posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 02:53 PM
Infinite 8, your concerns are certainly justified. Spent fuel is a major concern with nuclear power.
One approach would be to use fast breeders, whuich can turn the spent fuel into usable fuel again. The downside to this is that some of the
byproducts of some of the breeders can be weapons grade fuel.
A second approach would be to shoot the spent fuel into the sun. The downside to this is that if the launch rocket malfunctions, the results
could prove to be ... unpleasant.
Another apporach would be to bury the fuel in the most geologically quiet place you can think of and wait for it to subducted down into the mantle.
Of course, that takes a million years or more, and, meanwhile, there could be leaks.
No matter what your plan is, there are risks that we need to identify and -- to the best of our ability -- ameliorate.
But when you compare nuclear energy to burning hydrocarbons, it is safer to our health by a factor of at least a hundred:
How many people die each year from cardiopulmonary diseases caused by breathing hydrocarbon-produced pollutants?
How many acres of vegetation are destroyed by the acid rain from burning hydrocarbons?
How many acres have we destroyed and how many ecologies have we disrupted merely by drilling for, transporting, and refining hydrocarbons?
How many billions of dollars have we spent on hydrocarbons which not only go out of the country, but go to malevolent hicks and thugs in the Middle
East who can and do use our own money to fund economic and military warfare upon us?
And when is the last of the Earth's exploitable hydrocarbons going to go away? And -- if we don't already have another energy source in place --
how many billions of people will die of starvation, exposure, and war as a result of such an upheaval?