Its strictly dollars and cents. CFC is a toxic nightmare, and LED costs more to buy and operate than incandescent.
It's a real pity the anti-nuclear lobby ensured we have no way to produce lots of cheap, non-polluting electricity, now isn't it?
Except that the evidence is that 93% of US emissions, according to data from the EPA, of CFC-114 is from the enrichment of Uranium. That is the official, government recognized, industrially measured component of nuclear fuel enrichment. CFC114 is an intrinsic part of the enrichment process called 'Gaseous Diffusion', and if CFC114 wasn't an intrinsic part of the process it would not be used.
This is because Ultracentrifuge is so difficult to establish on a industrial scale and has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-nuclear lobby.
Is that you, Shaft?
Shut yo' mouth!
That's no way to talk to the man who protects his brother man.
You Brits and your language are atrocious. I'm glad we kicked you out of America way back when.
because, as you are probably aware, what the world needs is more dickheads.
Is that you, Shaft?
Burnouts are a skill acquired when a Bogan (White trash or whatever) is finally able to purchase a vehicle capable of breaking traction on dry ground. After this qualification they are ready for a doughnut (or Dohhy) usually in a carpark where there are plenty of victi^h^h^h^h^honlookers present to qualify you as a full on dickhead.
Like much automation these days, such a feature would automate the process of becoming a dickhead, allowing many more dickheads because, as you are probably aware, what the world needs is more dickheads.
The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore
I'm sure the pyramids and sphinx in Egypt will be surprised to hear that. Never mind that Mount Rushmore isn't a structure (it's a carving) and receives regular maintenance to ensure the faces don't crumble and fall off.
I understand that it's a carving. I think a structure similar to the NORAD facility would probably be the type of engineering project that would be appropriate.
This is the primary call of the open letter, Responsible Nuclear Advocacy. Despite my criticisms of the Nuclear Industry I support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 (and much more U-238) currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist these issue onto later generations.
One of the core reasons I support the development of such a reactor because it is capable of utilising weapons grade plutonium as fuel creating an impetus for disarmament and, hopefully, slowly defusing the asymmetrical weapons threat.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water revealed by Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once. As I pointed out in another post, the design of the Swedish facility shows how a reactor facility that complies with the industry designed improvements could be implemented.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility and chomp up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
Why? Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and de-commissioning/demolition of the reactor.
As long we are producing plutonium and there is no where for it to go we will have a Nuclear Weapons threat and this is the price we pay for opening that pandora's box. I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. It entails redesigning the entire industry, and it's a long term solution. A well designed and secured facility resistant to attacks even from orbit because that's the type of 21st century threats it would have to face.
But it has to be done properly, and I don't think private industry's financial return model for large scale assets (like power stations) is capable of delivering such a project. If we really think about it, it will be a massive undertaking that will present many challenges that must be overcome if we are sincere about producing a well engineered safe Nuclear industry and sincere about a platform for disarmament.
Seriously, all of the people who freak out about the waste are just being ridiculous. So what if the stuff is dangerous for 10,000 years? We don't have to solve that problem, all we have to do is to keep it safe for a few centuries, and make sure that our descendants understand what it was that we did and what the potential issues are.
The key thing to understand in our generation is the cost of the infrastructure to transport the spent fuel around. In the U.S this is estimated to be a 30 year project with significant costs attached to it, in and of itself. Fukushima has demonstrated the danger inherent in the spent fuel cooling pools, that is why any infrastructure project has to start with an actual location to transport it to.
In the U.S Yucca mountain does not meet the requirements Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology revealed that the passage cl-36 from atmospheric nuclear testing took less that 50 years in ground water through Yucca mountain so the reality of Yucca is it is inappropriate to contain *any* kind of radioactive products, especially the ones you are referring to. Yucca is pumice and volcanic ash, you *need* granite if you want a serious facility. Even the Swedish test facility is better designed than Yucca and the design of the actual facility shows the U.S how it *should* be done.