If it's so useful, then why are people still burying it underground? Why not dig out the waste we already buried? If it's such a great stuff, I can think of a few nations who'd be happy to send you some tons of highly-radioactive material they don't want.
On the other hand (not that I change my opinion), I always thought that probably the most clever way to get rid of nuclear waste permanently would be to put it on a rocket and shoot it into the sun. Would that work?
I admit, maybe I am a bit biased because I live in a country where we've never had nuclear power plants and never will have (there's a law that forbids the construction of nuclear power plants) - I am quite happy about that. But I promise to do some research on the topic anyway.
Nevertheless, my common sense tells me that producing energy from radioactive, highly dangerous materials cannot be the way forward.
One more thing (get out your tinfoil hats): a friend of mine who was employed to some big energy company once told me that all the money you save with nuclear energy is spent on things like safety, waste disposal (or reprocessing), safely dismantling the reactors, etc. Using other energy sources is in no way more expensive. The only real reason countries build nuclear power plants is to produce weapon-grade radioactive elements; either for themselves or to sell them.
I'm always negatively amazed on this sort of statement.
What about the nuclear waste? Many countries using nuclear power still don't know where to put it, and probably won't for centuries to come. In the meantime the waste is "safe-deposited" in "interim storage facilities". That's a problem the entire nuclear industry hasn't solved since the inception of the nuclear industry.
And what about availability? Just like oil, there's only a limited quantity of U-233 and U-235 available on Earth. If that's used up, that's it!
Sorry, but nuclear power is definitely NOT eco-friendly.
Funny. I read about oil-eating bacteria already in a Scrooge McDuck comic more than 15 years ago and have been waiting for them in real life since then.
Very interesting thought. I don't think it would be generally very problematic if (free) software from 14 years ago becomes public domain, there are usually better implementations of a given piece of software. But there is yet another twist: free software projects (as the Linux kernel, for example) have been constantly developed for years, i.e. new code added and removed all the time. How can you realistically sort out the code that fell into the public domain from the GPL'ed code?
Slashdot Mirror
If it's so useful, then why are people still burying it underground? Why not dig out the waste we already buried? If it's such a great stuff, I can think of a few nations who'd be happy to send you some tons of highly-radioactive material they don't want.
On the other hand (not that I change my opinion), I always thought that probably the most clever way to get rid of nuclear waste permanently would be to put it on a rocket and shoot it into the sun. Would that work?
Nuclear waste is the problem. Sorry, but there is no I'll-make-all-the-radioactive-waste-magically-vanish pixie that will do that for us.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
?????? should be step 0. Nuclear power isn't clean energy, wind, water and solar power are.
I am no resident of the United States, so I wonder... what about 'E'?
I admit, maybe I am a bit biased because I live in a country where we've never had nuclear power plants and never will have (there's a law that forbids the construction of nuclear power plants) - I am quite happy about that. But I promise to do some research on the topic anyway.
Nevertheless, my common sense tells me that producing energy from radioactive, highly dangerous materials cannot be the way forward.
One more thing (get out your tinfoil hats): a friend of mine who was employed to some big energy company once told me that all the money you save with nuclear energy is spent on things like safety, waste disposal (or reprocessing), safely dismantling the reactors, etc. Using other energy sources is in no way more expensive. The only real reason countries build nuclear power plants is to produce weapon-grade radioactive elements; either for themselves or to sell them.
I'm always negatively amazed on this sort of statement.
What about the nuclear waste? Many countries using nuclear power still don't know where to put it, and probably won't for centuries to come. In the meantime the waste is "safe-deposited" in "interim storage facilities". That's a problem the entire nuclear industry hasn't solved since the inception of the nuclear industry.
And what about availability? Just like oil, there's only a limited quantity of U-233 and U-235 available on Earth. If that's used up, that's it!
Sorry, but nuclear power is definitely NOT eco-friendly.
Funny. I read about oil-eating bacteria already in a Scrooge McDuck comic more than 15 years ago and have been waiting for them in real life since then.
Mind you, I am still trying to figure out how to move my mouse along the z-axis...
The Linus says:
"If you need more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix your program."
from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
Very interesting thought. I don't think it would be generally very problematic if (free) software from 14 years ago becomes public domain, there are usually better implementations of a given piece of software. But there is yet another twist: free software projects (as the Linux kernel, for example) have been constantly developed for years, i.e. new code added and removed all the time. How can you realistically sort out the code that fell into the public domain from the GPL'ed code?