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

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product

The chart 1/3 of the way down represents stable isotopes and
their fractional presence in fission products after n years.
note that in most cases, the 1, 10, 100, and 1000 graphs are
pretty level. That also corresponds to the radioactivity of the spent
fuel. After 1 year, you've lost 25% of the radioactivity, 10 years
50%, 100 years 75% at each of these stages, it may be worthwhile to
reprocess to pull out the new plutonium/uranium that the decayed
transuranics have produced, as well as the valuable elements and
isotopes that have been produced by degredation note that several of
the elements on that list are neither in abundant supply, nor small
demand.

.