BAR wrote:
jim78565 wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
jps wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:
John H wrote:
A good article on nuclear waste disposal. The liberals continue to
pull the wool over the eyes of the masses, but maybe the word is
getting out. France has had the right idea for lots of years.
http://tinyurl.com/czv338
Note also the Opinion Journal Forum.
"Otherwise, great editorial and great message. Unlike its
competition,
fossil fuel combustion, heavy metal fission does not inherent produce
a nasty waste product that needs immediate release into our common
atmosphere. It produces a relatively tiny amount of very dense
material with useful properties that can be easily stored until it
can
be recycled and reused. Canceling Yucca Mountain may have been the
smartest decision yet by the new administration."
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
--
John H
For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm
The liberals are scared to death of a few tons of Nuclear waste,
while they want power plants to capture 3 billion tons/year of
carbon dioxide gas and store it forever. (National Geographic
figures) It gets worse if they store it as a metal salt, now they
are storing 7 billion tons/year of hazardous materials with all of
the regulated controls.
Can you imagine the kill zone if a large container carbon dioxide
ruptures and a few 1000 tons of carbon dioxide gas instantly was
spread over a community? Everything, people animals, etc. would be
dead for miles.
Personally I would prefer a few thousand pounds of Nuclear waste,
on container failure it would slowly leak from its containers and
could be contained.
Really? What if it were blown up by a nuclear explotion?
In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one
explosion of a nuclear power plant?
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island
They didn't "explode".
Here you go, **** for brains:
On 25 April, prior to a routine shut-down, the reactor crew at
Chernobyl-4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines
would spin and supply power following a loss of main electrical power
supply. Similar tests had already been carried out at Chernobyl and
other plants, despite the fact that these reactors were known to be very
unstable at low power settings.
A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic
shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. As
flow of coolant water diminished, power output increased. When the
operator moved to shut down the reactor from its unstable condition
arising from previous errors, a peculiarity of the design caused a
dramatic power surge.
The fuel elements ruptured and the resultant explosive force of steam
lifted off the cover plate of the reactor, releasing fission products to
the atmosphere. A second explosion threw out fragments of burning fuel
and graphite from the core and allowed air to rush in, causing the
graphite moderator to burst into flames.
There is some dispute among experts about the character of this second
explosion. The graphite - there was over 1200 tonnes of it - burned for
nine days, causing the main release of radioactivity into the
environment. A total of about 14 EBq (1018 Bq) of radioactivity was
released, half of it being biologically-inert noble gases. See also
appended sequence of events.
Some 5000 tonnes of boron, dolomite, sand, clay and lead were dropped on
to the burning core by helicopter in an effort to extinguish the blaze
and limit the release of radioactive particles.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm