Liste des Groupes | Revenir à se design |
On 2025-05-14 23:37, john larkin wrote:That's not true. Putting it deep underground in a stable and dryOn Wed, 14 May 2025 21:10:06 +0200, "Carlos E.R."Transporting nuclear waste long distances is dangerous.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2025-05-14 19:19, john larkin wrote:>On Tue, 13 May 2025 22:28:23 +0200, "Carlos E.R.">
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2025-05-13 18:14, Bill Sloman wrote:>On 13/05/2025 11:48 pm, john larkin wrote:>On Tue, 13 May 2025 12:57:47 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>Nukes are great, but not if you tear them down.>
Nukes are remarkably expensive, and depressingly inflexible. Radiation
damage to the structure means that you do have to tear them down after a
few decades of use, and the radioactive waste starts off very
radioactive, and the longer-lived isotopes have to be managed for a few
hundred thousand years.
And the investors building the stations do not consider the cost of
managing the waste for centuries. They leave that part to the
government. In Spain, we don't have any long term nuclear waste storage.
I think we rent storage in France, so the waste has to be transported
there. We have some storage at each station, a large water pool.
The best thing to do with used fuel rods is reprocess them into more
fuel.
Something that is expensive and not every country can do.
A couple of very remote places in the world could do that. And we'd
get lots of fun isotopes too. Can't leave hot rods in a zillion pools
forever.
Pools are a temporary solution till someone develops a permanent solution. Nobody has, in decades.
[...]
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.