Hey now this is gettin a nice even debate going...
i'll try to answer each and every question...
one of the limitations to nuclear waste is the fact that once it has been used it starts to decay into transuranics.. now they where building breeder reactors during the 70's, but the problem with that is that once the fuel has been used in a breeder reactor it has increased the number of transuranics and excellerated the decay into those type of isotopes...transuranics are also what the waste will continue to decay into, and they are extremely dangerous to us..once the fuel is stored it will decay for the next 24,000 yrs at which point it is 1,000 times more dangerous than the day it came out of the core... plutonium 238 is a transuranic and possibly the least harmful, it is also the isotope used in nuclear weapons..exposure to 0.01 grams of plutonium generally results in death within 3-6 months.. now when they enrich uranium, they use a cascade process and this uses huge amounts of electricity and is not economical..another thing is reprocessing, which has deadly waste and the returned amount is quite miniscule..they are presently trying to improve this process but after 30 yrs have yet to get an efficent process working...The emmissions from these plants of greatest concern are kryptonium-85, iodine-129, plutonium-239, tritium, and carbon-14
why the US, well they where the leaders in utilising the nuclear power generation process and the only advocates for over 20 years...they also had government based atomic energy comission and several other agencies, (the list is extensive and they changed names several times to suit the political environment).. Jimmy Carter said in september 1976 "We should use atomic energy only as a last resort"..its a bit funny as the US was the world leader and had already the major problem of nuclear waste...they also have a huge amount of decommisioned nuclear reactors..
The world has adopted nuclear power as no other method that is shown to be economical or environmental..One thing people dont see is the fact that nuclear power stations have destroyed so much of the ecology already..
Who is benfitting(shrugs shoulders), i dont have an answer for that, but then it dont make sense to increase the wages of the rich and reduce the wages of the poor...
I've missed a few answers here for sure...
My link on my sig...umm actually found it today..ooops no yesterday...
Seen the news and just about spun out as to why the pm would want a nuclear power station in a country that has better ways to produce electrity and there not interested in looking to anything but nuclear...
And no i am not a greeny or anything like that...we do need a nuclear reactor for medicine and research but thats all...to generate electricity..nahhh..
Now i expect some one will say how do you know about physics...well thats my interest...nuclear and astro.... and no i'm not an optical stargazer, have done and will do again soon but its like going to the city, i get lost easy...lol..
