The site you are referring to is where they mine uranuim out of the ground. They are not putting spent fuel rods there. The Moab area is where uranuim naturally occurs, there is actually less uranuim there now than there was before because we have been using it.
You have asked many questions.
I can tell you that as far as volume is concerned, spent uranium takes up a very small volume. If you are talking about wieght, uranium is very very heavy, heaver than lead.
Right now all of the spent fuel rods, what you call "waste" are kept on site because the anti-nuke people have tied up Yucca Mountain. 30 years of spent fuel rods have been kept on site, it's really not a problem though. If we could reprocess the spent fuel rods we would be able to get more energy out of them.
Most all of the spent fuel rods are kept on site.
Posted by: Brian | September 6, 2007 10:30 PM
=================+===========+===============#===========>
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has told the Department of Energy that its proposal to leave 12 million tons of radioactive waste next to the Colorado River near Moab, Utah, is "environmentally unsatisfactory" and a potential prolonged risk to public health.
According to the first sentence of the previously linked article, the near vicinity of the Colorado River is currenly being used as a storage site for radioactive waste. This is a crime. What further evildance do we need that humans, at this time, are incapable of managing the complexities of this radiactive energy source?
Amount of radioactive material: 12 million tons.
Estimated cost of moving this man-made radioactive disaster: $400-500 million. [I say it will be 2 or 3 times that]
Brian, what happens if this river floods?
What will this disaster cost then?
What is the actual cost of Nuclear Power?
Who is in charge of the Department of Energy? Do they have vested interests in nuclear power?
Posted by: Spaz Zapper | September 6, 2007 11:10 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment