Guest guest Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 I KNOW, I KNOW...WITH PEAK OIL IN 2040 AND PEAK GAS DUE IN 2060 AT CURRENT RATE, WITH CHINESE MODERIZATION ACCELERATING THE USAGE, THE ONLY VIABLE SOLUTION SEEMS TO BE IN NUCLEAR POWER TO SUSTAIN MODERN LIFE....THORIUM EXPERIMENTATION IN INDIA SEEMS TO BE THE ANSWER TO URANIUM(YELLOW CAKE) WASTE, BUT IT'S NOT POPULAR YET. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW THE THORIUM NUCLEAR PLANT STUDY IS GOING IN INDIA? MOST OF US DRIVES A CAR, AND USE ELECTRICITY. EVEN WITH THORIUM, SOME URANIUM HAS TO BE USED ALTHOUGH MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY....TO COVER THE WORLD IN SOLAR POWER, IT WOULD TAKE ALL THE STEAL IN THE WORLD TO MAKE IT WORK, AND WIND AND WATER POWER WILL STILL NEED OTHER ENERGY TO COVER SMALL INCREMENTAL PORTION OF WHAT WE USE TODAY.... THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE THE WAY OF LIFE, WHICH I WOULD WELCOME, AND ONLY WAY TO DO IT IS BY FORCE, ECONOMICALLY RAISING THE PRICE OF GASOLINE TO $10,15, $20 A GALLON. HUMAN NATURE WILL NOT VOLUNTARILY CUT CONSUMPTION. DOES ANYONE HAVE A BETTER IDEA? SHANTAYA In order to take care of 77,000 tons of nuclear waste for the next 100 years some $ 70 billion dollars have to be spent. At least the whole country isnt turned into a waste dump - although we learn again every action has a reaction we have to pay for, so on the one side we get atomic energy, while on the other side we get atomic waste, which is highly toxic and cannot be disposed of in any way for hundreds and thousands of years. Among Reid's first acts after this month's election was to convene a conference call with home-state reporters to declare Yucca Mountain "dead right now." "It sure is different now than when I came (to the Senate) in 1986," the senator observed. The dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas is planned as the first national repository for radioactive waste. It's supposed to hold 77,000 tons of the material — from commercial power plants reactors and defense sites across the nation — for thousands of years. About 50,000 tons of the waste is now stored in temporary sites at 65 power plants in 31 states. Reid would leave all of it in place. Originally targeted to open in 1998, Yucca Mountain has been repeatedly set back by lawsuits, money shortfalls and scientific controversies. The Energy Department's best-case opening date is now 2017. The effort to create a national storage site has already cost about $9 billion, $6.5 billion of which has been spent on Yucca. Four years ago, the Energy Department estimated the project would cost $58 billion to build and operate for the first 100 years. New cost projections are being worked up, and they are expected to total more than $70 billion. The department proposed legislation earlier this year meant to fix problems with the dump, which is a mounting liability to taxpayers because the government was contractually obligated to take nuclear waste off utilities' hands starting in 1998. Energy Department officials say at least one legislative change — formally withdrawing land around the dump site — is needed before construction can begin. Reid, however, pledged after the Nov. 7 election that not only will no bill to help Yucca Mountain reach the Senate floor under his leadership, funding for the project also will dry up quickly. Annual spending on the dump that has ranged between $450 million and $550 million in recent years "will be cut back significantly, that will be for sure," he vowed. ___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bija Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 I live in Australia. The government at the moment is very open to nuclear power. And we have large quantity of uranium natural resources. The leadership has expressed desires to mass export this uranium resource. The thing is though, there has also been discussion about Australia taking back the waste product from the countries we sell it too. And storing it for hundreds and thousands of years in our backyard (the desert). So what can you do...say no worries mate...to the politicians? It destroys the aesthetic beauty of the great Australian outback....a wee bit...in my mind. It conjures up images of ugliness and dirtiness in my mind. Or is that just conditioning? I don't know what to think about all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.