Lest we not forget MRI, or nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (originally, NMRI) had its name changed due to undue public fear of "nuclear." People were afraid of the procedure so rather than try to educate people on the topic of nuclear science and engineering, those involved simply decided to drop the "N."
Millions of gallons can be converted into a smaller volume through chemical reprocessing of the materials. Imagine if every time you took a shit, the water that was in the toilet was instantly put in a tank and designated part of the "waste" produced by you.
This is similar to the situation at Hanford - had reprocessing not been outlawed we wouldn't have had to (and still could go back and fix) this political problem of storing the ENTIRE waste byproduct.
Another one-sentence post, somehow instantly modded up.
Anyways, I'll bite.
What makes you want to get rid of this material? Plutonium, sure it has a long half-life, but is that a bad thing? As a transuranic artificial element, Plutonium is one of the most expensive materials on Earth primarily in the fact that you can't put a price on it in many cases. So now you may ask, "So what if it costs a lot. Things can cost a lot and not be useful."
How excited were you and the rest of this Slashdot community when the Mars Rover Curiosity began is successful exploration a few months back? This piece of science and engineering happens to run off of a "Plutonium battery" if you will Curiosity, called an RTG RTG Explanation
O.K. so now you may ask "Great, we don't actually WANT to get rid of Plutonium, but what about all those other nasty chemicals? Surely they validate my unfounded convictions that I'm espousing with somehow successfully modded posts?"
Well, actually, we have answers for that too, it just so happens they have largely been illegal in the United States for much of the time since their invention. As a leader in the Nuclear Industry at its birth, the United States outlawed reprocessing with the thinking that other countries would follow suit. As history stands, this was not the case, and instead of "storing" things like we politically decided to do in the mid-seventies we could easily reprocess them based upon one of the many methods depending on the situation Nuclear Reprocessing.
So, what's the real challenge, you ask? It's convincing uneducated people about the science ACTUALLY behind everything Nuclear such that they don't hold uneducated convictions such as yourself and end actual technological progress.
...and then this Plutonium is contained within the Spent Nuclear Fuel on-site until another Yucca Mountain proposal goes through or we recycle the material.
Hanford's original purpose was solely to produce weapons grade Plutonium (different than a small amount of Plutonium in spent fuel) for use in the weapons program. The resulting waste was stored in these canisters which are being mentioned in the article. Just because two different actions of man utilize the same resource does not mean that their intentions are identical.
If you have any more confusion relating Nuclear Weapons to Nuclear Power as it pertains to this article post below or perhaps read the Hanford article on Wikipedia to learn some of what I just said and more Hanford Site: Wikipedia
Are we nuclear yet? For us to do that, we have to take the maintenance of these plants out of the hands of potential Homer Simpsons.
Similar to the core concept here in question, be careful not to mix media bias with technological facts. Comparing the average American nuclear worker to Homer Simpson is not accurate.
The summary cites solar, wind, and nuclear as not being able to power cities. This is due to the fact that cities need power when they need it, and can't wait for the power to be there intermittandly. Therefore, viable options fall under the designation "baseload" power (power that you can have whenever - and in most cases wherever), and the summary's mention of solar and wind are rightly not grouped in this category.
Incorrectly, however, the summary mentions nuclear, which is in fact a primary form of baseload power along with coal, gas, or hydro. Nuclear could, can, will, and does power entire cities, in fact, Chicago is roughly over 90% powered by Nuclear energy (rough statistic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Illinois).
I think its as simple as playing a game that is very *fun* and then playing another game that is very *fun* and there you have it. Start with Portal 2 (great co-op for any skill level) and then continue looking for good Co-Op games.
Slashdot Mirror
Lest we not forget MRI, or nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (originally, NMRI) had its name changed due to undue public fear of "nuclear." People were afraid of the procedure so rather than try to educate people on the topic of nuclear science and engineering, those involved simply decided to drop the "N."
