Sunday, August 30, 2009
Virgin's Richard Branson on Nuclear Energy
Labels:
nuclear energy,
nuclear power,
Richard Branson,
Virgin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
CINEMA FANTASTIC
Popular Posts
-
by Marcel F. Williams Congress has now made it clear that they want the immediate development of a heavy lift vehicle and a crew explorato...
-
by Marcel F. Williams Tuscany is renowned for its beautiful cities of Florence and Siena, and is historically famous as the birthplace ...
-
by Marcel F. Williams On December 17th 1935, the Douglas Aircraft Company introduced an new airplane that revolutionized commercial air trav...
-
The Earth seen rising above the Lunar horizon aboard Apollo 17, the last human mission to the Moon (Credit: NASA) by Marcel F. Willia...
-
X-Ray of a notional regolith shielded 16 meter in diameter biosphere (Credit: NASA) by Marcel F. Williams A t least 0.1 g is required...
-
by Marcel F. Williams A typical 1000 MWe nuclear power plant produces about 30 tonnes of highly radioactive spent fuel on an annual basis. H...
-
by Marcel F. Williams One frequent argument against the expansion of commercial nuclear power is the the claim that our planet is simply ...
-
by Marcel F. Williams The Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred on April 26th, 1986 when reactor number four at the Chernobyl electric power ...
-
by Marcel F. Williams During the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration decided to create jobs in the US by expanding electric power...
3 comments:
It surprising to see a man in his position make such claims about oil - his entire business depends on it.
Still, I must take my hat off to him. Nuclear power needs renewed research into waste processing and immediate investment into a new generation of nuclear power plants.
Thanks for sharing this.
The problem with reprocessing spent fuel is that its a lot cheaper for the industry just to pay the Federal government to throw it away rather than reuse if for fuel.
Even though the amount of spent fuel produced by commercial reactors is extremely tiny, permanently storing it is a political problem. IMO, the Federal government needs to reprocess spent fuel and utilize the plutonium and uranium in Federally owned nuclear reactors. Any residual waste should be stored at Federal reactor sites until final deposition a couple of hundred years from now.
The storage of waste is certainly more of a political one than a technological one. The amount of waste produced is so small in comparison with other fuels that it seems odd there should be such an uproar about it.
Granted, the high level waste takes thousands of years to decay to the levels of the original ore, but there are ways and means of dealing with that. The benefits of nuclear power far outweigh this small problem.
Post a Comment