Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Bill Gates is a rich man because he is smart. As far as environmental issues like nuclear waste? Those microprocessor chips are still going to be made by the millions. And this takes certain chemical compounds that create nuclear waste. I think the issue is not so much that, but the profits Bill Gates makes from making those silicon microprocessor chips. As long as there are profits, he won't care. Continue with the production of those silicon microprocessor chips.
Seems like where you'd want to store it is in an endorheic basin, so any water contamination is contained. The Great Divide Basin in Wyoming for example, which is also a desert region and lightly populated. The place is already the site of a uranium mine.
There are developments made by the military which are supposed to be far advanced from what we have in 'normal' science. In plasma physics and anti-gravity science.
I believe I have read about something which can counteract the radiation emitted by radioactive sources. Of course, this may be years away and still in development, but I do hope and believe there is a solution to this problem out there and I suspect there are people who know about it too. I have a feeling this was on a proper science-type website so hopefully it is not 'fake news'.
I agree that the cores at Fukushima are still burrowing their way to the Earths core and we cannot stop them either now or probably in the future. Every time water hits them they 'sigh' a huge dose of radioactive steam up into the atmosphere and that whole site is subject to the river running through it to the sea. Evey drop of water used to cool and all the ground water which comes into contact with those cores has to be either stored (in the past) or dumped out to the ocean. Then there is the old stored water in those metal tanks which is already leaking out due to rusted metal as well as the huge plastic bags full of radioactive contaminated soil. As you can see, this is a problem getting larger and larger...
I don’t think you can apply the issue of Fukushima to nuclear plants generally. Japan is in a tough situation because it has few natural resources but also has a lot of extreme events that make nuclear power (particularly the plants built some time ago) a questionable option. I don’t think we have anywhere in the US that has earthquakes, tropical cyclones, landslides, and tsunami like Japan.
I did some research on nuclear decommissioning technology some time ago. The options available were not great, but the technology now is much safer than the technology used 30-50 years ago. We have nothing here like what they used in Chernobyl, although I know some of the RBMK reactors are still in use in the former Soviet Republic. Most engineers I have talked to who are knowledgeable about the subject seem to agree that nuclear is still the best option overall, when taking into account all factors.
I don’t think you can apply the issue of Fukushima to nuclear plants generally. Japan is in a tough situation because it has few natural resources but also has a lot of extreme events that make nuclear power (particularly the plants built some time ago) a questionable option. I don’t think we have anywhere in the US that has earthquakes, tropical cyclones, landslides, and tsunami like Japan.
I did some research on nuclear decommissioning technology some time ago. The options available were not great, but the technology now is much safer than the technology used 30-50 years ago. We have nothing here like what they used in Chernobyl, although I know some of the RBMK reactors are still in use in the former Soviet Republic. Most engineers I have talked to who are knowledgeable about the subject seem to agree that nuclear is still the best option overall, when taking into account all factors.
If you take into accout ALL the costs (long-term and short-term) and the problems with deciding who will be inconvenienced with the storage facility in their back yard (because no-one wants it near them and their children), how can you say that nuclear is the best option. There are so many arguments against it that only a politician or someone paid by the nuclear industry would say otherwise.
Any major earthquake in the US would cause a similar problem, not only because many of the earthquakes occur offshore which would trigger tsunami and the nuclear power plants are mostly built near to a body of water. Flooding can either inundate the below-ground facilities or cause the dry caskets to float off downstream.
There are loads of nuke stations which are old technology of 40+ years ago. They keep on applying for extensions to the licences and looking at the Fukushima images, there were many old and rusted pipes and chimneys. Japan is one of the most technologically modern countries in the world, yet a number of fatal flaws were incorporated in the design - which was built, designed and supplied by GE I seem to remember.
In the US, most of the spent fuel is lying about the power plant compounds drying out before it is processed into safer materials and shipped to storage facilities, so if a disaster were to hit the USA many plants would not be able to stop this fuel being carried away to contaminate the local environment.
The US has many earthquakes so it is not just Japan which is vulnerable to Earth changes. What is questionable for Japan is also questionable for the US.
Do we ignore then making microprocessor chips for the IC? The elements that make up the microprocessor chips gives off nuclear waste that is dangerous to the environment.
If you take into accout ALL the costs (long-term and short-term) and the problems with deciding who will be inconvenienced with the storage facility in their back yard (because no-one wants it near them and their children), how can you say that nuclear is the best option. There are so many arguments against it that only a politician or someone paid by the nuclear industry would say otherwise.
Any major earthquake in the US would cause a similar problem, not only because many of the earthquakes occur offshore which would trigger tsunami and the nuclear power plants are mostly built near to a body of water. Flooding can either inundate the below-ground facilities or cause the dry caskets to float off downstream.
There are loads of nuke stations which are old technology of 40+ years ago. They keep on applying for extensions to the licences and looking at the Fukushima images, there were many old and rusted pipes and chimneys. Japan is one of the most technologically modern countries in the world, yet a number of fatal flaws were incorporated in the design - which was built, designed and supplied by GE I seem to remember.
In the US, most of the spent fuel is lying about the power plant compounds drying out before it is processed into safer materials and shipped to storage facilities, so if a disaster were to hit the USA many plants would not be able to stop this fuel being carried away to contaminate the local environment.
The US has many earthquakes so it is not just Japan which is vulnerable to Earth changes. What is questionable for Japan is also questionable for the US.
Too true, those old reactors are an accident waiting to happen. The sheer amount of dangerous waste just in Hanford alone is mindboggling. Add in all those plants around the country with cooling pools of untold tons of waste we have no idea how to truly get rid of. No one on Earth can realistically say they know what is going to happen to this left over waste in thousands of years. There is too much chance at play here that a good portion of that "Invincible" waste ends up in the atmosphere unbeknownst to our future generations.
I should add, the immense cost to build new plants will take decades to balance into the black and then lose all the profits to the high cost of decommissioning. Forget about still turning a profit if you end up like Fukushima, the sky rocketing cost of that cleanup with no end in sight cannot be ignored. The ones who make a profit will always cut and run.
This is a positive development but we'll need a lot more facilities just like it to get control of the waste and even then we still have to store the glass blocks for a mind boggling thousands of years underground. How about we just don't create more dangerous radioactive waste?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
