Ha Ha, again confirmation of my comments.

Not at all.

You're suffering from delusions of adequacy.

Back to the topic.

More discussion needs to be done regarding nuclear
reactors. The nuclear industry is constantly
developing innovative technologies and protocols
towards making the energy production process fail
safe.

Newer generations of nuclear reactors, particularly what's
called a "pebble-bed-reactor"are designed so that the
nuclear chain reaction cannot run away and cause a
meltdown - even in the event of complete failure of the
reactor's machinery.

Then there's also the emphasis that geological stability
considerations will also likely play a bigger role in
approving new sites of construction. And although long-lived
nuclear waste may remain dangerous for considerable periods
of time, that time table according to reports is not
prohibitive. In fact even without recycling the fuel, which
would further shorten the lifetime of radio active waste,
the radio activity of the waste is reduced to around 0.1%
of the initial value about 40-50 years.

So in summation- with the advent of modern reactors and
careful selection of plant sites, nuclear accidents like
the one in Fukushima will become not possible.

Therefore we're being told that these noteable benefits
and the problems associated with nuclear power do not
justify its immediate dismissal as a potential energy source
for the world.

My only question is - if the primary proposal for
long-term storage of nuclear waste is burial in very
carefully selected deep geological repositories -
where are these locations around the world?

Anyone have any suggestions?

South Australia and charge everyone who wants their waste stored.
Money for digging a hole.

Foxy,

There are areas in Australia which are so remote that they don't even have a name. On the WA-SA border, about half-way up, there is an area set aside as a national park, since there's nothing else that can be done with it. It used to be named the 'Unnamed National Park' but it might have a name now: ah yes, 'Mamungari'. A 'mamu' is an evil spirit in the Pitjantjatjara language. No fresh water, only a handful of salt lakes. But if it came down to it, nuclear waste could be stored there.

Of course, we forget that most major hospitals have radioactive storage areas, most of us have probably walked past such rooms at some time.

I'm still bugged by the existence - seemingly quite safe for crew - of nuclear-powered submarines. If such small reactors can be built and used, then why not build them to power remote towns, well out of town, perhaps in a hub-and-spokes arrangement ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

Thanks for the information.

I'll check it out on a map.

Good question about the subs.