Remember that eventually the nuclear powerplant itself becomes nuclear waste that needs to be disposed of. I find it highly unlikely that radioactive concrete and steel will ever be useful as nuclear fuel, so it can't be recycled.
And anything that is highly radioactive can be used as the shell for a dirty bomb, so that issue never goes away in any reasonable time-frame. There are legitimate uses for nuclear power, but creating enough nuclear reactors to solve all our current and future power needs is impractical. There's going to be no single solution to the problem. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > Thorium - interesting - will follow this. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/safe-nuclear-indias-thorium-reactor/15707 > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > Has anyone mentioned this?: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > > > On Behalf Of Susan > > > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:09 AM > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: For Rick and others: Pro nuclear power > > > documentary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "salyavin808" > > > <fintlewoodlewix@ <mailto:fintlewoodlewix@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I just saw Pandora's Promise, by Robert Stone, an environmentalist who > > > has in the past been active in anti-nuclear energy protests. He got > > > convinced otherwise and has made this docu. It features info and also > > > interviews with several environmentalists who have educated themselves and > > > changed their minds about nuclear energy. Stuart Brand (Whole Earth > > > catalogue) is one and so is Mark Lynas, who wrote the book Six Degrees in > > > 2007. I have mentioned that book here several times - terrific and > > > accessible read about climate change. Lynas was anti nuclear for years - > > > and > > > now changed his mind. A worthwhile movie to see - and while I am not at > > > all > > > an expert on nuclear power, it made a really good case for the positives. > > > It > > > also seems that there is a type of nuclear power (IFR) that produces waste > > > that is recyclable by the nuclear plant itself. The safeguards on these > > > are > > > also incredible. > > > > > > > > > > > > These pro nuclear environmentalists make me laugh, I think they > > > > come from a place where we absolutely *have* to keep consuming > > > > power at the insane rate we have for the last hundred years and > > > > that cutting back on consumption isn't a plausible option. > > > > > > The docu mentions this problem. It seems that the pro-nuclear > > > environmentalists have become rather practical. First, they don't believe > > > that cutting back is an option - that to think that our own Western > > > populations will cut back is a pipe dream. It might be smart and the right > > > thing to do, but it won't happen. And seond, for us to expect the > > > developing > > > nations to not have what we have - cars, unlimited energy - it not "fair" > > > and also is not happening. China and India and Brazil are moving full > > > steam > > > ahead and will use whatever energy source is around. Second, they feel > > > that > > > given that our demands for energy will not be dropping, we cannot just > > > count > > > on water, wind and solar sources. Anything that helps is good, but those > > > systems simply will not solve the problem anytime soon. We are running out > > > of time, and to wait for other types of energy is wishful thinking for > > > now. > > > > > > > > The sad fact about nuclear power is that we don't have enough > > > > uranium on this planet to outlast the coal supply should we > > > > switch wholesale and build more reactors. > > > > > > > > Then there's terrorism, if al queda had been smart they would have > > > > flown the 9/11 planes into a nuclear reactor (but don't give them > > > > ideas) and then there is the black market in dirty plutonium, so > > > > simple to make a dirty bomb, drive it into a major city and.... > > > > It's just bound to happen sooner or later. > > > > > > > > But the real disaster is waste, I have heard of these fast breeder > > > > reactors but I'm not even sure they have been demonstrated to work very > > > well and they do still create a small amount of waste and it > > > > becomes much more toxic than the 11,000,000 barrels of stuff we > > > > have lying around the UK waiting to be buried. > > > > > > I don't know, but in the docu they said that these reactors had been > > > around > > > since the late 40's. A decision was made at that time by Rickover (sp?) to > > > go with the other incredibly more polluting systems in building power > > > plants > > > (and submarines). Scientists of today seem pretty certain that the waste > > > is > > > mostly recyclable and the plants are very very safe compared to the > > > current > > > style. Whether that waste is more polluting, I have no idea and it was not > > > addressed in the film.....At the end of this movie, there were questions > > > and > > > answers with Robert Stone. As he was walking out, a 60ish year old man > > > came > > > up and congratulated him on a good job, mentioned that he himself had > > > spent > > > 40 years in the nuclear power industry (I think an engineer), and that > > > there > > > were risks not mentioned in the film. He felt that nuclear (the fast > > > breeder) was our only option at this time in history and given the pace of > > > global climate change and the energy demands of our planet. However, he > > > did > > > feel we should also be having a more thorough conversation about the risks > > > (he did not elaborate on them - wish he had). > > > > > > > > And that is what will happen, just brush it all under the carpet > > > > and let mankind of the future deal with it. I read that British Nuclear > > > Fuels put a few million in the bank hoping that some bright > > > > spark in some wiser future will know how to deal with it. Until > > > > then it's being buried in places like this: > > > > > > > > http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/24/nuclear-waste-storage > > > > > > > > Saw a chilling documentary about this place. Just what do you put > > > > on the door? Imagine if our Neanderthal predecessors had been > > > > burying dangerous waste since they first came to Europe, it would > > > > still be as dangerous as the day they sealed it up. Do our descendants > > > > deserve to have to deal with our stupidity just so we can keep our > > > > 24/7 lifestyle? They'll be kicking us for not going solar, which is > > > > the *only* serious choice. > > > > > > No our descendants do not deserve this. But there won't be descendants > > > unless we change our demand for and source of energy. Demand is not going > > > away. Solar and wind and water won't manage the problem until it is way > > > too > > > late. > > > > > > Many of the same big environmentalists who have switched and are now pro > > > nuclear are also now pro GMO food. Same idea: the world is going to run > > > out > > > food, and the way we raise food and animals for slaughter is incredibly > > > polluting. We need to raise lots of food using less land and fewer > > > chemicals. GMO's do that. I hate that idea. It feels like a terrible > > > compromise to say that while we see the problems in nuclear or GMO food, > > > we > > > must go for a lesser evil or our planet is cooked. > > > > > > I am on the fence with both issues, but my mind is open to the possibility > > > that huge compromises may need to be made. I believe we are on the brink > > > of > > > disaster with global climate change, and it might already be too late for > > > anything to make a difference. The window of opportunity might be gone. > > > Maybe chaos and then a collapse of most civilizations will bring things > > > to a > > > halt and that is the way to go. I just don't know. But we have major > > > difficulties ahead and continuing to think that we all have to reduce our > > > energy demands and eat organic is ignoring reality. > > > > > > > > > >
