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

On Mar 29, 9:34 am, "Alessandro" <I...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<deza...@xxxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggionews:1175183686.283341.100420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Mar 28, 11:57 pm, "Alex Terrell" <alexterr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

I doubt it. No one is buying geologic repositories with their own
money. When the day comes to pay people stop to think what they're
really getting for their money.

It just isnt worth it.

I don't understand what you refer to when you say " valuable fission
products (such as platinum group metals)",can you explain something more?
Which time frames do you mean?- Hide quoted text -

Some of the platinum group metals have very short half lives and decay
to stability rather quickly so can be isolated for market resale.

Same with the xenon, some silver.

.