Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"tim...." wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...

Cost effectivness is. None of the renewables can match the
generating cost of conventional or nuclear power and, if you do a
whole life study, when nuclear still wins out on cost,

How can you (or anybody) possibly make this claim when we STILL don't
know how much it will cost to get rid of the waste material we have
already stored, let alone that which we have yet to generate.

You don't need to get rid of it (unless you want to reprocess it for
some reason). Just leave it alone.

The amount of high-level waste is not large. That's quite radioactive,
but is composed of stuff with short half-lives. So after not many years
(IIRC less than 50) it's less than half as radioactive as when you
started with it.

The low-level waste (of which there is a lot more) is not particularly
dangerous anyway.


Actually the fuel comes out for reprocessing, the low level **** gets
taken away and stored - its relatively harmless: the reactor shell etc
you fill with concrete and leave. If you are particularly bothered, make
it a landfill site and build a mound over it. In 100 years it will be a
useful place to put affordable housing.

Anything else you simply strip - gebnerators etc etc are all usable
items, or recyclable