Are I love the word Sludge, so descriptive.
The whole issue of radiation is a thorny one. If we had a means of removing
the material which is in effect unstable and decaying from the rest of the
material then we might be getting somewhere.
Maybe much like food packaging we need to aim for a fuel pure enough not to
leave any waste or at least to leave something we can use behind.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 04/02/2017 08:12, harry wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing
with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

That temporary storage serves two important purposes. For instance, the
Magnox swarf that remains after the fuel is decanned has spent decades in
temporary storage in water filled silos. That reduces the level of
activity over time and also allows the swarf to corrode into a sludge that
can be dealt with far more easily.

SteveW