View Single Post
Old 04-25-2018, 11:58 AM   #1481 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,861
Thanks: 23,922
Thanked 7,207 Times in 4,640 Posts
alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
People who agree with me tend to be the well informed weirdos, trouble makers who question authority and most of all don't trust authority.

Actually if the concentrated nuclear waste isotopes were melted into and blended with glass it wouldn't be harmful to anyone as long as no one spent a lot of time right on top of the glass monolith. Placing the glass in an abandoned mine would almost be over kill. Then in as little as 200 to 300 years it would be barely distinguishable from things with naturally occurring elevated levels of radiation like granite or bananas.
So it's only "dangerous forever" if it's not recycled and not disposed of properly.
With the way politics are, by the time the government decides what to do with the glass monoliths the radio isotopes may decay to where they could be tossed in a land fill.

Obviously the best way to create a lot more usable energy is nuclear. I believe in the US something like 96 or 97 nuclear reactors on 47 or 48 sites pride between 15 and 20% of energy needs. The US has spent billions of dollars on wind and solar and it barely carved out a noticeable sliver on the old energy production pie chart.
Wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear.They come online much quicker as well.There's no longer a viable business for 'new' nuclear.
Running the existing nuclear infrastructure until it's normal life is over would provide a lot of zero carbon generating capacity.
Existing power demand is elastic when on a wartime footing.And we appear to be in a fight for our lives.

__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
freebeard (04-25-2018), NeilBlanchard (04-25-2018), niky (05-02-2018)