil and heavy metal polluted rivers? Not really. I do agree that things are already pretty heavily dammed. Actually in our state, some dams are being REMOVED. Dams trap solids in river flows and this destroys things like river deltas, beaches, coastal wetlands, etc. Just the same, Oldman's ideas at least don't involve more petrochemical and I assume nuclear pollution that are a byproduct of YOUR THINKING.

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

^^^ I haven't seen the numbers, but I have a feeling more people break their neck installing solar panels than get hurt from nuclear power. How about this Arkirk: One massive container ship equals 50 million cars worth of pollution. Nuclear powered ships are safe. If all the container ships switch to nukes, just think of all the flowers and butterflies we could save.

 

[bilby]

You have an impossible vision of the future. The reality of what you envision is the cartoon.

- - - Updated - - -

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

Is it any better if they spawn in oil and heavy metal polluted rivers? Not really. I do agree that things are already pretty heavily dammed. Actually in our state, some dams are being REMOVED. Dams trap solids in river flows and this destroys things like river deltas, beaches, coastal wetlands, etc. Just the same, Oldman's ideas at least don't involve more petrochemical and I assume nuclear pollution that are a byproduct of YOUR THINKING.

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

^^^ I haven't seen the numbers, but I have a feeling more people break their neck installing solar panels than get hurt from nuclear power. How about this Arkirk: One massive container ship equals 50 million cars worth of pollution. Nuclear powered ships are safe. If all the container ships switch to nukes, just think of all the flowers and butterflies we could save.

Rooftop solar leads to about 0.44 fatalities per TWh generated; For nuclear power the figure is 0.04 - so there are 11 deaths from rooftop solar for every death from nuclear. (Source)

Electricity generated from coal kills about 60 people per TWh worldwide, although a lot of those deaths are due to low safety standards in places like China, where mine safety is poor. In the US, coal 'only' kills about 15 people per TWh of electricity generated - so it is only two or three orders of magnitude more deadly than nuclear power, and only one or two orders of magnitude more deadly than rooftop solar.

 

[Axulus]

You have an impossible vision of the future. The reality of what you envision is the cartoon.

- - - Updated - - -

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

Is it any better if they spawn in oil and heavy metal polluted rivers? Not really. I do agree that things are already pretty heavily dammed. Actually in our state, some dams are being REMOVED. Dams trap solids in river flows and this destroys things like river deltas, beaches, coastal wetlands, etc. Just the same, Oldman's ideas at least don't involve more petrochemical and I assume nuclear pollution that are a byproduct of YOUR THINKING.

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

^^^ I haven't seen the numbers, but I have a feeling more people break their neck installing solar panels than get hurt from nuclear power. How about this Arkirk: One massive container ship equals 50 million cars worth of pollution. Nuclear powered ships are safe. If all the container ships switch to nukes, just think of all the flowers and butterflies we could save.

Rooftop solar leads to about 0.44 fatalities per TWh generated; For nuclear power the figure is 0.04 - so there are 11 deaths from rooftop solar for every death from nuclear. (Source)

Electricity generated from coal kills about 60 people per TWh worldwide, although a lot of those deaths are due to low safety standards in places like China, where mine safety is poor. In the US, coal 'only' kills about 15 people per TWh of electricity generated - so it is only two or three orders of magnitude more deadly than nuclear power, and only one or two orders of magnitude more deadly than rooftop solar.

Yes, but how many flowers and butterflies were killed in Fukusihma? Won't someone think of the flowers and the butterflies?

 

[laughing dog]

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

There is Chernobyl.

 

[bilby]

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

There is Chernobyl.

Ah, yes, we mustn't forget the lessons of Chernobyl, which are 'never allow the Soviet Union to design and operate nuclear reactors'; and 'Hey look, the effects of a massive leak are nothing like as bad as Greenpeace said they would be'.

The health effects across Europe from Chernobyl are serious; but they are still far less than the health effects across Europe from burning coal. Nuclear power isn't 100% safe, but it shouldn't need to be - it is far safer than the main alternative, which should be all that matters. That it isn't all that matters is proof only that propaganda is very effective, and that humans are not well equipped to judge risk.

 

[Axulus]

There is Chernobyl.

Ah, yes, we mustn't forget the lessons of Chernobyl, which are 'never allow the Soviet Union to design and operate nuclear reactors'; and 'Hey look, the effects of a massive leak are nothing like as bad as Greenpeace said they would be'.

