[geeks] Global warming, was Mr Bill?

[Sandwich Maker]

" From: der Mouse <mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
" 
" > i'm in the camp that believes that there is -no- safe disposal for
" > the high-level radioactive waste of un-reprocessed 'spent' fuel rods.
" 
" For what value of "safe"?  I'm not convinced it's that difficult to
" dispose of them with no more overall damage to us or the planet than it
" is to, say, dispose of the residue from burning the necessary amount of
" fossil fuel to produce the same amount of useful energy.  (For example,
" if the spent fuel from all existing nuclear plants were distributed
" evenly throughout the ecosphere, how would the resulting radiation
" level compare to the existing background radiation?)

if it could be distributed evenly, probably not much.  but can you
imagine it actually happening politically, let alone technically?

imho the only way to dispose of 'spent' fuel is to design reactors that
can be fueled by it and reduce it to low level waste, eg. lead that is
'hot' not inherently but only by association.  this has the useful side
effect of extracting the energy in that radioactivity too.

" I've never even heard of any careful comparison that actually takes
" into account that nuclear powerplant "exhaust" needs to be compared not
" with nothing but rather with the "exhaust" from other forms of power
" generation.  All forms of energy production have prices, and I'm not
" convinced nuclear isn't cost-competitive when all the costs are
" tallied.

i agree; it might indeed be economical even after -all- costs are
considered.  the trick is making sure that -all- costs are actually
considered in the decision.

" Of course, this isn't the sort of question that can have a well-defined
" answer, because people will differ over which cost is the greater in
" many cases (how does an X% rise in the worldwide cancer rate compare to
" Y degrees of worldwide warming from geenhouse gases?).  But as far as I
" can tell nobody seems to be even approaching it from that perspective.
" Perhaps those studies just don't make it to any news medium I follow.

there's one difference: global warming is inherently much more
democratic, something we all will share the burden of.  cancer is
something only the afflicted minority would face, and it's a nasty price
to make them pay for the rest of us.

another: given the half-lives involved, the effects from high-level
waste would persist for millions, if not tens or even hundreds of
millions of years.  global warming would not, and the geological record
shows that the planet has survived it before.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh at an.bradford.ma.us                       and think what none thought