Millions of gallons can be converted into a smaller volume through chemical reprocessing of the materials. Imagine if every time you took a shit, the water that was in the toilet was instantly put in a tank and designated part of the "waste" produced by you.
This is similar to the situation at Hanford - had reprocessing not been outlawed we wouldn't have had to (and still could go back and fix) this political problem of storing the ENTIRE waste byproduct.
Another one-sentence post, somehow instantly modded up.
Anyways, I'll bite.
What makes you want to get rid of this material? Plutonium, sure it has a long half-life, but is that a bad thing? As a transuranic artificial element, Plutonium is one of the most expensive materials on Earth primarily in the fact that you can't put a price on it in many cases. So now you may ask, "So what if it costs a lot. Things can cost a lot and not be useful."
How excited were you and the rest of this Slashdot community when the Mars Rover Curiosity began is successful exploration a few months back? This piece of science and engineering happens to run off of a "Plutonium battery" if you will Curiosity, called an RTG RTG Explanation
O.K. so now you may ask "Great, we don't actually WANT to get rid of Plutonium, but what about all those other nasty chemicals? Surely they validate my unfounded convictions that I'm espousing with somehow successfully modded posts?"
Well, actually, we have answers for that too, it just so happens they have largely been illegal in the United States for much of the time since their invention. As a leader in the Nuclear Industry at its birth, the United States outlawed reprocessing with the thinking that other countries would follow suit. As history stands, this was not the case, and instead of "storing" things like we politically decided to do in the mid-seventies we could easily reprocess them based upon one of the many methods depending on the situation Nuclear Reprocessing.
So, what's the real challenge, you ask? It's convincing uneducated people about the science ACTUALLY behind everything Nuclear such that they don't hold uneducated convictions such as yourself and end actual technological progress.
From the Wikipedia for Yucca, Yucca Mountain was...
...for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other high level radioactive waste...
(Italics added)
In the Nuclear Industry, the byproducts of the Plutonium production situation at Hanford is what we would refer to as high level radioactive waste.
LWRs produce plutonium as a byproduct.
...and then this Plutonium is contained within the Spent Nuclear Fuel on-site until another Yucca Mountain proposal goes through or we recycle the material.
Hanford's original purpose was solely to produce weapons grade Plutonium (different than a small amount of Plutonium in spent fuel) for use in the weapons program. The resulting waste was stored in these canisters which are being mentioned in the article. Just because two different actions of man utilize the same resource does not mean that their intentions are identical.
If you have any more confusion relating Nuclear Weapons to Nuclear Power as it pertains to this article post below or perhaps read the Hanford article on Wikipedia to learn some of what I just said and more Hanford Site: Wikipedia
Oh the age old "I confused Nuclear Power with Nuclear Weapons" sentiment again!
Are we nuclear yet? For us to do that, we have to take the maintenance of these plants out of the hands of potential Homer Simpsons.
Similar to the core concept here in question, be careful not to mix media bias with technological facts. Comparing the average American nuclear worker to Homer Simpson is not accurate.
Information about American nuclear plant operators.
Aside from the actual day-to-day operation, the maintenance of the American nuclear plants is above and beyond what is necessary.
Operational Maintenance
The summary cites solar, wind, and nuclear as not being able to power cities. This is due to the fact that cities need power when they need it, and can't wait for the power to be there intermittandly. Therefore, viable options fall under the designation "baseload" power (power that you can have whenever - and in most cases wherever), and the summary's mention of solar and wind are rightly not grouped in this category.
Incorrectly, however, the summary mentions nuclear, which is in fact a primary form of baseload power along with coal, gas, or hydro. Nuclear could, can, will, and does power entire cities, in fact, Chicago is roughly over 90% powered by Nuclear energy (rough statistic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Illinois).
I think its as simple as playing a game that is very *fun* and then playing another game that is very *fun* and there you have it. Start with Portal 2 (great co-op for any skill level) and then continue looking for good Co-Op games.