Re: Are nukes the answer to global warming?

From: G. R. L. Cowan (gcowan_at_eagle.ca)
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:29:08 -0500

Tim O'Flaherty wrote:
>
> "Scott A Crosby" <scrosby@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message
> news:oyd3bw7r9j9.fsf@bert.cs.rice.edu...
> > On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:20:51 -0500, "Tim O'Flaherty"
> <pinwheelsfudge@gwi.net> writes:
> >
> > > "Scott A Crosby" <scrosby@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:oyd4qgr9z30.fsf@bert.cs.rice.edu...
> > >>
> > >> 35,000 nuclear stations would be needed to give 10 billion people a
> > >> lifestyle as energy-intensive as that of someone in the US.
> > >
> > > We still haven't solved the problem of waste disposal for the
> > > hundreds of reactors we now operate much less tens of thousands of
> > > new ones. It may very well be that the (very wasteful) American way
> > > of life is not sustainable with current population levels.
> >
> > The US hasn't solved the *political* problem of waste *management* ---
> > not disposal, because 90% of the content of nuclear waste may be
> > reused in future fuel. Foreign countries have solved their political
> > waste management problems and implemented the known technical
> > solutions.
>
> Name one country that has put reactor waste in a final repository.

I'd like Crosby to acknowledge that he can't.
(Aside from trivial, and still in some cases hard-won,
permissions to dump things like gloves and filters. )

> I know of none but, perhaps some have.
> Not France, often cited as the the poster
> child of successful nuclear power, not the Brits or Canadians, maybe the
> Russians but dumping doesn't count.

If any country *had* put spent fuel in a final repository,
that would look very much like dumping,
so O'Flaherty seems here to be saying,
"Who has done this?
If they ever do, it won't count."

> A solution must be politically,
> technically AND economically feasable.

Or what? Or it won't be all right for nuclear
energy to totally replace fossil fuel energy?

I presented sufficient evidence yesterday
that that's unreasonable, indeed quite despicable,
because however unsolved a problem spent nuclear fuel may be,
our continuing, everyday difficulties getting rid
of spent or partly spent butane, or any used hydrocarbon,
are a whole lot worse. O'Flaherty should acknowledge this.
Better a million interim dry storages than another
event like that -- and there will be another.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet

Quantcast