On Nov 29, 8:30 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...



As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry
at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear
energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials.

And I pointed out that those "problems" have been solved for decades (except
for the politics) and furthermore, fossil plants have horrendous unsolved waste
problems. Problems that sicken people, kill people, and even threaton the
future viability of our planet. Why is this so hard to see?

It is not
just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With
the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the
spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts.

Fuel recycling is a solved problem. We don't recycle fuel because the
process makes potentially bomb-grade fisionable material which must be
safeguarded to ensure that is is used for fuel modules, not blowing things up.
Of course, we spend (or at least have spent) billions to operate special
reactors for the express purpose of making bomb-grade material while we argue
about how to store our used (recycleable) fuel modules.

The spent fuel
could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if
some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima.
The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts
including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they
reach their useful life and are decommisioned.

We have been decommissioning plants for decades, we know how to do it. The
Navy has decommissioned hundreds of nuclear reactors, including my old
submarine.

I know, the same issues
are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive
decisions on nuclear issues.

Again, the storage "problem" is long solved, except for the politics. ****,
even the Egyptians knew how to build buildings that could last thousands of
years, and they did it thousands of years ago. What makes you think that we
can't do it today?

Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed
from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural
processes.

Proof?

Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the
polutants.

And the chances of that are? Let's deal with reality here please, and
seriously consider what we are doing to our environment.

Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear
waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years
to scrub.

We don't have to "scrub" nuclear waste from the environment" because, unlike
with fossil plants, the deadly waste is not allowed to enter the environment.

The potiential effects are far worse.

Agreed, at least in the near term. Unfortunately, we are not sure yet what
the environmental results of thousands of fossil plants to our planet, but we
are running the grand experiment today! That said, nuclear plants need to be
designed & operated under very strict supervision. Operating them is serious
business.

All that being said,
I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal
plant.

Agreed again. I have literally lived in the same vehicle with a nuclear
power plant for months at a time. Unlike the anti-nukes, I have taken the
trouble to learn about nuclear power. (OK, actually I am an ex-Navy nuclear
reactor operator.) I have personally met the dragon and it is not as fearsome a
creature as some folks would lead you to believe. I just can't believe the
damage we are doing to the environment and to ourselves by continuing to eshue
nuclear energy in favor fossil power.

Can we get back to airplanes now?

Vaughn

Sure we can get back to planes...do you have a nuclear powered plane?
BG

The point that you seem to miss is that an issue is not solved until
all issues are resolved including the most important one which is the
political will to solve them. We have the technology to solve the
vast majority of our current polution issues with fossil fuels but we
refuse to invest the monies to implement them. The same holds true
for the nuclear industry. The difference is that the general public
isn't going to and should accept that same attitude toward nuclear.