Page 3 of 3

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 2:33 pm
by biffvernon
:lol:

Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:50 pm
by biffvernon
Looks like some Germans don't really want their waste back.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/ ... onmentNews

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:28 am
by kenneal - lagger
It's probably not just Germans! The NIMBYs crawl out of the woodwork anywhere as soon as a nuclear waste repository is suggested although most are happy to use nuclear electricity if none other is available.

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:38 pm
by emordnilap
kenneal - lagger wrote:It's probably not just Germans! The NIMBYs crawl out of the woodwork anywhere as soon as a nuclear waste repository is suggested although most are happy to use nuclear electricity if none other is available.
Again, this reminds me of Monbiot's support for the nuclear technology that is supposed to consume this waste. Why is such a good idea not pursued?

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:16 pm
by Little John
Yes, from my understanding, we already have the technology to keep consuming nuclear waste until there is a very small amount of very radioactive material left with a half life measured in months and years or, at most, tens of years, not millennia. Of course, this means such waste that is left at the end of this process has to be VERY carefully guarded. But, the logistics required for this are measured in a human lifetime and involve vastly smaller volumes of material. And that is the crucial point.

So, why is such technology not implemented? The answer, I would guess, is that it significantly negatively impacts EROEI and so profitability. Either that, or the more vociferous sections of the green movement have a veritable shit-fit any time a solution is proposed which employs yet more of the "demon" technology. Either way, such technological solutions are pushed into the long-grass for some future generation to have to deal with.