one.....does the per KW price
that YOU are being charged include the cost of a permanent
solution to the waste issue.
The waste storage
issue is a political issue. All we have to do is have the will to pick a suitable site and do it. The cost is not great to develop a suitable waste depository. It is made more expensive, though, by really irrational time factors that nuclear opponents have put on the storage
design. Right now, Senator Harry Reid (D Nevada) has successfully blocked Yucca Mountain storage facility. Harry is a Real Estate developer, btw.
"Two....It is still a mineral resource that will run out.....it uses far more uranium than people realize."
Due to an ill concieved law, passed during the Carter Administration based on fear of nuclear proliferation, every US nuclear powerplant has all their spent fuel
rods stored in water tanks
on site. Those rods are all recyclable and recovery of usable fuel
is way up there. Believe the fuel rods can be recycled something like 5 times before they are used up. We have enough fuel sitting in spent rods at the reactors right now to last a long time. Unranium is a finite quantity but not nearly as finite as oil
"Three...there is no safe repository on the planet at the moment."
See number one... BTW, the really nasty stuff, with multi 1,000 year half lives, is largely a product of weapons production. We are largely recycling the weapons grade fissionable material as we downsize our nuclear arsenal so aren't producing much weapons grade stuff now. Contaminated sites like Hanford in Washington
are cold war relics, not nuclear generating issues.
"Four...there is no possibility of "the big rocket solution" because the successes to failure rate is to high. (challenger)"
This has always been a pipe dream, real Star Wars stuff. If you haven't noticed, the very long lived nuclear waste is quite dense, more so than lead. Shooting it into space would be incredibly expensive simply on a cost per pound issue with out present technology. There is no problem designing a containment system that would survive a rocket malfunction
. If I'm not mistaken, we have already had a plutonium reactor powered satellite
misfire without consequences.
"Five...disposal sites will remain a permanent political and geophysical risk until the "safe " levels are reached."
Risk to what????? This stuff is going to be buried miles below the surface, encased in concrete. All you have to do is fill the access shaft with concrete and/or rubble and be done with it. Even if thousands of years were to pass and the puropose of the sites were lost
, it wouldn't pose a problem. Any society that had the technology to dig down to it, and could afford to waste the effort to dig for something with no obvious value, would also have the ability to detect the danger
involved in the waste material. Bury it and it's done with.
"Six...Why would you spend the money
and resources to simply allow us to continue on as we are, whilst handing the yet unsolved practical and financial burden to future generations ?"
If we continue the way we are and limit nuclear energy production, we really are stupidly pushing a mess off on future generations
"Seven...To except that the only way we will ever meet our energy needs is through FINITE
resources is to except that we will A. have to change our ways "big time" when they run out and hand this to another generation or B. Except that we are doomed."
Think you meant ACCEPT. All viable current
sources of energy require using up finite resources. Some are very polluting with lasting long term effects like coal, others are just polluters like petroleum but almost all are CO2 polluters. The only viable source of energy that has the abilitly to meet our energy needs, with very limited pollution, is Nuclear. It produces virtually no CO2 and very little other pollutants, disposal of which can be done with minuscule effect on our or future generation's environment
"Eight...Caring about other people (including future generations) may mean being willing to take up the slack from past generations. We have no excuse this time."
What does that mean??? I seem to see a lot of non nuclear toxic waste sites that we are or will be cleaning
up. I don't mean to pick on the Chinese because they aren't the only significant polluters out there, just the biggest, but everytime you buy goods made in China
, you are encouraging and financing
pollution. We have exported our 'dirty' industries over our borders, China
is reaping the benefit of our environmental laws. I'm not in favor of punitive tarriffs but think we should have an enviromental tarriff on all goods shipped into the country. Our industries don't seem to be surviving well meeting our environmental laws. 3rd world countries have little or no concern for the environment
. We need tarriffs to balance the playing field.
As I said before, the concern about nuclear waste is a Shibai. Just another specious argument by the anti-nuke paranoiacs that keeps us using the dirtiest fuels possible to produce energy.