"Exactly—and please notice that Sellafield produces weapons grade plutonium for nuclear weapons. This is a different can of corn than I was proposing in nuclear power vs. weapons. Nuclear plants for the most part use uranium, not plutonium (although plutonium can be a bi product of the process). But I am not a nuclear scientist so I really cannot fully explain this. Any nuclear scientists out there reading these posts that want to weigh in on this?"
the fast breeder reactors you posted about MAKE plutonium which then has to be re-processed into fuel by plants like sellafield.
"There is a huge cleanup effort underway at Hanford but it will take a long time to finish, if indeed it ever does so. I have a friend who worked there for quite awhile and he also tells me of the boondoggle regarding the waste of money being spent there in certain areas that accomplish nothing as far as cleanup, but manage to keep the taxpayer bucks rolling in. The public is often under the impression that if huge amounts of money are thrown at something all will be well. Billions are being spent at Hanford but what really matters is the wisdom on how it is being spent."
yes Ken but what would change in the future? im am far from convinced by previous actions in this area that the future would be any different.
this appears to negate your point on future use - the problem of clean up remains, its expensive as you so ably pointed out not that effective, apart from appearances sake.
a waste of money i believe, that would be better spent developing the huge infrastructure* needed to cover our energy needs.
what we need to do is compare the costs of developing nuclear plants, the clean up and safety measures to the amount of energy produced, and do the same for renewable sources. then do a risk/benefit analysis. ill have a look tomorrow, someones bound to ahve doe so but to find an in-biased source.......
* perhaps huge infrastructure isnt the sole answer. perhaps small scale neighbourhood electricity generation schemes are a good way to go.
Hydrogen, yes that could be an answer. much better and more cost efficient i think to invest in hydrogen development as opposed to nuclear. so many fewer and less dangerous problems. but still apparently a fair amount of technical difficulties to over come.
have you heard of the
air car? would be bloody marvellous it that worked.
