Thinking on Talks (parts I & II)

Rev Simon Rumble simon at
Tue Dec 6 15:27:28 GMT 2005

On 6/12/2005, "David Cantrell" <david at> 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.

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.

More information about the mailing list