An environmentalist friend of mine from the Seattle area once questioned me on a possible solution to CO2 emissions in the energy sector in response to global warming. I strongly suggested nuclear power since it emits no CO2 and has been used safely for decades. However, the problems with nuke power is that it requires an enormous amount of investment capital to construct a power plant, training personnel for safe operation is costly, public hysteria to splitting atoms resulting in never ending protests, and where in the world to dispose of nuclear waste. She sent me this Scientific American article which discusses the problems with reprocessing spent fuel.
In lamens terms, the fuel used in most reactors is a combination of the U-235 and U-238 isotopes of Uranium (which can be mined). When the fuel is exposed to neutrons bouncing around to heat up the reactor, some of the U-238 become Plutonium-239. This stuff does not occur naturally in mother nature, since it's quite unstable, and is also used in nuclear warheads. The author of the Scientific American article argues that since it is so expensive to recycle the plutonium and terrorists could get their mitts on it, fuel reprocessing is a bad idea. Ultimately, the question becomes how do we dispose of spent fuel from nuclear reactors in a cost-effective and safe fashion.
While most environmentalists are kind folks who live modest lives and enjoy hiking on the weekends, there is a dangerous trend towards celebrity environmentalism amongst modern American society. These douchebags fly around in gulfstreams, live in huge mansions that no doubt destroyed huge swaths of the landscape to construct, and might show up in a Prius at some awards ceremony to show how "compassionate" they are about the cause that is in-style that week. Al Gore is one of these hypocritical assbags, who lives in a mansion in Nashville, but tells all the rest of us commoners that we need to reduce our carbon footprint. In an apparent PR stunt, Gore installed a bunch of "green" fixtures in his mansion, but the fact that the guy consumes way more resources than the average Joe is still apparent.
So the problem with nuclear waste is that we don't have a place to dump it, and it might get in the hands of terrorists. I say put it on Al Gores's lawn since 1) It will show how committed he is to reducing CO2 emissions and inflate his already massive ego, and 2) He'll be able to scare off any potential terrorist by boring them to death with his recap as Vice President or how the 2000 election was rigged against him. This might have the fun-filled consequence of bombarding Al Gore with gamma rays, thereby turning him into some sort of Gore-Zilla. Just thinking outside the box here.
No comments:
Post a Comment