Houston Democrats

Welcome to the team Sarah!

Depending on the waste and the design of the nuclear power plant in question, wastes can be re-used in reactors, and many isotopes are useful in other industries (medical, for instance). The question is not so much how WILL we do it, but how DO we do it? How do others do it? France relies almost completely on nuclear power, and has yet to have this problem. It comes down to adequate security.

And this may be why on-site storage makes more sense than centralized storage. Fact is, all NPPs have wastes on-site, at least short term, so that is not itself an issue. Transportation en route to a centralized storage site would probably be the most vulnerable place for a terrorist attack. So minimizing the transportation itself would help a lot.

All energy sources have issues, but most of nuclear power's issues have been corrected over the last three decades. Coal, on the other hand, continues to pollute the air and add to greenhouse concerns. Nuclear does not have that problem. It may be time to trade coal's problems for those of nuclear.

ANSWER:
Thorium - The Green(er) Nuke



Thorium Fuels Safer Reactor Hopes

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68045,00.html

Scientists have long considered using thorium as a reactor fuel -- and for good reason: The naturally occurring element is more abundant, more efficient and safer to use than uranium. Plus, thorium reactors leave behind very little plutonium, meaning that governments have access to LESS MATERIAL for making NUCLEAR WEAPONS.



further information for 'Thorium Reactors'

http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9820/thoriumscpt.htm

Dr Andrew Studer, Physicist : "Heard about a great new idea the other day; a thing called an energy amplifier. It's like a nuclear reactor driven by a particle accelerator. And the whole point is you can use thorium instead of uranium, and apparently this produces a heap LESS WASTE.
The thing can NEVER MELT DOWN or BLOW UP. And you can actually use it to reprocess plutonium and nuclear waste from old bombs.

Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezhad : "This sub-critical nuclear reactor is the only logical way of burning the plutonium, producing energy, and getting rid of one of the most dangerous substances on the Earth.

Wilson da Silva PTC : "Thorium reactors do produce some waste, but not much...The good news is, thorium waste is radioactive for ONLY 500 YEARS.

~Web Links~



India: Experimental thorium reactor critical

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/461/4577.html

India's 30-kW non-power reactor Kamini went critical on October 29. The reactor is situated at the Indian Ghandi Center for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam, near the southern city of Madras. The small research reactor is fuelled by uranium-233 and is a demonstration project for the proposed thorium use in India's nuclear fuel cycle.



UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper # 67

http://www.uic.com.au/nip67.htm

Thorium is much more abundant in nature than uranium. Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel through breeding to uranium-233 (U-233). When this thorium fuel cycle is used, much less plutonium and other transuranic elements are produced, compared with uranium fuel cycles. Several reactor concepts based on thorium fuel cycles are under consideration.



World thorium resources (economically extractable tonnes):

Australia - - - - 300,000

India - - - - - - 290,000

Norway- - - - - - 170,000

USA - - - - - - - 160,000

Canada - - - - - 100,000

South Africa - - - 35,000

Brazil - - - - - 16,000

Other countries - 95,000

World total - - 1,200,000



Over the last 30 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is three times as abundant in the earth's crust as uranium. Also, ALL of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the SEVEN TENTHS OF ONE % of natural uranium, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might be available.



Why not: 1. Not so much thorium available in North America, versus USA owning world's largest uranium mines

Answer: 1. Finally, we can import something from Australia besides Mel Gibson - although I'm perfectly happy with Elle McPherson & Lucy Lawless.

Why not: 2. More expensive - requires building small particle accelerator alongside reactor

Answer: 2. Like seat belts and airbags, the safety outweighs the expense. In the event of reactor problems you just switch off the accelerator and the "China Syndrome" will never happen.

Why not: 3. No 'depleted' uranium or plutonium leftover to make weapons - BIG disappointment to Pentagon's "Nuke'em all" cult.

Answer: 3. Boo hoo - get over it. The best part is that all that radioactive WASTE can be used as FUEL - nuclear warheads can be dismantled and thrown on the fire.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Randy Scott

OilPatch Democrats - Texas Dem Veterans Caucus - Progressive Populist Caucus - Progressive Action Alliance - "Green Dog" Democrat

- - - - - - - - - - - -

"To paraphrase Winston Churchill, you can now have either your honor OR the status quo. If you do nothing regarding Peak Oil, you will soon have neither the status quo nor your honor." - Jeffrey J. Brown
"Let the Yankees freeze in the dark" - Texas bumper sticker from the 1970's

France has a mix of fuels for and sources of electricity. Nuclear has been a success in France, but is by no means all or even most of their present or future base-load capacity.

Their nuclear-reactors are more modern than ours and specifically-designed for power-generation around centralized re-processing of plutonium. Thus, the Japanese Navy has purpose-built armed vessels for transporting spent plutonium through the Straits and the Suez Canal to France for reprocessing.

Plutonium does pose a risk of diversion into the production of nuclear weapons. It is, indeed, the best material for the most sophisticated nuclear ordnance. French plutonium may well have been diverted into the joint Israeli-South African ordnance program.

But, uranium, depleted or enriched, is the most dangerous source of conventional or improvised nuclear weapons today.

Interestingly, the South African arm of the Israeli project was terminated entirely, and the RF-IL-ZA model of nuclear proliferation is not that followed by Pakistan, India, or Iran. Those countries have cobbled-together a program based on highly-enriched uranium and Anglo-American corruption. They have used a variety of Anglo-American, Dutch, German, Russian, and Chinese technology.

Ironically, left-wing hysterics, right-wing extremists, and corrupt centrists have actually collaborated and effectively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear ordnance by forcing Germany out of collaboration with France on plutonium-cycle civilian power and by limiting support of military and industrial conversion in the US and Russia.

The opportunity for Texas today is deployment of fast-neutron reactors that support on-site re-processing of fuel and that can re-cyle stocks of weapons-grade material left-over from the Cold War, ultimately minimizing sequestration of high-level toxics, limiting production of CO2, and, possibly, re-sequestering an over-burded of CO2.

Part of that opportunity is converting obsolete military reservations in Texas -- likely Fts BLISS and HOOD -- into large complexes for handling a variety of hazardous materials but also for making efficient use of high-pressure and process-steam for both base-load generation but also conversion of coal, lignite, and biomass into low pollution fuel and feedstock.

Sadly, the TxRRC and TxPPC are incapable of any such undertaking as presently constituted and the Democratic party of lawyers, mostly, is simply clueless or, worse, looks to bond-lawyers and land-speculators for all of its policy cues.

Hi all:

There's a big piece on thorium cycle reactors in Cosmos magazine, which looks at the pros and cons (see http://www.cosmosmagazine.com)