What do you think of the major spill at the British facility earlier this week?Devil wrote:Firstly, reduce the quantity of waste by recycling the fuel. US reactors use the stuff once and are left with high level waste in large quantities. Many European and Japanese reactors recycle 96% of the fuel and the remaining 4% is medium level waste.
Wow what a great post. Got a link to support that so I can steal it in the future?gt1370a wrote:The whole point to a repository like Yucca Mountain is that it is RETRIEVABLE so that the fuel can be reprocessed once that becomes economical.
Did you know that all of the spent fuel assemblies from every power reactor in the US, if you stacked them up side-by-side, would take up about 1 football field? Imagine that! 20% of this country's power for 40+ years, and that small amount of waste... Kind of makes you think this "waste disposal problem" is blown out of proportion.
So you're completely not believing in this little Peak Oil problem we've been discussing on this board for so long, either that, or you're not understanding it.
But you're a dumbass, so that's not surprising!
Dezakin wrote:But as for actual energy, we have enormous amounts of it. We have at least tens of thousands of years of nuclear fuel,
He was referring, I believe, to energy for nuclear fusion. Of course, he's gambling his life on the probability that nuclear fusion will be usable by the time it's necessary. To tell the truth, I really couldn't care less if he loses that bet.
Wildwell wrote:Renewable energy is nearly 10% world wide,
Ludi wrote:Wildwell wrote:Renewable energy is nearly 10% world wide,
I do not consider nuclear and hydroelectric "renewable." Nuclear is based on a non-renewable resource and most hydroelectric sites are taken. Also large dams are harmful to the hydrologic cycle, hence not sustainable.
Please give a citation for your 10% figure.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461518118/ ... ource.html
I do not consider nuclear and hydroelectric "renewable." Nuclear is based on a non-renewable resource and most hydroelectric sites are taken.
Also large dams are harmful to the hydrologic cycle, hence not sustainable.
Dezakin wrote:There is enough recoverable uranium and thorium in the crust to run at least that long with a much much larger civilzation than we have today.
Doesn't the 'hydrolic cycle' adjust over the decades? What do you mean by this?
That's debatable.
Large dams intercept the flow of nutrients from upstream, and change the amount of water available downstream, having sometimes severe impacts on ecosystems. Concentrating a large area of water where there previously wasn't one can have impacts on the local climate. Downstream, fertility of floodplains can be severely impacted.
No point debating me about nuclear energy, it's irrelevant to me whether we have 1 year's worth of uranium, or ten thousand years' worth, I'm against the technology for esthetic and philosophic reasons.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests