On Sep 9, 5:46*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Old and Grunpy wrote:

To Mr. McCain

According to recent paper publishing you have stated that:

You are looking to build additional 45 nuclear power plants

I believe it was said by year 2020.

Dear Sir: at present time according to news media we have

77,000 tons of nuclear waste that we have no ability to get read

of, we have no way to store it, no State in the Union wanted in

their back yard, perhaps Sir we should dig couple tunnel in your

Back yard to store it. Anywhere that is not my point, may I ask Sir

Why we can use coal, we can clean it we have technology and use

it for many years to come, but it seems to me that power hungry

politicians all they look how to make quick buck. A another thing

we don't want other Countries to have nuclear plants because

they can not be trusted I agree! But that is all based on assumptions

that is nowhere to have good relation with any country. If we go back

to basic and build power plants burning coal we would be solving

a more then one *problem; having better relations with some countries

that presently practically don't exists and at same time employing

more people, saving on fuel and less dependent on forging oil.

Thank you Sir.

Tony

The disposal of nuclear waste is a completely phony issue. We haven't
decided how to dispose of nuclear waste, not because there are no good
solutions, but because we don't have to make that decision now.

Shoot it into the sun, encase it in molten glass and dump it five miles down
in the ocean, inject it into salt domes, reprocess it into new fuel, and
about a dozen others are all "good" solutions. But here's the unknown part:
an even better solution may be proposed tomorrow!

So, then, why commit to a path that might prove second best if you can delay
the decision?

shooting nuke waste to sun isn't as easy or cost effective as it
sounds, ocean disposal is kinda scary

dry retrievable storage and / or reprocess are better bets

cheers
Bob