George Monbiot: Nuclear vs Nuclear vs Nuclear

[salvorhardin]

Monbiot's right. There are only three things we can do with nuclear waste: 1) Ignore it, 2) Bury it, 3) Use it for fuel. Of those three the first is unconscionable, and the second problematic for numerous reasons. So that leaves us with the third, and that presents us with two further choices: a) transform it into suboptimal fuel at great cost, and b) build new fast breeder reactors to burn waste directly. 3a) is idiotic, doesn't help the environment, and only serves to enrich private corporations. 3b) on the other hand means we have enough fuel -- in the form of existing nuclear waste -- to last us for hundreds of years, the resultant waste has a half life in tens of years versus tens of thousands, it's a physical -- as in the laws of physics -- impossibility for FBRs to melt down, and what waste there is can't be used to make nuclear bombs! So why are we not working to make 3b) a reality?

So which of these options do you support? None of the above is not an answer. Something has to be done with the waste, and unless you have invented a novel solution, one of these three options will need to be deployed (or, conceivably, a different nuclear power technology, such as thorium or travelling wave reactors). But it is a choice that opponents of nuclear power are refusing to make – and that is not good enough...

But all of us, if we have a serious interest in doing something about nuclear waste, should make this choice. What do you want to see done with it and why? Simply shouting down other people’s suggestions won’t make it go away.

Full article: http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/02/nuclear-vs-nuclear-vs-nuclear

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. what? No Nukular?

[TheWraith]

2. Why? Short answer, coal power has America by the collective nutsack.

They've done a brilliant job in terms of tainting public perception of nuclear power without it obviously being a smear job, working through many small "grassroots" anti-nuclear groups armed with with "brown paper bag full of bills" type funding, and factually dubious or outright wrong "science." Unfortunately, they were very, very effective. Fortunately there's a little more push-back these days against both the nuclear end and the similar campaign going on against wind turbines using the exact same tactics.

Case in point, you can look at the Rocky Mountain Institute run by anti-nuclear advocate Amory Lovins. In one of the more transparent examples of propagandizing against clean energy, the RMI is openly funded by BP, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon-Mobile, Walmart, and a herd of others like them. They're the go-to group for one one of the major polluters needs a little greenwashing done, or an "energy expert" to insist that we don't need nuclear power or conservation, we just need energy efficient windows and that'll make everything better.

[salvorhardin]

3. Pretty much

I can only assume a similar dynamic is at play in the UK.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Britain had a bad experience with an experimental fast breeder reactor

at Dounreay. It was possibly handled even more incompetently than the MOX fiasco at Sellafield - they've had to close the beaches there because of radioactive contamination. It's not entirely surprising that people aren't jumping at the chance for a new fast breeder. Dounreay was touted as the solution to our energy problems, and was a failure.

[madokie]

7. Because Lovins works with these companies to save money on their fuel bills

that makes him a shill for the industry. I think you been staying out in the sun and drinking too much mr Wraith

yes a refinery uses and looses power and yes Lovins has helped the oil companies to find and close those holes. What have you done that has had an impact on our co2 even ever so small, what? Personally I've been using, and pushing others to do the same, a carbon neutral source for my heat for 20 years now. Wood pellets made from otherwise waste.

One thing Lovins isn't and that is a shill for the oil/coal companies and only someone grasping for straws, trying to put him down because of his stance on nuclear energy, would use it

[izquierdista]

5. #2, but not just the waste, bury the whole reactor.

Still waiting for ideas from 1971 to catch up with the technology of today

http://books.google.com/books?id=LQsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=%22underground+nuclear+power%22+rogers&source=bl&ots=Xx0ikDR7x7&sig=xzetLWPrrGoxJX89mEAydVy0KK4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GkM8T6q5JMW9twfoqOXnCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22underground%20nuclear%20power%22%20rogers&f=false

[MadHound]

6. Umm, most of the waste from a nuclear reactor isn't spent fuel

It ranges from paper swipes to activated aluminum cans, contaminated gloves to decommissioned hot cells. None of this you can turn into fuel.

Therefore the best option, really the only safe option is to simply relegate nuclear to the dustbin of history, and concentrate on clean, green alternatives instead.