From: Kai M. Becker (kmb@kai-m-becker.de)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 08:29:40 MST
Chuck Kuecker schrieb:
> The proper way to dispose of high-level waste is to irradiate it inside
> the reactor vessel to promote it's decay to stable isotopes.
Such a cycle would have to process the high-level waste as fast as it
produces it. Have you calculated this? What about the medium and low
active wastes? What about the machinery itself? How much of that do you
get, how long will this be dangerous and what are the costs of its
processing and disposal, including material, energy, personnel and
space? I haven't seen any serious calculation that takes all this into
account and comes up with a positive sum.
> but the glass itself needs to be stored away from inquisitive persons...
... not only persons, but also natural forces like earth quakes, etc.
And can we assure that this technology, power plants and such, will
always be properly maintained and in the hand of responsible persons?
There're dozens of nuclear driven ships and subs of the FSU rotting in
their habors. Many power stations are also rotten and only hold together
with duct tape. Or what about a civil war in China, Japan, Africa or
South America, e.g. Brazil? The "human factor" is an incalculable risk
in this equation.
> The only way to eliminate the heat load of technology on the surface of
> the planet is to eliminate the technology - something that is dear to
> the hearts of too many enviro-wackos out there.
I'll think of fission power as a safe technology, as soon as someone
shows me an effective method to stop radioactive decay or some device to
bring tons of radioactive waste to a place _really_ outside our
biosphere. Until then, the remaining risks are too high for my personal
measure of safety. If that makes me an "enviro-wacko" in your eyes, I'll
return this with a friendly "techno-loony" :-)
Kai
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 08:33:08 MST