Popular Science News $section News
  Get Popular Science posters here! > Subscribe | > Newsletter 

Home
PPX
What's New
How2.0
Photo Gallery
Blog
Science
Aviation & Space
Automotive Tech
Technology
Environment
Contact Us
Subscribe
Digital Edition
Customer Service
Gift Subscription
Current Issue
Media Kit
PS Showcase
PopSci Store
RSS

Enter e-mail address to receive popsci weekly updates to your inbox.



ad

« Listening to Spam | Main | China Launches First Moon Probe »

Comments

James Aach

As noted before, if you'd like an inside peek at the US nuclear industry - the people, the technology, the politics - see http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . There's no cost to readers.

Tim

isn't there something where u make waste into gold and gold could be used as an energy source?

Howard Johnson

What ever happened to the IEC method to the nuclear approach: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606

Dr. Robert Bussard asked Google for $200M to set up a prototype about a year ago. Did he get it? This method of producing nuclear power was supposed to product very very little waste.

HJ

Eric McErlain

For the industry perspective on the waste issue, see the following link:

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/integratedusedfuelmanagement/

Robert Bierma

The public really needs to get more informed when it comes to nuclear power. I am always telling people i know infomation like, the nuclear industry is the only industry that i know of the pays to claen up after itself. There is a tax on all nuclaer enery in the US that pays for the nuclear waste disposal. Or how about that fact that if we started reprocessing our spent fuel we could solve this whole what to do with all the nuclear waste issue. If you reprocessed all the fuel we have produced in the US from nuclear plants the amount of long lerm radioactive material would fit in my kitchen. This is a completely manageable amount of nuclear waste in my opinion

Karsten

Yeah, let's just keep doing what we have been doing: We will leave it to future generations to deal with the problem. In the meantime, the radioactive waste goes into Robert's kitchen. I wonder what his neighbors will say.

Oh boy.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Anthony

When will people get it through their thick heads that there IS a method of getting rid of nuclear waste... it's called a fast-breeder reactor! Combined with a traditional thermal reactor, the two would have a phenominally better efficiency than what we get out of our Uranium today. If we can get through the politics, our energy problems would be solved!!

Mark Evans

You know nuclear power is coming back when politicians and environmentalists start to support it. For a different look at how the nuclear business is rebounding, check out:

fourreasonswhy.com/2007/10/25/nuclear-power-is-making-a-comeback/

Mark Evans

You know nuclear power is coming back when politicians and environmentalists start to support it. For a different look at how the nuclear business is rebounding, check out:

fourreasonswhy.com/2007/10/25/nuclear-power-is-making-a-comeback/

Mark Evans

You know nuclear power is coming back when politicians and environmentalists start to support it. For a different look at how the nuclear business is rebounding, check out:

fourreasonswhy.com/2007/10/25/nuclear-power-is-making-a-comeback/

Some Guy

Can plasma converters be used to convert radioactive waste?

Jeremy

why don't we just send it along with all the other waste to the sun? it just burn up in our galaxy and if there were any "extra" gases, then they wouldn't be any worse then what the sun produces anyway. And for those thinking that where would the money come from? well if the politicians of this world were a little less concerned with war and anti-piracy laws, then there would be BILLIONS of dollars to use to put towards the longevity of the earth.

Joe K

Fast-breeder reactors are not a solution to the waste problem. Also, the problem with reprocessing is the fact that you get weapons grade plutonium out of the spent fuel. The US does not reprocess for this very fact. Until fusion power is a reality, and its a decade or two off, fission will be the main source of power generation for the world.

Oh yeah, I always enjoy hearing people who say that a nuclear power plant can explode like a nuclear bomb. I always get a good chuckle.

Steven Sedlmayr

Why not LENR (low energy nuclear reactions), which is also been called cold fusion? It is very possible to develop this energy source if the money were applied to it. It does not need a large infrastructure to work, is clean, and does not generate any bad by products that need to be disposed of.

clint marchbanks

there has been a lot of advances in the storage batteries for electricity generation from wind and solar, so when the contract with the utility has been exceed, the excess can be dumped into storage batteries for use during non production times, when there is little sun or wind to balance out the load demand. the nuke industry wants us to believe they have the only answer...not true

robert Schmidt

There was a time when the US could have been a preeminent supplier of high tech, safe nuclear power components to the rest of the world. As a result, the uninformed that possess the power of the pen, have become the national voice. The United States has become a has been in the world of safe nuclear power. It is time we countered the uninformed that have no qualifications to be anything other than irrational. Rather than listening to rational science we got caught up in the Jane Fonda syndrome. It is time that the uninformed “power of the pen” people let those that can provide for your clean future free of dirty emissions do so. Stop listening to the obstructionist’s loudest voice on issues involving extremely complex sciences and take a loud and vocal stand on science. Folks Jane Fonda did it for money. Nuclear power designs are decades ahead of the current operational designs. They are fail-safe and for uninformed, that means a failure results in condition. That “CANT HURT YOU”.

generic propecia

what would an explosion in outer space look like,
without the benefit of gravity or earth to "get in the way"?
Would it still have an "up" and a "down", or would it be just
a perfectly round sphere?

The comments to this entry are closed.

spacer
Return to the Blog Index


January 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31



Customer Service
Copyright © 2005 Popular Science
A Time4 Media Company All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Index