Thinking on Talks (parts I & II)
Rev Simon Rumble
simon at rumble.net
Tue Dec 6 15:27:28 GMT 2005
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
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 london.pm