Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"

On 28 Mar, 19:54, deza...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 28, 11:16 am, xnich...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Nuclear waste disposal over the half-life of transuranics is a lot
more than sticking it in a concrete barrel.

No its not.

You have to calculate the consquences for up to millions of years.

You certainly do not. We dont for chemical wastes which lasts forever.
You just revisit the issue every century or two, and I'm positive in
that time or less we'll be pulling apart spent fuel casks for the
uranium, transuranics, and valuable fission products (such as platinum
group metals)

It'll probably be buried too deep by then.

Intermediate storage in accessible tunnels seems the sensible
approach. Safe over hundred of years, and accessible if we want to
power a subsequent generation of reactors.

The current approach of leaving it lying around Sellafield is asking
for trouble.

(In an ideal, more pleasant world - ie without terrorists and
criminals - it would make sense to distribute the waste around for
heating. "Here's a sealed box with 100kg of waste. It'll keep you
house warm in the winter. Or put it at the bottom of your swimming
pool for all year swimming.")

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast