Quote:
Originally Posted by Uplifter
The reason that nuclear power is not 100% viable is that it requires the trade of enriched nuclear fuel. The production of which is extremely carbon intensive. Also the fuel is traded which means that, although we could have a good supply of Uranium deposits globally, we will still need to either buy it from another less friendly country as a raw material and pay to enrich it ourselves, or we will have to buy enriched fuel from someone else at a greater cost.
|
As I asked in one of my earlier posts, have you heard about breeder reactors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uplifter
You then have a problem with what to do with the waste product which as you can see from my previous post has a seriously long half-life.
(incidentally I spoke to a nuclear physicist about your '50 year' half-life suggestion, and he is very excited to know how this is possible - so please forward the publication that details how an element that is bound/identified by a specific number of quantum particles can degrade faster than any thing else that we know of).
|
Again, I wish you would read what I said. The words "half life" never left my fingertips. I said it is STABLE after fifty years, once vitrified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uplifter
|
And this is a problem because ...
Isn't your argument that we need to act to save the planet?