SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: neolib who wrote (274208)2/13/2006 11:32:46 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (2) of 1575121
 
"Could you provide a guaranteed not to exceed net present value of the cost of nuclear waste disposal on a per kilowatt basis?"

It depends on the method of disposal. The high level stuff needs to be separated from the low level. Stick the low level stuff in a field with a large perimeter fence for a decade or so. Preferably where it doesn't rain much. Then recycle.

High level is different. But the volume is much, much smaller. If we can get the launch costs down, impacting on the Moon is attractive. Still, it can be readily stored for decades until we work out what to do with it. By then, it might be valuable in its own right. After all, it is an energy source, just not very convenient for present technology.

This problem pales in comparison with the radionuclides that are released by burning coal. There was 5.4 billion tons of coal mined in 2003. Assuming all coal is burned to Western power plant standards, that amounts to hundreds of kilos of U235(160 kilos of this alone), Radon, Thorium and other radionuclides released into the atmosphere every year. And that assumes the ash is disposed of safely. And then when you factor in the inhalation danger of very small silicate particles, nuclear power plants are not a threat.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext