Funny, because my friend who works at Los Alamos National Labs as a mixed nuclear waste disposal specialist seems to think I have a pretty good grasp of the magnitude of the problem.macdoc wrote:You've got about as much understanding of spent fuel and low level nuclear waste as you do of climate change and its risks....approaching zero and driven by ideology instead of cogent information.burying spent fuel rods
Over leaving it in leaky open pits of water and corroding drums scattered all around the country because fuckwits don't think it's "safe" to transport it in the incredibly well tested nuclear transport casks to a disposal facility where the risk of widespread contamination will be minimized as much as it can be, given the nature of the waste.Why would you support burying a fuel source that is barely 5% used?
Fast breeder reactors can produce plutonium as a byproduct (or as a main product), which is why we're trying to keep Iran from building them. Production of plutonium is one of the essential steps in creating nuclear weapons, so fast-breeder reactors are closely controlled in order to control the available supply of plutonium that might be diverted to terrorists or hostile nations.
Burning plutonium in a reactor such as the one you cite is a great idea except for one small thing: You have to get the materials to the reactor and you have to process it into usable form. Each stage of this process provides opportunity for diverting of weapons-grade plutonium or it's precursors. Can such security issues be handled? Maybe.
I have no objections to reusing spent fuel rods at all, but it's not realistically possible right now and leaving the stuff laying around essentially in the open is a very bad idea. If we really need it that badly, we can always mine it out of the Yucca Mountain complex again. We'll know exactly where it is after all.
If this guy's idea was all that good, I'd think there would be more interest than there is, which makes me believe there are very good reasons why his ideas are not mainstream.
He's not a very good writer either. He doesn't make a compelling and accessible argument for the masses as to why his acronym-filled technical information is worth reading for the average person. He needs to explain in simple language the differences between what he's suggesting and what Three Mile Island was all about if he hopes to convince people.
