SteelWolf: Again, the reasons against breeder reactors are mainly political. How do you convince a population (and a politician) frightened by the terrorist activities in the last 5 years that the plutonium in a reactor site isn’t going to walk out with a well-placed madman?
In my experience with watching the news and commentary, people are barely supportive of the current technology. They see all radioactive material as potential nuclear weapons fodder (patently untrue, but people are notoriously lax in researching outside their narrow specialization) and if someone can convice them that one kind is especially bad, they’ll never approve of a plan that would involve it in any way, shape, or form.
Frankly, nuclear technology is a dead end from a political point of view. We’ll have coal- and gas-fired plants until `green’ technology (wind and solar, maybe geothermal) is mature enough to replace it. People are simply too ignorant of the real cost/benefit analysis involved, and ignorance is frightening.
The best solution is to stop making radioactive waste. Weapons of mass distruction eventually will be used because humans have not solved the problems of social entropy.
Eventually some of the weapons, or weapons grade material will come back to bite us as nations erode and fall. So just do the only smart thing and dismantle ALL of them.
As for nuclear power, it should not be an option until the waste problem is solved definatively, and the problem of the attractiveness of fissionable material to maim the planet and rape it’s lifeforms is solved.
No nukes is indeed good nukes.
In any event, this is my first post here in this forum. And if you know the guy who started this <a
href=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/992280/posts>thread</a> on trolls on the FReeper board, he is to blame for me being here if eventually you need a scapegoat. I know enviros like me can at times aggravate those less well informed about their main interest. <./teasing>
The waste problem is not how to dispose of the waste. The waste problem is how to stop people from being paranoid about disposal of the waste. Yucca Mountain would work just fine. Subduction zones would work fine. Reprocessing of waste into fuel would work, too. But a great many people panic at the word “radioactive”, and oppose doing anything at all with radioactive waste. Which means that every single nuclear power plant in the country is its own little radioactive waste dump, because the ignorant masses won’t let them be cleaned up (which they could be, if it weren’t for political opposition).
HTML is disabled. vB code is an easier-to-use subset that does not offer the potentially annoying/dangerous features HTML has. (For one thing, all vB code ends at the post, so nobody can reformat a whole page with a few misformed tags.)
You want to drop nuclear waste into the depths of the ocean? Are you crazy? That’s how godzillas are created. Do you want a whole herd of godzillas washing ashore and impingeing on your personal liberties?
On the odd chance that nobody’s ever thought of this before, I sent a note to the DOE’s Office of Environment, Safety and Health. When (if) they get back to me, I’ll post an update.
Hehe, I’m pretty sure they’ve thought of everything, from reprocessing to shooting it on a rocket into the sun. Best solution without reprocessing (which I agree is the best solution but didn’t really answer the OP and tends to set off the greenies) is long term burial. That way, if we want to reprocess in the future (hint hint), we just bring the waste back and reprocess away. Plutonium 239 has a pretty long half life (24,000 years I think), so this would be possible for a LONG time. Might as well bury it and wait for a better political environment or until the uranium runs out.
I took the liberty of forwarding this idea for disposal of nuclear waste, on to a relative who is a scientist at an Oceanographic institute and here is his reply:
Yes, it has indeed been discussed. The Alaskan waterfall of sand’ is new to me, however. This seems to be necessary for the idea to have merit. Otherwise, the concern is that subduction occurs on geological time scales, so it would take a long time for material to be carried deep, maybe longer than the half-life of many of the radioactive isotopes. Even after material is buried, it may still interact with the ocean via circulation of fluids through the crust. Not sure we know anything about fluid circulation in the deep trenches.
A year or so ago, I had a discussion about this with a professor of geology and a geologist who works for a petroleum company in Canada. The consensus was that the main problem with the subduction idea, aside from politics, was exactly what Tross’s expert says: on a human timescale, it’s essentially just burying the waste on the ocean floor, and we don’t know enough about fluid circulation through the oceanic crust to be sure of what kind of trouble could occur. Plus it would be available to well-funded terrorists and/or world-domination-crazed evil geniuses with deep-sea submersibles.
Since this is GQ, let’s limit ourselves to factual discussions of the disposal idea presented in the OP. Let’s not have a debate about the economics, morality, or wisdom of the continuing use of nuclear power in general. Anyone wishing to debate these things is directed to our Great Debates forum.
I don’t have a cite, but I’m sure that that graph doesn’t take into account all the externalities of nuclear power. Who is paying for nuclear waste disposal? Not the utilities! It’s the federal government!