| |
GM0CSZ > ENERGY 30.05.05 00:30l 43 Lines 1802 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 5F1949GM0CSZ
Read: GUEST OE7FMI
Subj: Re: Hydrogen, ZL4AJS.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0BI<DB0NOS<DB0EA<DB0RES<DK0WUE<I0TVL<
IK1ZNW<GB7CRV<GB7FUR<GB7IOM<GB7SAN<GB7INV<GB7NOS
Sent: 050529/1158Z @:GB7NOS.#76.GBR.EU #:34392 [Golspie] FBB7.00i $:5F1949GM0CS
From: GM0CSZ@GB7NOS.#76.GBR.EU
To : ENERGY@WW
ZL4AJS wrote:-
>
> Dumping waste in the canals is a different story. That is known to be
> detrimental to many things. But the storage of nuclear waste will not
> harm anything, if people are kept away from the dump site, then nothing
> can happen.
=======================
That's rather simplistic reasoning.
In NL they have done studies to explore the risk of storing nuclear waste
in underground cavities formed by extracting salt . I understand a risk
analysis has resulted in a decision not to store the waste because of a
tiny risk of an earth quake type of disturbance which could result in the
waste being completely sealed ,such that its activity can no longer be
monitored. Monitoring is a prerequisite for dumping nuclear waste.
Personally I believe that Nuclear Energy can be SAFELY produced. The
problems are 1) Safe disposal of nuclear waste. 2) Decomissioning of
obsolete nuclear power stations.
In the UK the Magnox nuclear power stations have or are being
decommisioned following a useful life of 40 - 50 years. The total cost of
decommissioning will only be known after another 50 -80 years when
(hopefully) the complete installations will be removed resulting in a
'brown site' suitable for re-development.
I very much doubt whether the lobby for nuclear energy ,when proposing
new nuclear power stations ,include the 'decommissioning and removal of
nuclear facilities' in their overall cost/benefit calculations.
73 - Frank , GM0CSZ @ GB7NOS.#76.GBR.EU
Inver by Tain , IV20 1RX Scotland UK Loc: IO87AT
e-mail: gm0csz.kn6wh@dsl.pipex.com
Also in 2005 they say the future is bright ; 2 of its challenges remaining
to be RENEWABLE ENERGY and LINUX.
Message timed: 11:43 UTC on 29 May 2005
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
