On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Leslie <leslie.bri...@gmail.com> wrote: > IMHO, the biggest problem is, it's cheaper to get more uranium than it > is to reprocess the spent fuel. They 'could' reprocess it, and > recover, maybe upwards of 75%, for further use as nuclear fuel; it > just costs more than getting more. So, they end up w/ quantities of > spent fuel, that has to be put somewhere. That's the issue. Unless > they can figure out how to convert that into stable arborium for > Kevlar, or something else useful, instead of sitting around in glass > or being shipped off to Yucca Mtn, well... >
the book "The world without us" by Alan Weisman: http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html has a compelling chapter on the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and other toxic chemicals. The paragraphs on the linguists required to label the 'danger areas' with adequate warnings so that any intelligent life 10000 years from now will know to stay away is fascinating. Well worth your time to read the book. -sv -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
