Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Global Warming (NUCLEAR)



Ludwik,

You bring up an interesting thought (issue), speaking as a non-nuclear
physicist. It always seems strange why there is such a worry about very
long lived radio-isotopes, If it has a half-life of say 1,000,000 years,
the isotope can not be very active (or else its half-life would be much
shorter). And if its not very active, how dangerous is it?

I realize that there is a middle range of half-lifes that must be the
worrisome ones. Very active isotopes only have to be stored a short period
of time before they are no longer dangerous. In you opinion, what are the
range of half-lifes that are the most worrisome?

No doubt I am simplifying greatly and would appreciate responses on the
over-simplification as well.

I'm also considering only danger from radiactive properties of the
substances and not their chemical toxicological properties (which are of
course a factor as well).

Joel
-----Original Message-----
From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 1:25 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: Global Warming (NUCLEAR)


The only way to reduce the CO2 emission significantly is to
make electric industry nuclear, as in France. From what I
know newly designed reactors are much safer than before.

And technology for transforming long-term radioactive
isotopes into stable, or rapidly decaying, products can be
developed in about one decade, if necessary. Two years ago
I attended a conference devoted to that subject. There is
nothing unpredictable (as in the case of fusion) about this
technology. See my note about it in TPT (vol 35, February,
1997, pages 126-127).

Turning spent nuclear fuel into products decaying in
hundreds of years (instead of tens of thousands of years)
would remove the need for the long-term underground
depositories, like Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Well protected
near-surface containers in deserted areas would be a much
better alternative. Special high temperature reactors can be
constructed to get hydrogen fuel from water at much lower
cost than through the electrolysis. Burning hydrogen is
much less polluting than burning coal or gasoline.
Ludwik Kowalski