Re: BBC energy calculator
- From: David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 13:34:26 +0100
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:56:59 +0100 someone who may be John Beardmore
<wookie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote this:-
Reprocessing is a relatively modern word for extracting plutonium.
It was set up to extract plutonium and nothing else.
Not sure that's true as it doesn't seem to be the only thing it does.
Some other things are produced as by-products. Some of these are
more useful than others. Relatively large quantities of radioactive
liquid are one of the less useful by-products. It is not of any use
to anyone. It takes a fair amount of energy to store it in tanks and
even more turn it into glass blocks.
Power stations using the
plutonium in various forms have been set up or advocated.
Yes - so ?
It is an example of the sort of excuse that is used to cover up
vested interests.
Is this necessarily a bad thing ?
I think so. Plutonium is dangerous in many ways. In addition using
it in power stations is another excuse by vested interests. Note
that if it is used in power stations it does not disappear, so yet
more reprocessing is one way of dealing with it.
Separating the materials involves a lot of energy and increasing the
volume of radioactive materials.
Volume alone is a rather misleading indicator.
I disagree. Storing a small volume of spent fuel rods is a far
better prospect than storing large quantities of liquid or glass
blocks. A smaller store is more likely to last.
Even if the whole proposed system,
including the glass block plants, were working properly I don't
think it would be a more stable way of storing the spent fuel
assemblies than storing them above ground.
Why ?
Several factors. Firstly processing involves losses. Secondly
processing separates out the plutonium, which is dangerous.
Governments around the world are trying to reduce the amount of
plutonium in circulation. Thirdly, processing increases the volume
of things to be stored. Lastly, storing plutonium isn't too easy.
Much of it is in drums in Windscale, drums which they don't really
know what to do with.
Adding
to the mess doesn't seem a good idea to me.
Can't say that leaving it to corrode and seep into the sea and
groundwater seems that smart either.
Nobody is proposing that, except perhaps for the management of
Windscale if they continue in the future as they have done in the
past. It is certainly not something the anti-nuclear lobby is
proposing.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: BBC energy calculator
- From: John Beardmore
- Re: BBC energy calculator
- References:
- Re: BBC energy calculator
- From: John Beardmore
- Re: BBC energy calculator
- From: David Hansen
- Re: BBC energy calculator
- From: John Beardmore
- Re: BBC energy calculator
- Prev by Date: Re: BBC energy calculator
- Next by Date: National waste and incineration meeting
- Previous by thread: Re: BBC energy calculator
- Next by thread: Re: BBC energy calculator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|