Thinking on Talks (parts I & II)

[Rev Simon Rumble]

On 6/12/2005, "David Cantrell" <david at cantrell.org.uk> wrote:

>Oh yeah - decommissioning.  Why do nuclear plants have such a short
>life?  Coal plants can just go on working pretty much for ever - Lotts
>Road being an excellent example.  But nuclear plants have a useful
>working life of only two or three - four at the most - decades.  I just
>can't understand why that is.  Obviously they need to be shut down for
>maintenance every so often, but that applies to fossil fuel plants too.

Neutrons flying about in the reactor have a habit of modifying the atoms
of the elements that are supposed to be keeping all the nasty stuff in.

>* I'd be happy with just encasing the waste in glass** and burying it in
>old mines.  Keep good records of where the damned stuff is, and either
>leave it for ever or let our great-grandchildren deal with it.  They'll
>probably turn it into a tourist attraction just like how tourists these
>days go ooh! and aah! at old mills and railways.

The process for doing this is _STILL_ under development, and not really
ready for prime time.  Until it's working well, the nuclear waste
problem (and its costs) makes it the most expensive form of large-scale
energy creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

What's more, you need to station some security types above the abandoned
mine so that Nasty People don't get in and fuck shit up.