On 04/02/2013 07:57, harry wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:53 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:



That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy

I see your reading/comprehension skills are poor.
It does not say it is spent fuel.


Well if it is new fuel it can be stored in a cardboard box in the
wardrobe without any harm to the people sleeping there.

On 04/02/2013 09:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On Feb 4, 2:30 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 03/02/13 23:22, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


In fact if you actually look through every single decay product, the
quantities and the techniques established to deal with it, there
really isn't any problem at all.

Well, there's a *political* problem, caused by ******* like harry
telling lies.

What do Harry, renewable energy companies and politicians have in
common?

They all say they really care about the planet, the country, the
people,
the workers, but actually all they care about is making money at
someone
else's expense, lording it over everyone else and telling us how
****ing
moral they are.

I am just doing what the government wants me and everyone else to do.

How can they want *everyone* to do it? If everyone did, there'd be no
one actually paying for their electricity. Everyone would be parasiting
off everyone else.


No.
Everyone would be paying 70-80p per unit and the electricity would only
be on for a few hours a week.

On 04/02/2013 07:57, harry wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:53 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:



That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are
^^^^^^^^^^
Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy

I see your reading/comprehension skills are poor.
It does not say it is spent fuel.

You sure?

Andy

On Feb 4, 8:08*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 04/02/2013 07:57, harry wrote: On Feb 3, 4:53 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:

That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ^^^^^^^^^^ Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. *It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy

I see your reading/comprehension skills are poor.
It does not say it is spent fuel.

You sure?

Andy

It said it was in spent fuel, not it was spent fuel.

On 05/02/13 07:11, harry wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:08 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 04/02/2013 07:57, harry wrote: On Feb 3, 4:53 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/02/2013 15:30, harry wrote:

That's not what it says here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

It says this:

"The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are

^^^^^^^^^^ Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239"

Pu239 isn't spent fuel. It's fuel. I suspect the author(s) of that
article aren't entirely unbiased.

Andy

I see your reading/comprehension skills are poor.
It does not say it is spent fuel.

You sure?

Andy

It said it was in spent fuel, not it was spent fuel.

Even that is strictly incorrect, because spent fuel has ceased to exist,
literally! About 2kg of the mass of fuel rods that are loaded into a
reactor simply vanishes as it is used.

The other 50 tonnes or so is not spent fuel. Its used fuel rods, of
which around 99% of the U238 is still there and around 80% IIRC of the
U235 is still there, and a few tens of grammes of plutonium have
actually appeared.

With thorium, fast neutron, and breeder reactors 99% of what is left is
capable of being used as fuel.

We have a waste problem for two reasons.

1/. It is far cheaper to mine and enrich raw uranium than to process
used (not spent) fuel rods. This is largely so because
2/. Regulations surrounding nuclear materials ONCE PROCESSED are
massively draconian, but do not apply to UNPROCESSED uranium ore.

Ergo the problem is only a problem because of regulations. And those are
based on public perceptions.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf







--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.