Somehow the French and Japanese are able to tame the monster. Instead we destroy the environment by digging coal and drilling, are held captive by the oil producing countries and have Sen Kennedy cry NIMBY.
Perhaps the regulatory environment has a lot to do with it, or rather the current destruction of such in the US.
Know what made the difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? The builders and operators of the Three Mile Island facility had higher regulatory authorities to answer to. The builders and operators of the Chernobyl facility didn’t.
Quite a difference in results in the event of the unthinkable.
Thank you, IrishEddie. We still don’t know squat about how to get rid of radioactive waste. The best solutions I’ve heard thus far include firing them into space – onto the Moon, if we want to save it and into the Sun if we don’t. But hope a missile never goes down…
One of the things the French have done is learn how to refine the waste into more usable fuel. It doesn’t make the problem go away, but it drastically reduces the amount of it.
However, I’m of the mind that humans aren’t advanced enough to deal with nuclear power.
IEOH and mm, you both demonstrate your lack of background on nuclear waste disposal.
First of all, any radioactive waste that has a ‘half life of millions of years’ isn’t dangerous because it decays very slowly. The second error is that technology exists to separate the waste. The big problem is the idiots who don’t have a clue what CAN be done, but want to block all attempts to do something.
As far as sending it to the moon, this isn’t the stupidest idea I have heard; but it’s close! Yucca Flats is a lot safer and cheaper.
Nuclear plants, in much improved form over anything we currently have here, may be part of an answer. My son’s view, after growing up near a mine and closed uranium mill, and seeing how high his “background level” checked out in nuclear power school, is that he does NOT want anything to do with the industry.
Waste IS still a problem area, and it is Yucca Mountain, not Yucca Flats being proposed as a repository.
While coal or petroleum ARE a problem, nuclear is not yet “safe” or “cheap”.
PlainBill, let me refine my comments then, along with responding to lalas. The French are using “breeder” plants which are a means to convert U-238 to fissionable fuel, which would extend nuclear fuel enormously – but dangerously. They were blocked by Carter (who had a nuclear physics degree, remember), because it put too much bomb-ready fissionable fuel in one place.
I am well aware that long half-lives equal low danger; I was responding to IrishEddie’s general point. The proposal for Yucca Mountain is not really a permanent solution. If we built nuke plants everywhere, we would increase the quantities of waste enormously.
Most of the problem isn’t even in just direct wastes, but indirect ones, e.g., contaminated working materials, medical waste using radioactive substances, etc., which are vastly larger than the straight (and possibly reusable) nuclear waste.
If you read up on what some nuclear scientists have proposed to keep us safe in the long run – centuries, not millennia– it’s downright freaky, including having a “priesthood” of people trained to keep people away from the big waste burial sites.
So I’m not quite as ignorant as you might think.
In general I support nuclear energy, if done well. This means that the sites for the plans should be carefully chosen, technology advanced, security procedures at least triple-checked, and waste safely secured.
In that case, nuclear plants are afaik cheaper, more effective, and less polluting than coal/oil ones, so for now they are a good choice. We should, of course, look for better options - solar/wind/water when feasible and not too disrupting, and whatever new technology can offer.
BTW, do people here believe fusion power may be feasible?
The current is between 30-50 years just to get a sustainable reaction and the costs have escalated beyond original projections. In the current economic atmosphere, I’d guess we’re looking at serious funding cuts. Considering the fact that I don’t trust the original estimate, (Looks like a WAG to me.) it won’t be any time soon.
Caveat: We never know what sudden technological breakthroughs may suddenly pop up.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
Somehow the French and Japanese are able to tame the monster. Instead we destroy the environment by digging coal and drilling, are held captive by the oil producing countries and have Sen Kennedy cry NIMBY.
bobpeters61 almost 15 years ago
Perhaps the regulatory environment has a lot to do with it, or rather the current destruction of such in the US.
Know what made the difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? The builders and operators of the Three Mile Island facility had higher regulatory authorities to answer to. The builders and operators of the Chernobyl facility didn’t.
Quite a difference in results in the event of the unthinkable.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Thank you, IrishEddie. We still don’t know squat about how to get rid of radioactive waste. The best solutions I’ve heard thus far include firing them into space – onto the Moon, if we want to save it and into the Sun if we don’t. But hope a missile never goes down…
lalas almost 15 years ago
One of the things the French have done is learn how to refine the waste into more usable fuel. It doesn’t make the problem go away, but it drastically reduces the amount of it.
However, I’m of the mind that humans aren’t advanced enough to deal with nuclear power.
PlainBill almost 15 years ago
IEOH and mm, you both demonstrate your lack of background on nuclear waste disposal.
First of all, any radioactive waste that has a ‘half life of millions of years’ isn’t dangerous because it decays very slowly. The second error is that technology exists to separate the waste. The big problem is the idiots who don’t have a clue what CAN be done, but want to block all attempts to do something.
As far as sending it to the moon, this isn’t the stupidest idea I have heard; but it’s close! Yucca Flats is a lot safer and cheaper.
Dtroutma almost 15 years ago
Nuclear plants, in much improved form over anything we currently have here, may be part of an answer. My son’s view, after growing up near a mine and closed uranium mill, and seeing how high his “background level” checked out in nuclear power school, is that he does NOT want anything to do with the industry.
Waste IS still a problem area, and it is Yucca Mountain, not Yucca Flats being proposed as a repository.
While coal or petroleum ARE a problem, nuclear is not yet “safe” or “cheap”.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
PlainBill, let me refine my comments then, along with responding to lalas. The French are using “breeder” plants which are a means to convert U-238 to fissionable fuel, which would extend nuclear fuel enormously – but dangerously. They were blocked by Carter (who had a nuclear physics degree, remember), because it put too much bomb-ready fissionable fuel in one place. I am well aware that long half-lives equal low danger; I was responding to IrishEddie’s general point. The proposal for Yucca Mountain is not really a permanent solution. If we built nuke plants everywhere, we would increase the quantities of waste enormously. Most of the problem isn’t even in just direct wastes, but indirect ones, e.g., contaminated working materials, medical waste using radioactive substances, etc., which are vastly larger than the straight (and possibly reusable) nuclear waste. If you read up on what some nuclear scientists have proposed to keep us safe in the long run – centuries, not millennia– it’s downright freaky, including having a “priesthood” of people trained to keep people away from the big waste burial sites. So I’m not quite as ignorant as you might think.
4uk4ata almost 15 years ago
In general I support nuclear energy, if done well. This means that the sites for the plans should be carefully chosen, technology advanced, security procedures at least triple-checked, and waste safely secured.
In that case, nuclear plants are afaik cheaper, more effective, and less polluting than coal/oil ones, so for now they are a good choice. We should, of course, look for better options - solar/wind/water when feasible and not too disrupting, and whatever new technology can offer.
BTW, do people here believe fusion power may be feasible?
Gladius almost 15 years ago
The current is between 30-50 years just to get a sustainable reaction and the costs have escalated beyond original projections. In the current economic atmosphere, I’d guess we’re looking at serious funding cuts. Considering the fact that I don’t trust the original estimate, (Looks like a WAG to me.) it won’t be any time soon. Caveat: We never know what sudden technological breakthroughs may suddenly pop up.