Australian Politics Forum - Big Bad Nuclear, may be on the improve?

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment › Big Bad Nuclear, may be on the improve?

(Moderators: Bobby., Sir_Bobby)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Big Bad Nuclear, may be on the improve? (Read 997 times)

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Big Bad Nuclear, may be on the improve?
Feb 6^th, 2010 at 10:59pm

Well as a lifelong opponent to nuclear power, solely on the grounds of my lack of confidence in any society being capable of responsibly managing the toxic waste, for the period of time needed to see it revert to a relatively "safe" level, I was very heartened to read of the work of a US Nuclear Engineer named Eric Loewen, who works for GE in America.
He is working on a process which "rehabiltates"?? the spent nuclear fuel waste, for re-use in sodium cooled reactors.
Now I do not know if it will be the magic cure for all my concerns on Nuclear waste, but it is at least very heartening to know that bright and conscientious scientists are still working very hard at finding a solution that may see nuclear become a "truly" safe, and environmentally friendly power source we could utilise in the future.

Quote:

The December 2009 issue of Esquire features a piece on Eric Loewen, a PhD nuclear engineer who is promoting a technology that can recycle highly radioactive nuclear waste into fuel for sodium cooled fast reactors, which can safely produce lots of clean, zero CO2 energy, and end up reducing the radioactive toxicity of the material it uses two thousand fold, from millions to hundreds of years.

Sound too good to be true? That’s what I thought at first too. But start believing. Loewen is no ideologue, but a sober scientist who is very familiar with nuclear technology. Here are the basics.

http://greenopolis.com/goblog/joe-laur/nuclear-dawn-saving-world-radioactive-was...

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Big Bad Nuclear, may be on the improve?
Reply #1 - Feb 7^th, 2010 at 8:51am

The technology for dealing with nuclear waste is quite simple, and it always has been. It costs money, but not so much as to make nuclear energy much more expenisve than it is already. This technology is obviously an improvement. The problem up to now has been that the nuclear Energy Industry were not forced to clean up their waste in the US in the same way as they do in Sweden for example, and they have an appalling record of simply letting low level waste storage build up.

The reason for this is that the US EPA has been a toothless tiger for too long.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53299 At my desk.	Re: Big Bad Nuclear, may be on the improve? Reply #2 - Feb 7^th, 2010 at 9:09am Quote: It costs money, but not so much as to make nuclear energy much more expenisve than it is already. So it cost imaginary money? Why are there big stockpiles lying around, creating a very dangerous situation, when it would cost so little to process it? http://smacking.org.au/
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Big Bad Nuclear, may be on the improve?
Reply #3 - Feb 7^th, 2010 at 9:52am

freediver wrote on Feb 7^th, 2010 at 9:09am:

Quote:

It costs money, but not so much as to make nuclear energy much more expenisve than it is already.

So it cost imaginary money? Why are there big stockpiles lying around, creating a very dangerous situation, when it would cost so little to process it?

http://smacking.org.au/

1. I doubt if it's creating as dangerous a problem as some people will have you believe. The main danger is that people will jump up and down too much about it and get blood pressure problems.

2. It's not an insignificant cost, but it wouldn't put the nuclear industry in the US out of business to process the backlog. They should have been doing it all along. In many other countries, it's mandatory.

« Last Edit: Feb 7^th, 2010 at 4:37pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Pages: 1

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page