Comments on: Why Nuclear Power in not a Solution to Peak Oil – Part 4. How do you propose We Clean Up All The Mess? http://transitionculture.org/2006/05/05/why-nuclear-power-in-not-a-solution-to-peak-oil-part-4-how-do-you-propose-we-clean-up-all-the-mess/ An Evolving Exploration into the Head, Heart and Hands of Energy Descent Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:35:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brendan http://transitionculture.org/2006/05/05/why-nuclear-power-in-not-a-solution-to-peak-oil-part-4-how-do-you-propose-we-clean-up-all-the-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-61929 Brendan Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:43:08 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/?p=320#comment-61929 Well, if mankind is going back to the Middle Ages (presumably replete with stuff like tyrant warlords, kings, slavery, superstition, ignorance, bubonic plague, filth, old ladies being burned as witches, and other such things as tend to occur in medieval social contexts) then maybe the species is better off going extinct. (Gimme exposure to high-grade plutonium produced in fast breeder reactors over life as a stinking, illiterate, louse-infested peasant with a life expectancy of 27 years any day.) Add that to the fact that nuclear power is one of our only options for averting this collapse. I say, keep working on developing efficient nuclear technology, and SCREW the miserable, primitive wretches our descendants will become, if we fail to keep civilization afloat. (Death via radioactive waste would be kinder than the fates most of them will suffer.) Well, if mankind is going back to the Middle Ages
(presumably replete with stuff like tyrant warlords, kings, slavery, superstition, ignorance, bubonic plague, filth, old ladies being burned as witches, and other such things as tend to occur in medieval social contexts) then maybe the species is better off going extinct. (Gimme exposure to high-grade plutonium produced in fast breeder reactors over life as a stinking, illiterate, louse-infested peasant with a life expectancy of 27 years any day.)
Add that to the fact that nuclear power is one
of our only options for averting this collapse.
I say, keep working on developing efficient nuclear technology, and SCREW the miserable, primitive wretches our descendants will become, if we fail to keep civilization afloat. (Death via radioactive waste would be kinder than the fates most of them will suffer.)

]]> By: Sky http://transitionculture.org/2006/05/05/why-nuclear-power-in-not-a-solution-to-peak-oil-part-4-how-do-you-propose-we-clean-up-all-the-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-536 Sky Tue, 16 May 2006 13:16:48 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/?p=320#comment-536 Why can't we build reactors such as the integral fast reactor ? It can use nuclear weapons, nuclear waste as fuel. It's own waste can be reprocessed on site.. and what is left in the end, is not very radioactive, in fact, in a hundred years it ends up as radioactive as the original uranium ore. The design is not very conducive to proliferation, because the fuel in it gets quite radioactive, thus easy to trace and dangerous to anyone in close proximity. But still, spent fuel can be easily reprocessed. Yeah, you'll say it's an unproved design, but it has already been run once, (before J.F.Kerry with help from other brilliant thinkers sank it). It's even passively safe, that means, if you turn off the thermal exchanger, which would cause a Chernobyl like meltdown in normal reactors, it just cools down. And this has been tested. Why can’t we build reactors such as
the integral fast reactor ? It can use nuclear weapons, nuclear waste as fuel. It’s own waste can be reprocessed on site.. and what is left in the end, is not very radioactive, in fact, in a hundred years it ends up as radioactive as the original uranium ore. The design is not very conducive to proliferation, because the fuel in it gets quite radioactive, thus easy to trace and dangerous to anyone in close proximity. But still, spent fuel can be easily reprocessed.
Yeah, you’ll say it’s an unproved design,
but it has already been run once,
(before J.F.Kerry with help from other
brilliant thinkers sank it). It’s even
passively safe, that means, if you turn off
the thermal exchanger, which would cause a
Chernobyl like meltdown in normal reactors, it just cools down. And this has been tested.

]]> By: Chris Vernon http://transitionculture.org/2006/05/05/why-nuclear-power-in-not-a-solution-to-peak-oil-part-4-how-do-you-propose-we-clean-up-all-the-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-434 Chris Vernon Fri, 05 May 2006 23:17:19 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/?p=320#comment-434 Nuclear waste is a problem. That's an understatement. I believe the UK has decided that our ~20 legacy nuclear sites will require £70bn+ spending on them excluding a 'final' solution for the waste. That's some £3.5bn per site, a lot of work. The thing is, what's happening in the FSU? There are over 100 'legacy' nuclear sites there which are certainly not scheduled to have several hundred billion pounds spent on them. Either the UK is doing something unnecessary or the FSU isn't doing something that is necessary. I suspect it's the latter. So what is the implication of a decaying nuclear legacy in these poorer parts of the world 'cos that's what a new nuclear build in the UK would create at the end of life. Nuclear waste is a problem. That’s an understatement. I believe the UK has decided that our ~20 legacy nuclear sites will require £70bn+ spending on them excluding a ‘final’ solution for the waste. That’s some £3.5bn per site, a lot of work.

The thing is, what’s happening in the FSU? There are over 100 ‘legacy’ nuclear sites there which are certainly not scheduled to have several hundred billion pounds spent on them.

Either the UK is doing something unnecessary or the FSU isn’t doing something that is necessary. I suspect it’s the latter. So what is the implication of a decaying nuclear legacy in these poorer parts of the world ‘cos that’s what a new nuclear build in the UK would create at the end of life.

]]>