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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (15456)	11/20/1998 9:45:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

breeder reactors are the obvious way to go if we had a national commitment to fission power. Two concerns are worth addressing however. One is security of plutonium - this can be fixed technically by making fuel rods awful hard to refine for the gifted amateur. (Like a well-funded terrorist group...) The other and bigger hitch is safety and security of generated waste. The radiological waste produced by a useful,amount of operating power nukes will be ... well, a lot. We will absolutely need our policymakers to stop playing "NIMBY" on the waste treatment/storage issue and figure a way to stash the wastes "out of the reach of children" for a few thousand years. Deep burial might work. Especially on/in a subduction zone. But I better defer to the geologically learned on that score. If we can lick the waste storage issue on a national/global scale, fission has a lot to recommend it. What the fusionheads aren't widely advertising is that a running fusion plant is every bit as dirty as a fission nuke - and a lot more technically fussy. Until then - it's drill&burn.