Question:
Fuel experts can you answer this? Why did McCain get a sour look over Obama saying it would take years to ?
anonymous
2008-10-16 23:15:11 UTC
build SAFE STORAGE facilities for Nuclear waste and poo poed the idea? Then he mentioned ships with nuclear capacities, How does a ship store nuclear waste and why would anyone want to TOSS UP nuclear plants willy nilly when the consequences could be deadly?
Nine answers:
cantcu
2008-10-16 23:26:20 UTC
Their is no such thing as safe storage for nuclear waste and a ship. compared to a nuke plant, produces a minuscule amount of energy! McCain obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.



That is why many plants, like Seabrook, still has all their waste they have produced over the years still sitting on site!



Energy companies say it wpuld be 2025 before ANY would go on line!



Minerals such as zircon (ZrSiO4) are believed to have kept naturally occurring radioactive uranium and thorium locked in the Earth's crust for up to 4.4 billion years, surviving earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. As a result researchers have argued that zircon, or similar synthetic ceramics, could trap nuclear waste within their crystalline structures for at least 241,000 years, the time plutonium-239 takes to become relatively safe.



Now a study shows that this is unlikely. It turns out that alpha particles released as plutonium decays knock the atoms in zircon out of position faster than originally predicted, impairing the material's ability to immobilise waste (Nature, vol 445, p 190).

Ian Farnan of the University of Cambridge and colleagues at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington, added plutonium to zircon and used nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to distinguish between crystalline zircon and its leaky, damaged form.



The researchers found five times as many damaged zircon atoms as estimated by computer simulations. They conclude that radioactive plutonium trapped in zircon would start leaching out after just 210 years and lose its crystal structure entirely after 1400 years.



http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19325865.400-setback-for-safe-storage-of-nuclear-waste.html



Anyone remember Chernobyl ?



The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear reactor accident in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Soviet Union (now Northern Ukraine). It was the worst nuclear power plant accident in history and the only instance of level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, resulting in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor. Two people died in the initial steam explosion, but most deaths from the accident were attributed to fallout.



On 26 April 1986 at 01:23:44 a.m. (UTC+3) reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant, near Pripyat in the Ukrainian SSR, exploded. Further explosions and the resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area. Four hundred times more fallout was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.



The plume drifted over extensive parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and eastern North America. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. According to official post-Soviet data about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus.



The accident raised concerns about the safety of the Soviet nuclear power industry, slowing its expansion for a number of years, while forcing the Soviet government to become less secretive. The now-independent countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. It is difficult to accurately tell the number of deaths caused by the events at Chernobyl, as the Soviet-era cover-up made it difficult to track down victims. Lists were incomplete, and Soviet authorities later forbade doctors to cite "radiation" on death certificates



The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed peopleAlthough the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity. wiki
Ben H
2008-10-16 23:23:33 UTC
I work as an Engineer and I don't even live in the United States so I have no loyalty to either the Republican or Democratic party. What I can say is that you Americans act like Nuclear energy is this new amazing energy of the future and you're not sure how it would be implemented or something. You would think that you had never seen/heard or even dealt with nuclear reactors before. This stuff has been around for a LONG time. There are successful nuclear power plants in many First World countries in the world. The problems with control have been addressed, the storage has been studied exhaustively, the radiation levels around plants have been studied (they are so low they barely register. You'd get more radiation from a potato growing in a potash enriched ground like up in North Dakota).



So it's not like putting up nuclear power facilities is going to be like going to the moon or anything. The risks and benefits have been known for years and it is now one of the most safe methods to generate electricity.
Kenneth C
2008-10-17 00:00:37 UTC
I support Nuclear power. Now that I have said that, the problem with nuclear waste is NIMBY (Not in my back yard). No state wants to store it. We were supposed to store it in Yucca Mountain but Navada has vigorously opposed it. I have no problem with Nuclear Plants as long as there is a systematic way to store it.
 
2008-10-16 23:38:00 UTC
yeah, and japan where i live is also famous of producing energy by nuclear power.

also famous of trying to put all of this nuclear waste in many 3rd world country in SE asia!



the radioactive level is so little but we do not want to keep it here anyway! ha!

it also very little danger, but it enough for people here vote NO for all the new plant. even went a bit farther by voted yes to close one of the plant lastyear!



yes it is the alternative, but please do not forget to keep the radioactive waste in your own home too!



for those said that the radio active is so little, try build your house above its bury-ground, and see how much that very low radio active level can be thrilling compare to a potato.
Michael
2008-10-16 23:21:51 UTC
This shows why partisanship is evil. If a democratic candidate supported nuclear power, you would be all over it, like flies on **** and point to the fact that France can do it.



I don't know how nuclear submarines eliminate their nuclear waste, but they must have to.
anonymous
2008-10-16 23:20:32 UTC
Toss up nuclear plants willy nilly???



I didn't know that that was the plan, but as an Obama cultist you probably know more about it than us mere mortals.
anonymous
2008-10-16 23:20:49 UTC
Who cares?



This is the United States of America. If all the stops were pulled RIGHT NOW, we could have a new oil supply in 18 months.



The 10-year thing is a myth.
Gem
2008-10-16 23:19:50 UTC
Because the technology exists to take care of the waste, France has been using it for decades, and the DEMOCRATS have 100% blocked our American ability to use proved technology to combat the problem.



That is why.



Democrats are really good at forcing you to make a choice, then limiting the options so that you line their (and their very rich cronies) pockets.
Right Wing Extremist
2008-10-16 23:20:44 UTC
can't say it better than Gem


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...