Take a look at thorium reactors. Much less bad waste, no chance of meltdown. The only reason our nuclear energy infrastructure is uranium based is that it spun off of nuclear weapon development. Thorium is more abundant too. Just needs to be developed.
From: Jason McKemie Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 12:43 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tesla Model 3... who else is getting one? This company is interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: And why are you thinking the waste needs to be encapsulated? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis Just reprocess it. And really it is not that dangerous. A tanker of chlorine or ammonia is much more dangerous. From: Stefan Englhardt Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 6:56 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tesla Model 3... who else is getting one? Nuclear is very expensive. If you calculate the cost of moving and reencapsulating the waste for some thousand years. Your ancestors will learn that no energy company will exist long enough to take responsibility for the waste they generated. This will be done by the tax payer. -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> Datum: 01.04.2016 22:18 (GMT+01:00) An: af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Tesla Model 3... who else is getting one?
