lowem wrote:If it could clear the usual political hurdles, and I'd suspect it may well be easier in almost any other part of the world outside of the USA (which frankly IMHO is just too bad), we could potentially go from let's say around a 50-year supply of uranium to at least a couple thousand years give or take, giving us some time to move to Something Completely Different (TM).
pstarr wrote:There is no reason why little chunks of nuclear waste can't be contained in little lead vessels for use around the home. Right?
The vessel would have a little door that would open for use. Toast bread. Warm the feet at night. Aim the little vessel as a cup of coffee to heat it. So the technology would be like a toaster/microwave/convection unit?
Or there could be a motion sensor and the little vessel could be under the sink and when a cock-a-roach walked by the motion sensor would cause the vessel to swing around toward the roach and the little door would open. Instead of checking in the roach would check out and then the door would close.
Makes sense to me. What do you guys think?
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
pstarr wrote:It became pointless years ago to blame the failures of the nuclear power industry on environmentalists or the nimby syndrome.
The United States simply blew it by having been in the unfortunate position of the early adopter. We bought the first generation and they sucked. The French waited and installed a nice nuclear infrastructure.
Except for the problem of waste. And in the case of nuclear--the solution to pollution is not dilution
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
outcast wrote:Plantagenet wrote:Nuclear waste is a giant potential energy source, not only for reprocessing and reuse in nuclear power plants, but also as a power source for electric generation directly from solid state electric cells, similar to solar radiation cells.
Given that NASA is starting to run out of plutonium I'd say that would be a good use.
pstarr wrote:The United States simply blew it by having been in the unfortunate position of the early adopter. We bought the first generation and they sucked. The French waited and installed a nice nuclear infrastructure.
It wan't NIMBY's, greens or even TMI.
patience wrote:There are damned good reasons why a govt would not want nuclear powerplants. How 'bout Y'all watch this, then get back to me, hmmm?
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Killing the storage facility for the spent fuel rods produced by the nation's nuclear power industry has long been a dream of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama. Last week, the Senate granted their wish, voting to deny the resources needed to complete a review necessary for Yucca Mountain to open.
"This is a major victory for Nevada," said Reid, who is up for re-election next year. "I am pleased that President Obama has lived up to his promise to me and to all Nevadans by working with me to kill the Yucca Mountain project."
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America's nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate.
The seal of approval for nuclear power – a cause embraced by Republican senators – came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama's signature issues.
Obama sent four of his top lieutenants to the Senate – his secretaries of energy, interior, agriculture and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – to try to drum up support for a global warming bill.
The PR effort saw direct appeals to the farming and nuclear lobbies – some of the fiercest critics of Obama's clean energy agenda – with Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, calling for new nuclear plants to re-establish America's technological dominance in the world.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests