[Ludi]

Here's a site discussing nuke waste disposal from the guvmint point of view:

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/

[oilfreeandhappy]

Regarding reprocessing:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... processing

"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "

"One of the most controversial issues with reprocessing facilities is their daily discharge of huge quantities of radioactive liquid waste into the sea and radioactive discharges into the air. The Sellafield and La Hague facilities are the biggest source of radioactive pollution in the Europe. The radioactive contamination in the sea can be traced as far as the Arctic and eastern Canada."

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oilfreeandhappy', 'R')egarding reprocessing:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... processing

"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "

"One of the most controversial issues with reprocessing facilities is their daily discharge of huge quantities of radioactive liquid waste into the sea and radioactive discharges into the air. The Sellafield and La Hague facilities are the biggest source of radioactive pollution in the Europe. The radioactive contamination in the sea can be traced as far as the Arctic and eastern Canada."

[grabby]

radiation is essentially forever.

[oilfreeandhappy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oilfreeandhappy', 'R')egarding reprocessing:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... processing

"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "

"One of the most controversial issues with reprocessing facilities is their daily discharge of huge quantities of radioactive liquid waste into the sea and radioactive discharges into the air. The Sellafield and La Hague facilities are the biggest source of radioactive pollution in the Europe. The radioactive contamination in the sea can be traced as far as the Arctic and eastern Canada."

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'r')adiation is essentially forever.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oilfreeandhappy', '
')I'd say Jimmy Carter was fairly qualified. He spent his Naval career on nuclear submarine. I'm sure if it were "easy", it would be done correctly. To me, "propaganda" is the false security statements that this industry wants us to buy.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', '.')..
Nuclear waste isn't a problem because of the actual waste, its a problem because tree-huggers don't think it ever should have been created in the first place, for any reason.
...

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', '.')..
Nuclear waste isn't a problem because of the actual waste, its a problem because tree-huggers don't think it ever should have been created in the first place, for any reason.
...

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy is nuclear waste disposal so hard?

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oilfreeandhappy', '
')"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "

[nero]

Nuclear waste disposal is hard because, once you've baked a radioactive hot potato, most people are smart enough not to want to take it off your hands.

The nuclear industry has to get away from the idea of ever being able to dispose of their waste. They will have to manage their waste for the next million years. So what is the best way they should manage their waste? For the Canadian industry, placing it in a deep mine in the geologically stable candian shield makes good sense. It makes even better sense if you have some fear that the nuclear industry might not be around for the next million years.

Placing the waste in a deep geological repository does not preclude you from retrieving and reprocessing it at some later date if that makes sense. But it is prudent for long term storage to be taken to a remote sight which is unlikely to be disturbed if the active human management disappears. We don't want some nincompoop going down in their pickup and plundering the nuclear waste if ever "stuff happens"

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')uclear waste can actually be stored at ground level quite easily and cheaply. The ONLY reason why there is mandate to bury it way deep is pure politics.

As for the tree huggers, don't worry about them. Once PO hits and the "standard of living" that they have grown accustomed to, goes downhill....they'll give up their silly ideas.

[zoidberg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'N')uclear waste disposal is hard because, once you've baked a radioactive hot potato, most people are smart enough not to want to take it off your hands.

The nuclear industry has to get away from the idea of ever being able to dispose of their waste. They will have to manage their waste for the next million years. So what is the best way they should manage their waste? For the Canadian industry, placing it in a deep mine in the geologically stable candian shield makes good sense. It makes even better sense if you have some fear that the nuclear industry might not be around for the next million years.

Placing the waste in a deep geological repository does not preclude you from retrieving and reprocessing it at some later date if that makes sense. But it is prudent for long term storage to be taken to a remote sight which is unlikely to be disturbed if the active human management disappears. We don't want some nincompoop going down in their pickup and plundering the nuclear waste if ever "stuff happens"

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '.')...
Placing the waste in a deep geological repository does not preclude you from retrieving and reprocessing it at some later date if that makes sense. But it is prudent for long term storage to be taken to a remote sight which is unlikely to be disturbed if the active human management disappears. We don't want some nincompoop going down in their pickup and plundering the nuclear waste if ever "stuff happens"

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'H')owever in the initial stages of waste disposal..there is much heat generated by the "radioactive hot potato". It would be MUCH easier to place the waste above ground level for several decades to dissipate the heat then bury it deep. If the decision was made purely by engineers and not politicians then we'd have such a system. In fact if energy production in general was decided purely by engineers we'd probably go all nuclear and give up on coal.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '.')..
While nuclear energy is theoretically quite attractive, the current paradigm of large expensive nuclear plants creates a power system that is fragile. In the longer run I think distributed power systems that don't rely on any large remote power sources for a large percentage of the power will be found to be more reliable and capable of adapting to disruptions.
...

[nero]

In a situation where providing security to a continent wide infrastructure is very expensive, (like in Iraq or Nigeria where insurgents and looters attack undefended infrastructure) a distributed system will be more economic. If we were seriously worried about terrorists or enemy agents attacking us we would have to do so as well. Too many soft targets around here.

[Cyrus]

Holy shit.

[steam_cannon]

Quit being so reactive, we have the same problem of hydrogen build ups in storage tanks as the Russians. What's the big deal!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('new scientist', 'T')here is a 50% chance of a major accident while the US government attempts to clean up its dirtiest nuclear site over the next three decades, a new study concludes.

He also highlights numerous other risks, including the potential build-up of flammable gases in Hanford's underground storage tanks. In October 2003, one tank was discovered to contain sufficient concentrations hydrogen to burn

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6199