Re: Gigatons CO2 vs. radwaste disposal?

[NeilKeeney@aol.com]

Stewart:

In your post you wrote:
"These kinds of comparisons of waste disposal needs between nuclear and 
fossil 
fuel cycles are necessary for the public and decisionmakers to appreciate in 
order that all the various "costs"  [i.e.: externalities in some jargon] of 
alternate fuel cycles are factored into societal decisionmaking."

This is the way it should go in a civilized world; I totally agree.  Let me 
take you down  memory lane (at least as I recall it) for a moment to recap 
(from my viewpoint) our "Waste Disposal Problems" in commercial nuclear.

Recall that in a Light Water Reactor we only use something on the order of 
seven to ten percent of the fissionable material in a typical base-load core. 
 Efficiency drops off and cost-effectiveness dictates that you change-out 
("Refuel") the core.  Recall that the original designs of the LWR's in the 
U.S. were developed under the assumption we would reprocess cores to extract 
the relatively small amount of high-level waste, "re-matrix" (re-process) the 
core, then use the fuel in another fuel cycle.  Recall that somewhere around 
the mid 70's when President Jimmy Carter said "Nope" to commercial 
reprocessing (Morris, IL facility) even though this is how we get the bomb 
plutonium over on the national "defense" side of nuclear.  So.  This is more 
or less the origin of the "Nuclear Waste" that forms part of the anti-nuke 
kook complaints of "What do we do with all the waste?"  It's a created 
problem... Created by politicians seeking re-election not solutions (Plato 
would die if he weren't dead already), promoted by the news-media as a 
genuine problem because it's their job to create problems, and probably 
originating with the coal-oil-gas-transportation complex as a mechanism to 
suppress nuclear technology thus maintaining market share and pricing.

As to the actual waste disposal issue, since 1959 the United States has 
created something like thirty to forty high-level nuclear waste repositories 
annually in the form of underground weapons (Nukes) tests.  They form a very 
nice, stable glass globe of varying dimensions up to 1/8 mile diameter and up 
to 1/4 mile underground.  More than enough space there for that 7 - 10 
percent high-level waste from a reprocessed core. 

In my universe there are no technological barriers to the Nuclear Waste 
Stream.  The barriers are artificial; created by politicians, promoted by the 
Merchants of Chaos (news media) and originating with a divergent business 
interest (fossil fuel stream).

Meanwhile the US and other so-called first-world societies are basically 
screwing the third world countries (economically) by:
1)  Keeping fossil fuel prices high (costs third world countries more) 
because we burn so much of it to make steam
2)  Sucking-up resources (fossil) we don't have to use (we have the 
technology of nuclear and can afford it) but that so-called third world 
countries could use for their economies because they can't afford nuclear
3)  Stagnating in a logical baseload electrical technological gradient Fossil 
to Nuclear to Fusion
4)  Creating these related problems of "Gigatons of CO2" to deal with that 
might only be mega-tons if we would just handle our either misled or stupid 
politicians a little better and not let them touch anything important or 
technical.

In my book, this is the definition of irresponsibility and, in a sense, evil; 
ecologically, economically, socially, and technologically.

Geez, I feel better now.

This is all my opinion and my reality and you'd have a hard time swaying me 
from it...

Neil Keeney
neilkeeney@aol.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html