The health effects across Europe from Chernobyl are serious; but they are still far less than the health effects across Europe from burning coal. Nuclear power isn't 100% safe, but it shouldn't need to be - it is far safer than the main alternative, which should be all that matters. That it isn't all that matters is proof only that propaganda is very effective, and that humans are not well equipped to judge risk.

A big part of the problem seems to be people are far more fearful of single events that have large impact vs. many small events that have a much larger impact. One passenger plane crashing and killing 200 people in a single event is far more scary than 20,000 head-on car crashes that kill 2,000 people, but only an average of .2 per incident. Another part of the problem is dying from something that one has no experience with. People dying from respiratory problems is nothing all that out of the ordinary, one can understand the experience to some extent and may know people who have gone through it. However, almost no one knows anyone who as died or been injured from radiation poisoning. Gruesome pictures of flesh damaged by radiation are very scary.

 

[laughing dog]

There is Chernobyl.

Ah, yes, we mustn't forget the lessons of Chernobyl, which are 'never allow the Soviet Union to design and operate nuclear reactors'; and 'Hey look, the effects of a massive leak are nothing like as bad as Greenpeace said they would be'.

The health effects across Europe from Chernobyl are serious; but they are still far less than the health effects across Europe from burning coal. Nuclear power isn't 100% safe, but it shouldn't need to be - it is far safer than the main alternative, which should be all that matters. That it isn't all that matters is proof only that propaganda is very effective, and that humans are not well equipped to judge risk.

One would think that the proper disposal of the spent uranium matters as well. That omission does buttress your point that propaganda is very effective.

 

[Axulus]

Ah, yes, we mustn't forget the lessons of Chernobyl, which are 'never allow the Soviet Union to design and operate nuclear reactors'; and 'Hey look, the effects of a massive leak are nothing like as bad as Greenpeace said they would be'.

The health effects across Europe from Chernobyl are serious; but they are still far less than the health effects across Europe from burning coal. Nuclear power isn't 100% safe, but it shouldn't need to be - it is far safer than the main alternative, which should be all that matters. That it isn't all that matters is proof only that propaganda is very effective, and that humans are not well equipped to judge risk.

One would think that the proper disposal of the spent uranium matters as well. That omission does buttress your point that propaganda is very effective.

I don't see why the safety of proper disposal of the waste wouldn't have already been included in his statement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have an impossible vision of the future. The reality of what you envision is the cartoon.

- - - Updated - - -

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

Is it any better if they spawn in oil and heavy metal polluted rivers? Not really. I do agree that things are already pretty heavily dammed. Actually in our state, some dams are being REMOVED. Dams trap solids in river flows and this destroys things like river deltas, beaches, coastal wetlands, etc. Just the same, Oldman's ideas at least don't involve more petrochemical and I assume nuclear pollution that are a byproduct of YOUR THINKING.

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

^^^ I haven't seen the numbers, but I have a feeling more people break their neck installing solar panels than get hurt from nuclear power. How about this Arkirk: One massive container ship equals 50 million cars worth of pollution. Nuclear powered ships are safe. If all the container ships switch to nukes, just think of all the flowers and butterflies we could save.

Your guess is correct. Solar is substantially more dangerous than nuke--because solar panels are generally placed in high locations that you can fall from.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

There is Chernobyl.

I do not consider that a reasonable example, any more than we consider the car at fault when a guy with a BAC of .4 plows into a school bus.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, yes, we mustn't forget the lessons of Chernobyl, which are 'never allow the Soviet Union to design and operate nuclear reactors'; and 'Hey look, the effects of a massive leak are nothing like as bad as Greenpeace said they would be'.

The health effects across Europe from Chernobyl are serious; but they are still far less than the health effects across Europe from burning coal. Nuclear power isn't 100% safe, but it shouldn't need to be - it is far safer than the main alternative, which should be all that matters. That it isn't all that matters is proof only that propaganda is very effective, and that humans are not well equipped to judge risk.

One would think that the proper disposal of the spent uranium matters as well. That omission does buttress your point that propaganda is very effective.

Since there is no such thing as spent uranium you're not making much sense.

What the idiots want to store away is uranium contaminated with about 10% waste products. Remove those and the uranium is perfectly good and should be put back in the reactor.

- - - Updated - - -

One would think that the proper disposal of the spent uranium matters as well. That omission does buttress your point that propaganda is very effective.

I don't see why the safety of proper disposal of the waste wouldn't have already been included in his statement.

And it's a non-issue anyway. Take an old salt mine, stick it in. Even if they don't reprocess that's good enough.

If they reprocess it as they should and only put the true waste in the repository the numbers look even better--to get the risk to zero you need only an average containment of 10,000 years. Salt mines pretty much inherently meet this test.