To: TrollBridge
My only problem with nuclear power is the fission products that are produced. Cesnium and PU-239 are in particular really bad products that last a long time. Talk about NIMBY. I would just be happy living with the CO2 produced by fossil fuel plants than with radioactive elements that we don't know what to do with once we've extracted the energy from it.\
Looks like it's time to spell out some basic nuclear engineering again.
97% of what comes out of a reactor as spent fuel is the same refined uranium that went in. The remaining 3% is plutonium, some short-lived transuranics, and the fission products. The uranium and the plutonium are perfectly good reactor fuels, and should be recycled back into a reactor.
The fission products are the nasty stuff. They're highly radioactive. However, that als means relatively short-lived. In reality, in less than 700 years the fission products decay to a lower level of radioactivity than the original uranium ore. The sensible thing to do is separate out the fission products and bury them. They don't have to be protected for geologic times. The Pyramids of Egypt have stood, without maintenance, for about three times as long as it would be necessary to sequester the fission products. Surely we can build something that will do the job at least as well as the Pyramids
Most of the so-called problems of nuclear power are self-inflicted. A big share of the self-infliction comes from misinformation, and indeed deliberate disinformation, about disposal of nuclear waste.
28 posted on
04/15/2006 12:33:06 PM PDT by
JoeFromSidney
(My book is out. Read excerpts at www.thejusticecooperative.com)
To: JoeFromSidney; TrollBridge
The fission products are the nasty stuff. They're highly radioactive. However, that als means relatively short-lived. In reality, in less than 700 years the fission products decay to a lower level of radioactivity than the original uranium ore. I was going to point this out too, before seeing you had already done so. Radioactivity and half-life are generally inversely proportional.
29 posted on
04/15/2006 1:12:11 PM PDT by
SauronOfMordor
(A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
To: JoeFromSidney
In reality, in less than 700 years the fission products decay to a lower level of radioactivity than the original uranium ore.
And that, my friend, is where all the resistance comes from. In the US, I believe Arizona is where they want to build a waste site (maybe they have already have?). What do you think the residents for AZ think of that? 700 years is nothing in geologic times but it is an enternity in human time.
The Pyramids of Egypt have stood, without maintenance, for about three times as long as it would be necessary to sequester the fission products. Surely we can build something that will do the job at least as well as the Pyramids
Sounds good to me. We can spend money on such technology. We can also spend money on a hydrogen based energy system as well. I suppose it's a matter of how much money we have to spend. I guess I'm more of a forward thinker; fission energy is so '70s ;-)
30 posted on
04/15/2006 3:04:48 PM PDT by
TrollBridge
(Pants...I like 'em)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson