OT: Gas Prices

[Renegade 13]

Nuclear power. I was reading about a 'new' type of reactor that will actually utilize the waste materials from conventional nuclear reactors, and would also be much more efficient. The waste generated would still be radioactive and thus toxic, but the half life is something like 100 or 150 years rather than the current 10,000 or so.

But with general public opinion being extremely anti-nuclear power, any chance of the newer, better reactors being built isn't likely. Me, I'm all for nuclear reactors...just not in my backyard!

Nuclear is the way to go though. That'll cut dependence on oil by a lot, and also make coal-burning electricity plants (of which the US has a LOT) obsolete.

[Azselendor]

I read about that too, basically it takes the nuclear waste and burns off any usable material in it for energy and leaves us with concentrate nuclear waster which can be ten to a hundred times more toxic.

Thanks but No Thanks.

[Suicide Junkie]

"Burn it until it is cold enough to eat"

[ToddT]

Nuclear power is not any better long term then fossil fuels, in that, theres estimated to be around 100 years worth of usuable fuel, to meet current and future energy needs.
There is a work around but has some nasty pit falls. Breeder reactors, current designs not upto the task but researching new ones deffinitely not politically viable.
Breeder reactors readily produce weapons grade nuclear materials.
Actually highr gas prices do have an upside they make alternatives more viable economically.
SUV's where built in part because they did not have to meet mileage and emmission standards of cars, resulting in lower production costs to auto makers(its not just the higher markups they get). SUV's in part where a quick fix to bottom lines. and we all know what quick fixes often lead to.

[Renegade 13]

KlvinoHRGA said:
I read about that too, basically it takes the nuclear waste and burns off any usable material in it for energy and leaves us with concentrate nuclear waster which can be ten to a hundred times more toxic.

Thanks but No Thanks.

Nope, that's not what I was referring to. I'll see if I have some time to do some research and find some links for you to look at. This waste would be much less toxic, not more.

It's too bad space flight isn't more reliable; we could then just send nulear waste into the sun!

[capnq]

Renegade 13 said:
It's too bad space flight isn't more reliable; we could then just send nulear waste into the sun!

Someday our descendants are going to discover a use for our nuclear "waste" and will be annoyed at us for making the stuff so difficult to recover. (No smiley; not kidding.)

[shinigami]

The begining of an alternative?

Granted it is still a long way off but if it can be perfected and refined...

[Renegade 13]

capnq said:
Someday our descendants are going to discover a use for our nuclear "waste" and will be annoyed at us for making the stuff so difficult to recover. (No smiley; not kidding.)

?????

[Jack Simth]

He's not joking; remember how you posted....

Renegade 13 said:
...I was reading about a 'new' type of reactor that will actually utilize the waste materials from conventional nuclear reactors...

Well, if that becomes quite successfull, and we've tossed all our nuclear waste into the sun, we can't get it back to power the new plants.....

[capnq]

Actually, I wasn't talking about some theoretical nuclear waste tossed into the the sun, but about the glassified waste that we're currently producing as a storage solution.