[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Clean air is the issue, not global warming
Andy,
Here would be some long-term problems:
- transporting of the SNF to Nevada and through Nevada, for the following
50-300 years
- what will happen with the repository after 300-500 years, after everybody
would have forgotten about the regulations set for the repository.
More simpler, I wouldn't like trucks with SNF (and I am not talking about
tens or hundreds), with or without caskets, to go on the same highways as I
am driving. That maybe is just me - maybe there are people who would like to
pass by trucks carrying caskets everyday on the way to work. If it is so,
maybe after they convince all their neighbors, they can request the
repository to be built somewhere closer to them.
The second point concerns with the attention span that seems to get shorter
and narrower everyday. Right now there are regulations about the safe
operation of the repository, but for myself, I haven't seen an engineering
project operated for several hundred years. Not in modern times. This makes
me doubt whether the science and the safety that are now so obviuos will
still be sought after 300 years. Based on humans history, the answer will be
no.
If I had known solutions to this problem, probably others would have known
them too, and they would be already applying them. With the little reading
that I've done, re-processing fuel (MOX) and new reactors would help reuse
the waste we have already generated (George Standford mentioned Advanced
Fast Reactors that have a higher efficiency - we'd burn less uranium then,
and thus, less waste per provided energy. I have to do more reading before I
can support this idea though). While the reprocessing would still maintain
(and double) the transport problem (you have to take it to the MOX facility
and back) , it will disperse the traffic that would now be convergent to
Nevada.
What solutions do you propose Andy, after we fill the mountain?
Regards,
Radu
> ----------
> From: English, Andrew[SMTP:englisha@aecl.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:47 PM
> To: 'Pomirleanu, Radu'; 'cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA'
> Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Clean air is the issue, not global
> warming
> Importance: High
>
> Hi Radu,
> Please explain what you see as the "permanent problem for the Nevada
> state" in all this? Also, what do you see as a solution to this
> "problem"?
>
> Regards,
> Andy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pomirleanu, Radu [ mailto:PomirlR@westinghouse.com]
> Sent: Thursday April 25, 2002 8:24 AM
> To: 'cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA'
> Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Clean air is the issue, not global warming
>
>
>
> "What bothers me about many of the strong supporters of Kyoto is that they
>
> seem to focus on CO2 and "global warming".
> Clean air is the issue - eliminating the polluted air, as described below.
>
> Also, these activists exclude nuclear energy as part of the solution. "
>
> While it is true that on SHORT TERM the local pollution is the more
> obvoius
> problem, let's not forget that conservation laws are applicable
> everywhere.
> That means that if you produce something and don't consume it somehow, it
> will accumulate somewhere (dear Reynolds theorem). While it is still
> debatable that the CO2 layer high above in the atmosphere has something to
>
> do with global warming, let's not forget that it is nonetheless
> accumulating
> upthere, because the Earth was probably not designed to consume the CO2
> produced by humans, and in the end it may become a problem (show me
> something that continuosly accumulates and it's not becoming a problem!).
>
> Summarizing, while the focus on the clean air is just and must be
> addressed
> for our sake, it is in the same time near sighted. I think this is what
> the
> Kyoto agreement is about.
>
> As for the nuclear industry as the part of the solution, I think that it
> can
> be indeed a solution as long as it is not generating other long-term
> problems, such as spent nuclear fuel storage. Stucking the spent fuel in
> the
> depth of a mountain after transporting it 3,000 miles through half of US
> is
> just a temporary "long-term solution", and it will actually be a permament
>
> problem for the Nevada state (again a conservation law).
>
> I think the engineering education and practice should start be geared
> towards sustainable solutions, i.e. solutions that will be contained
> within
> themseves and will not generate headaches for future generations. This is
> of
> course if we don't consider the Earth as our rightfull good, for our
> immediate pleasure and consumption.
>
> Sincerely,
> Radu Pomirleanu
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdn-nucl-l mailing list
> cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
>
>