Ahhh.............. it is bt far cleaner that coal, but the downfall of those things are how long it takes to break down to where its not raidoactive, I think it may be in the thousands of years. I wish we could focus more on solar power.
Ahhh.............. it is bt far cleaner that coal, but the downfall of those things are how long it takes to break down to where its not raidoactive, I think it may be in the thousands of years. I wish we could focus more on solar power.
Yes and we have been getting opposition on burying the wasteddeep in the a mine in Nevada from the envirowackos
__________________
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
- Joseph Biden
Associated Press 11/18/93
"Be thankful that we're not getting all the government we are paying for." Will Rogers
There are already 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. We have the technology, the experience, and the facilities to develop more plants safely. Heck, even with the hundreds of airbursts we detonated in Nevada in the 50's, even with all of the waste we've disposed of, America isn't exactly a nation of glowing mutants.
Either we're 'energy-independent' or we're not. Nukes are one of the few things that we can develop quickly that will provide the amount of electricity we demand, and will demand in the future. The economy isn't going to wait for us to make up our minds. Better to have more reactors than to allow our nation to decline for want of energy.
I believe Depleted Uranium (U-238 ?) has a half-life of something like 4.5 billion years.
That's a LOOOOOOOOOONG time, even though it's not so crazy radioactive as u-235 enriched
uranium. That means we get to store exhausted uranium fuel cores forever.
I do not know exact circumstances, but if the water table rises in those old Nevada salt mines,
do we know that the storage facilities for this nuclear waste will not leach radioactive nuclear
wastes into the water ? I know it sounds alarmist, and I am actually a nuclear power supporter,
but I think I'd like a better handle on what we do with the 'trash' when we can't use it anymore.
A rising water table is one of those virtual non-threats. Water demand is increasing while supplies diminish, particularly in that region. Also, the geology of Yucca Mountain has been very carefully studied. There are a number of natural aquitards throughout the complex that would inhibit water flow. Not to mention that the complex is wholly within the Nevada Test Range and about as far removed from civilian water supplies as a site can be.
Still, your concerns are valid and voiced throughout the country. Assuaging fear is something that even the best PR men struggle with. I don't think McCain will get very far with his proposal, but you never know. People are frantic about energy and energy prices.
I can't get behind nuclear power until somebody finds a cost effective way to either chemically neutralize the waste or shoot it into space, until then I won't support it. You can always find cleaner ways to use coal, and coal is something the US has more of than anyone else, even more than the Arabs have in oil. Nuke plants also won't produce the range of products and fuels that coal can, and never will. Our entire way of life is structured around the use of petroleum, there is no magic answer for converting from it other than finding new sources.
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
How much nuclear waste is produced per energy utilized???
I'm still trying to cross-reference sources, but according to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, there ishalf a pound of plutonium and about 66 pounds of waste per megawatt produced per year.
McCain Goes Nuclear
