[SigPig]

OPP OPP:

What are you babbling about? Did you hit yourself over the head today or something?

Wow, okay I apologize. Not sure how I did it but I didn't read it as the foundation of the building shifting. Apparently doing readings for school for 8 hrs takes away from my ability to read altogether. I retract my previous statement.

[OPP]

SigPig SigPig:

OPP OPP:

What are you babbling about? Did you hit yourself over the head today or something?

Wow, okay I apologize. Not sure how I did it but I didn't read it as the foundation of the building shifting. Apparently doing readings for school for 8 hrs takes away from my ability to read altogether. I retract my previous statement.

The foundation I was reffering too is the rock foundation several kilometers below ground.

[Axeman]

Regarding the storage of spent nuclear rods: I read an article in Scientific American a few years ago about techniques to "re-charge" spent rods. Wait'll that process is perfected. The fact is that there is NO source of electricity that can match the power of the atom in terms of efficiency. And let's face it, in 2009, nuclear is still a NEW technology. We're technological adolescents in using it. We have wrinkles yet to iron out, but the future will be nuclear powered.

[Bruce_the_vii]

That's true. AECL says the spent fuel rods from the Ontario Candu's after 35 years amount to a pool of seven hockey rinks in size filled to the top of the boards. This is not very much to reprocess, basically pilot plant size quantities. Future nuclear facilities will be more all around more developed.

Just for fun I calculated the amount of nuclear fuel used by a reactor. A Darlington nuke will use just under 3 cubic meters of fissile material in 35 years. The by-products will be something like that. The actual problem is the large volume of material that the plants use that becomes slightly contaminated. I don't have a figure but it's considerable.