Vitaliy wrote: > Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >> Looking at the general outlook of nuclear waste disposal in France -- >> presents differe= nt >> views of the issue -- it doesn't seem there's much proven or mature. > = > It looks like you and Russell employ similar strategies. His reply was fi= ve = > pages long. You simply threw the whole internet at me. :) No, just a few links... :) > The first result from your link above is titled "Why the French Like Nucl= ear = > Energy". Two citations from that article: = "For example, while French citizens cannot control nuclear technology anymore than Americans, the fact that they trust the technocrats that do control it makes them feel more secure." I don't trust "technocrats" any more than I trust the odd guy at a dark corner. (Nothing against odd guys at dark corners or anonymous technocrats, but I don't know either one and there's no reason to trust any of them in any specific way.) And the last paragraph of that article, kind of the conclusion: "Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Could this issue strike down France's uniquely successful nuclear program? France's politicians and technocrats are in no doubt. If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then 'I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program.'" "... which to date no country has solved" speaks for itself. > Result #2 is a nice overview of how France successfully deals with spent = > fuel: > = > http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml Right... if you read it carefully, it's all about temporary storage, in the range of up to a few decades -- just long enough so that the ones who put it there are out of the picture, and the ones who come next will have to deal with the stuff. A strategy that seems to be employed quite frequently with bigger problems. (Some wars come to mind, or rapidly growing public debt.) Result #3 starts like this: "PARIS, Dec 17 (Tierram=E9rica) - France sends thousands of tonnes of nucle= ar waste to Russia each year, but the details are shielded by a decree of "national security" in order to block debate on the issue, says the environmental watchdog group Greenpeace." Doesn't sound like the problem of waste deposit has been solved. "Send it to Russia" is usually synonymous with "dump it somewhere in Siberia and let later generations deal with it". = Result #4 talks about the domestic opposition to nuclear waste repositories in France: = "'The facts regarding the French repository program contradict Vice-President Cheney,' said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of IEER, who has written widely on nuclear waste issues. 'France has no repository, and their siting program faces huge domestic opposition. The controversy that surrounds waste management is a thorn in the side of the French nuclear industry.'" "France has no repository" seems to be pretty clear, in terms of what it means. Result #5 talks about some of the details of the problems waste storage solutions face in France. An excerpt: "Parliament issued a report in March, 2005, on the issue of France's nuclear waste. Its recommendations confirm the status quo: waste storage and decontamination research. "The cost of waste disposal -- hundreds of billions of euros -- is being passed along to ratepayers. High rates aren't the only legacy of 50 years of nuclear power. Citizens and scientists alike are concerned about security, groundwater contamination, and storage." In short, the article talks about the problems with the waste in France -- and about the current lack of solutions. Result #6 reports about an instance of contamination: = "Radioactive waste leaks threatens vineyards and farming communities in the Champagne and Normandy regions, while the nuclear industry ignores French laws prohibiting dumping of foreign nuclear waste in France." Not that relevant in this context, but definitely not an indication that good solutions are currently employed or around the corner. Result #7 is a generally positive view of nuclear waste management. However, even they state the following: "The ultimate disposal of vitrified wastes, or of used fuel assemblies without reprocessing, requires their isolation from the environment for long periods. The most favoured method is burial in dry, stable geological formations some 500 metres deep. Several countries are investigating sites that would be technically and publicly acceptable." "Several countries are investigating sites" means that some 40 years after the beginning of use of nuclear reactors, this is still in the investigative stage -- which, to me, means "not solved". Then they say: "After being buried for about 1000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed." = Right... just 1000 years. How long do you give warranty on your products? How much warranty do you get when you buy one? Are you really sure the founders of one of the longest and most stable current democracies on this planet (I'm talking about the USA) would have acquired and preserved any preexisting knowledge about such a dangerous site from the preexisting inhabitants of the land, and would have continued to maintain it in the spirit of the (besieged) creators? The way the story went down back then, I doubt it. (Well, it's actually a fact that they didn't. They pretty much ignored the culture of the preexisting population.) And, for most, that was the "good guys" winning... imagine what happens when the "bad guys" win. > Is there anything you want me to address specifically? Well, I said that given the links above, "it doesn't seem there's much proven or mature" -- and I stand by that. The links IMO show that there's not much proven or mature in long-term nuclear waste management solutions. Mostly an ever longer list of questions, which seems to pop up faster than the answers. Which is not a sign of a proven or a mature technology. Gerhard -- = http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist