Yes, Peter there are ways of using the 'waste' fro nuclear power plants. the
problem ins that the US gov't has decided that in order to "reduce the chances
of nuclear proliferation" that all nuclear waste is to be sequestered. BTW,
this hasn't had any effect on nuclear proliferation IMHO. As a result, all of
our (USA's) material for nuclear medicine comes from Canada and elsewhere.
In the EU, all nuclear waste is reprocessed into alternate useable forms, as a
result of this for each TON of nuclear waste that we produce and sequester,
the EU produces mere kilograms.
There is also a new reactor type that the Gov't refuses to certify, called a
Traveling Wave Reactor, that uses what we currently call waste and produces
power similarly to a classic reactor, but has a fail-safe design, where if the
cooling fails, the reaction stops.
BTW, When I designed and built my house, I not only built a 1000sf garage for
my sprites, but I also installed solar collectors on the roof and tubing in
the floors. I live at 8800' in CO, and pay $50/month is backup heating costs
(and the snow is still on the ground here) and electricity.
Being an engineer is FUN!
It only goes one way-Pay it Forward
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 09:46:20 -0500
To: Steven Guterman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
At 09:26 AM 5/9/2011, Steven Guterman wrote:
>The storing of the waste is why I do not like nuclear plants. The half life
>if plutonium is 250,000 years. All human written history is 5,000 years.
>No one has a clue how expensive it will be to store all the waste.
Maybe a dumb question, but I want to be educated.
The waste is "hot", so to speak. Is there no conceivable
potential use for the waste? Can't something be derived from it?
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.
Suggested annual donation $12.75