>You didn't answer my question.
>
>If the waste from the older plants is being dealt with "safely" in the
>newer plants, it has to be transported from one place to another. This
>process is not accident-free. You also haven't addressed the issues of
>plutonium mining and transport to the plant, or whatever fuel sources are
>being used these days.
I just thought of something else I should have said. The spent fuels
from existing reactors and nuclear weapons will exist whether any of
these new plants are built or not. We have to do something with it.
Would you rather have it sit around with a half-life of a couple
thousand years, or would you rather have it used in a way that produces
electricity and reduces it's half-time to centuries? What's the half-life
of all the CO2 being dumped in the atmosphere by coal and oil fired plants?
If the new design was used to replace existing nuclear plants, you
would eliminate the transportation issue as all waste could be processed
on site.
Don, just in case your quip about nothing being accident proof was real,
the point of these plants is that accidents don't cause major problems.
==>paul, who'd rather be talking about his farm.
