If the world embraces nuclear energy, where will the deadly waste go?

Too bad this article doens't mention the waste that was dumped in the North Pole's waters in the early 60's *long forgotten and still there - Personally, i think that ALL nuclear reactors should be shut DOWN - before it's too late!!! We have so many other natural options and resources to work with that the last thing we need is something that can and will torch every living thing on the planet.

Actually we don't. We have a limited amount of hydro capacity, and any new dams have to be passed by environmental reviews and native bands. Then there is coal. Things like wind turbines, geo thermal and solar are great but really can't develop as much clean power as we demand. At best they can supliment our needs.So the answer is one way or the other we are going to pollute our environment. We need to decide which way is the most acceptable to us.

natural options .. like oil and gas.. very helpful

wind and solar can help, but it will be a long time before they are really viable.. and we have an energy crisis right now..

and you still need backup for those windless, cloudy days..

or here's another idea, the greens like this one..

let all move back to the caves, and then Greenpeace can criticize all of us for burning some wood to try and keep warm.

nuclear power is safe.. Chernobyl happened because the Soviets didnt give a damn about safety.

and all around the world, govts are writing deals for new NPP's, cause they see nuclear is the best alternative right now.

Based on our current technology, nuclear energy has the least impact on our environment. The waste can be recycled and reused several times. The reactors are becoming safer and cleaner with each new generation.

I support nuclear power.

We can send the waste to Jupiter.

I don't believe that wind and solar power is a viable option for a currently expanding world population.

Unless we become capable of generating power in space and transmitting that power down to earth then nuclear power is our best option.

Basically this boils down to folks expressing opinions on which they haven't a clue.

Step one forget about CO2......AGQ is a myth.....that uncomplicated the "carbon footprint" thingy.

Electrical power generation application hinges on the little matter of load.

Base load----the base requirement-----nuclear is a base load resource---it is difficult to start up on demand.

Fossil fuel generators are not flexible because steam plants like nuclear need to be running to react in any useful manner.

Wind and Solar are the most expensive option---investment, space and material wise----and they just plain don't generate enough power to be credible.

Hydro-electric is flexible----literally you can turn it on and off on demand with certain limits.

The only viable, workable mix is nuclear for base load, backed up by hydro and quickstart diesel/gas turbine generators for peak loads.

Popular hysteria is hindering next generation reactors which will consume the "waste" of older generators as fuel.

For whatever reason---mostly ignorance---AGW hysteria and anti-nuclear hysteria go hand in hand.

My position is that the schools have deliberately dumbed down the population to create an easily manipulated constituency.

Fast breeder reactors use radioactive waste and turn it into fuel. The byproduct is medical grade waste that's radioactive for 90 days.

guess a lot of you live in the city and are not using alternative methods for heating and electrical already.
The word "demand" is quite demonstrative of human nature and rather than conserve the attitude is "gimme"
How many neuclear plants are around the great lakes alone? Anyone? To get that info, you have to contact the federal gov't - but it use to be public information - not anymore.
Last I checked almost 20 yrs ago, there were 19 or 20 around the great lakes - one of which has 7 heads - anything man made is "breakable" -
With Chernobyl, they had to go public because of the vast impact it had - how many other incidences do we not not know of that were concealed to hinder public panic?
There are a couple of staions globally that were forced to shut down, they leaked and the surrounding areas are off limits for - oh about 75 -100 yrs - and that's a guestimation on behalf of the gov't's that shut them down - we won't be alive to find out if the areas were off limits for 150 yrs.
Granted, with population explosion - the "demand" for more and more power is in deed a challenge and the easiest solutions are not always the best.
Should everyone play a part in exploring new methods, costly as it may be, better alternatives are out there and anything done in mass production, becomes cheaper and cheaper with time.
No risk, just fact.
And gawd forbid, just one reactor explode, the impact could set off several others creating a chain reaction.
Oh well, when ya play with fire, you'll get burnt.

What kind of alternative methods for heat and electricity are you using?

After tacos and beer I'm able to keep warm under the covers all night long, without using a heater. Does that count as alternative energy source?

Dutch oven..always cheap and effective

wolfwithin


And that is the green myth #3-----nuclear reactors expolde like H-bombs.

Ya HOCKEY PUCK!

Behave yourself. Still misleading the ignorant sheeples. Chernobyle is about as bad as it gets.

The main difference is the better designs of western reactors, better maintainence place such events into the hypothetic.

Sorry. No mushroom clouds......

Actually we don't. We have a limited amount of hydro capacity, and any new dams have to be passed by environmental reviews and native bands. Then there is coal. Things like wind turbines, geo thermal and solar are great but really can't develop as much clean power as we demand. At best they can supliment our needs.So the answer is one way or the other we are going to pollute our environment. We need to decide which way is the most acceptable to us.

I agree wiht that 100%.

One thing to keep in mind though is that if (by some off chance) we were to run out of available oil and had to rely wholly on nuclear, I saw a show that said we'd really only have enough uranium for two or three decades.

The problem wiht sending nucelar waste into space is that if something happens and the container blows up in the upper atmosphere, you irradiate the whole plaent.