Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hank2010 who wrote (37819)	4/9/2007 4:37:35 AM
From: TheBusDriver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78418

Are you serious? You are trying to compare radioactive waste that lasts for 10,000 years to high mercury levels in a lake in Montana? I will use the world nuclear association as it is conservative and accepted....there are lots more sites that tell a worse story. How many people died from mercury in Montana? How about entire towns abandoned? Hundreds of sq. miles uninhabited? world-nuclear.org Read this for a rather chilling account of what went wrong: en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org Can't happen in the Western world? 3-Mile Island preceded Chernobyl by years....we were very lucky at TMI. en.wikipedia.org Until the Nuclear industry comes up with a good plan for getting rid of this waste I will take the mercury anyday. Only think I know to do with it is to ship it to the sun, the biggest nuclear reactor we know of.....

To: hank2010 who wrote (37819)	4/9/2007 5:43:01 AM
From: TheBusDriver	Respond to of 78418

If you are still worried about mercury in Montana here are a couple of more links to study: en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org And this is the best. Guess how many nuclear bombs have been involved in accidents? Scary. Some were even jettisioned from planes in trouble. en.wikipedia.org

To: hank2010 who wrote (37819)	4/9/2007 10:25:55 AM
From: russet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78418

Under development but promising for spent fuel. thestar.com The Candu edge STAR ARCHIVES China’s Qinshan nuclear power facility uses Candu heavy-water reactor technology, which can use spent nuclear fuel rods. Canada's heavy-water reactors can run on spent fuel from most light-water reactors, eliminating 2 headaches: skyrocketing uranium prices and waste disposal concerns Feb 12, 2007 04:30 AM Tyler Hamilton The international potential of Candu nuclear reactors may not be obvious to some, but rising uranium prices and heightened concern over nuclear-waste disposal could soon shine a light on this made-in-Canada technology. Nobody sees this more than Myung Seung Yang of South Korea's atomic energy institute. Yang and his fellow nuclear scientists have spent the past 15 years exploring ways of using Candu reactors to recycle highly radioactive waste, or "spent fuel," from a majority of the world's nuclear reactors. The approach, Yang wrote in an email message to the Star, "would have many benefits when practically implemented." South Korea is determined to try. It's little known – at least outside the nuclear power industry – that the heavy-water reactor technology that lies at the heart of Candu's design can, with some technical tinkering, directly use waste fuel from most rival light-water reactors. Candu developer Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. calls this the DUPIC process – standing for the Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in Candus. In 1991, the Canadian government established a joint research program with the Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute to investigate the approach, and both sides have demonstrated that it technically works. The long-term implications, if DUPIC processing can be done safely and economically, are potentially enormous. There are hundreds of pressurized light-water reactors (PWRs) around the world being used to generate electricity and propel submarines and aircraft carriers. In the United States alone, two-thirds of the 104 reactors in operation are based on PWR designs, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This has led over the years to the accumulation of 36,000 metric tonnes of spent fuel, which is kept in temporary storage at dozens of locations until a safe permanent-storage site can be found. With DUPIC processing, that waste can be turned into a reusable fuel. This can significantly reduce a country's dependence on uranium, which many analysts predict will rise above $100 (U.S.) per pound by the end of next year – a tenfold price increase since January 2001. Perhaps most important, the spent light-water fuel that eventually comes out of a Candu reactor will contain less toxic material than the fuel that goes in, shrinking the amount of radioactive waste that must ultimately go into long-term storage. "The DUPIC fuel cycle could reduce a country's need for used PWR fuel disposal by 70 per cent while reducing fresh uranium requirements by 30 per cent," according to the World Nuclear Association. It's for this reason South Korea is keen on the DUPIC process. It currently has 20 operating reactors – 16 PWRs and four Candus. Another eight PWRs are on order or being built. It sees the reuse of spent fuel in Candus as a key strategy for managing radioactive waste. cont'd,...