Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Radioactive waste to be put in £18bn hole 
Author Message
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
Quote:
Radioactive waste from a new generation of British nuclear power stations will be buried deep underground in a storage facility that could cost up to £18 billion to build, under plans to be announced by the Government today.

Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, will give the formal green light to a plan to construct a “deep geological repository” for permanent disposal of the 200 tonnes of high-level waste produced annually by the ten new reactors planned for Britain.

Each reactor will produce about 20 tonnes of highly radioactive spent fuel per year, which will remain lethal for up to 100,000 years.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 908914.ece

what a legacy …
far better to incinerate 'organic' house hold waste (saving it from land fill)
and sewage (which is poured raw and untreated into the sea)

along with solar/wind/wave/hydro power production …

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:25 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
Far better to go back to coal in my opinion. They can always retro fit carbon capture in a few years.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:47 am
Profile WWW
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
Far better to go back to coal in my opinion. They can always retro fit carbon capture in a few years.


+1

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:06 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
Oh yes, because the trapped Carbon mysteriously disappears.

If we're going to cut carbon emissions then nuclear is the only realistic alternative in the medium term.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:18 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
No, it gets pumped down old oil wells back into porous rock that used to supply natural gas.
It's an easy enough solution providing you can capture the CO2 at the power station. The pipe line infrastructure is already there, as are the wells.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:42 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 5 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.