Wind Farm Slaughter

[Al Agnew]

We figured out a way to dispose of spent fuel, but it wasn't politically acceptable.

No, actually we figured out a place to store spent fuel, not a way to dispose of it. Launching it into space sounds great until you stop to think of the cost of doing so with current technology makes it unfeasible, and when you then stop to think that if we ever start going into space on a routine basis, there are going to be all these parcels of highly radioactive fuel rods that last, essentially, forever, floating around that we really wouldn't want to run into.

We don't have the technology to store it anywhere on Earth where it might not come back to bite us in the future, even if it's in the far future.

I'm not saying nuclear isn't a viable answer, but it has never been a cheap one nor a completely safe one. To make it safe to produce makes it expensive. Storing the waste adds more expense. I do hold out hope that the problems are solvable, but you can't just ignore them.

[Flysmallie]

Can't we just store them in North Korea?

[Wayne SW/MO]

Can't we just store them in North Korea?

That would be a great idea, put it in containers that look like bombs and tell them they are now armed.

The truth is solar would be cheap if it were not for the retrofitting required. Homes that were wired with separate circuits for lights could use it without much expense, but houses aren't wired that way. It still has potential if the money sent in other direction was properly applied.

[Quillback]

No, actually we figured out a place to store spent fuel, not a way to dispose of it. Launching it into space sounds great until you stop to think of the cost of doing so with current technology makes it unfeasible, and when you then stop to think that if we ever start going into space on a routine basis, there are going to be all these parcels of highly radioactive fuel rods that last, essentially, forever, floating around that we really wouldn't want to run into.

We don't have the technology to store it anywhere on Earth where it might not come back to bite us in the future, even if it's in the far future.

I'm not saying nuclear isn't a viable answer, but it has never been a cheap one nor a completely safe one. To make it safe to produce makes it expensive. Storing the waste adds more expense. I do hold out hope that the problems are solvable, but you can't just ignore them.

Yeah I meant store it, we did have a place that offered reasonably safe storage, but for political reasons it got shot down, so now we just store it all close to the plants that produce it. It's the dumb option and the unsafe option, but why be smart about things?

[Wayne SW/MO]

No, actually we figured out a place to store spent fuel, not a way to dispose of it. Launching it into space sounds great until you stop to think of the cost of doing so with current technology makes it unfeasible, and when you then stop to think that if we ever start going into space on a routine basis, there are going to be all these parcels of highly radioactive fuel rods that last, essentially, forever, floating around that we really wouldn't want to run into.

There are some flaws in this Al. The amount of fuel would of course have some effect, but the cost doesn't seem to be exorbitant. We manage to send rockets up for many things that are probably not anymore important than clean energy. There seems to be a belief that everything shot into space stays in orbit, but it doesn't, spent fuel could be sent on a light years journey, it just has to be given the right direction coordinates. i don't know if any research has been done on sending it deep into the earth either. I confess I don;t know what the possibilities are, but we thought testing underground was harmless to the US at ground level? If it was set up to be safe at ground level, any leaks far below the surface should be safe and secure.

[Al Agnew]

I'm sure it's doable to shoot it up into space, but don't think it wouldn't be expensive. It's not quite the same as deploying a satellite. You have to be darned sure that it's completely sealed, and in such a way that, if the rocket failed or something else went wrong and it did come back to Earth and landed in the middle of St. Louis, it wouldn't be a giant dirty bomb. Perhaps the only way to make it anywhere like economical would be to shoot it up there in volume, instead of shooting small amounts over and over again, but that just makes the potential dirty bomb bigger. Probably 90 some odd percent of the episodes of putting it into space would go off without a hitch, but when you're dealing with something that dangerous, it only takes one mistake.

[Chief Grey Bear]

So we have gone from windmills killing a few birds all the way to shooting spent nuclear fuel rods into infinity.

Well played gentlemen.

[Terrierman]

There are hundreds if not thousands of tons of nuclear waste. It's not just the rods, it's all the stuff that gets contaminated as part of the day to day operations at a nuke. It's NOT feasible to launch that stuff into space. It does show the depth of understanding of these issues though.

[Chief Grey Bear]

There are hundreds if not thousands of tons of nuclear waste. It's not just the rods, it's all the stuff that gets contaminated as part of the day to day operations at a nuke. It's NOT feasible to launch that stuff into space. It does show the depth of understanding of these issues though.

You completly missed my point.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I think we're still talking about viable energy sources Chief. Not really a big diversion.