CO2 to Fuel

[begreen]

Hanford produced plutonium for the military use of atomic weapons. That has little to do with reprocessing fuel rods.

Reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. At Hanford we have done a horrible job of this.

 

[spirilis]

Reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. At Hanford we have done a horrible job of this.

I've also read part of the problem at Hanford is we have solutions but nobody wants to implement them (as it would stop the funding train for the site if the job were "done")

https://atomicinsights.com/atomic-show-201-better-way-to-clean-up-hanford-tanks/

I would also suggest that it is disingenious to shoot down a possible tech based on the performance of a site developed early in our discovery and use of nuclear fission, one would hope our engineering and chemistry knowledge gained over the years would lead to better solutions.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ecycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

What interests me about that link is the prospect that we might not need to separate it, but rather throw it into a fast-spectrum reactor to attack the nastiest actinides directly. Sounds like we have options here worth pursuing.

 

[PaulOinMA]

BBC World News America (and PBS Newshour) is what I watch for news since I can't watch talking heads screaming at each other. BBC had a story last night on carbon emissions and food supply.

The story stated 25% of carbon emissions are involved with the production of food. Some European countries have food labeling that includes carbon impact.

The story mentioned that cow and sheep production are very, very high in carbon emissions and showed a vat of chocolate stirring and chocolate bars when discussing low-carbon foodstuffs.

My New Year's resolution to help the environment will be to eat more chocolate!

Not sure that I can eat more than I already do, though.

 

[begreen]

I've also read part of the problem at Hanford is we have solutions but nobody wants to implement them (as it would stop the funding train for the site if the job were "done")

https://atomicinsights.com/atomic-show-201-better-way-to-clean-up-hanford-tanks/

I would also suggest that it is disingenious to shoot down a possible tech based on the performance of a site developed early in our discovery and use of nuclear fission, one would hope our engineering and chemistry knowledge gained over the years would lead to better solutions.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ecycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

What interests me about that link is the prospect that we might not need to separate it, but rather throw it into a fast-spectrum reactor to attack the nastiest actinides directly. Sounds like we have options here worth pursuing.

No disagreement that we should continue research here. It should be a component of a multi-pronged shifting of energy sources and economies from linear consumption to a circular system that eliminates waste.

 

[begreen]

BBC World News America (and PBS Newshour) is what I watch for news since I can't watch talking heads screaming at each other. BBC had a story last night on carbon emissions and food supply.

The story stated 25% of carbon emissions are involved with the production of food. Some European countries have food labeling that includes carbon impact.

The story mentioned that cow and sheep production are very, very high in carbon emissions and showed a vat of chocolate stirring and chocolate bars when discussing low-carbon foodstuffs.

My New Year's resolution to help the environment will be to eat more chocolate!

Not sure that I can eat more than I already do, though.

Food production is definitely an issue. The way we produce food is too carbon intensive. There are better ways. But the huge problem is not food production, but food waste. About 60% of the food we produce never is consumed! Compare this to how the planet works without man. There is no waste in nature.

 

[wooduser]

The New York Times isd already promoting the use of insects in the diet of human beings. We'll be seeing grubs on the school lunch menue before long if they have their way.

Anything to enable and support a population of a billion in this country by the end of the century!

Although WHY we would want they no one ever explains....

 

[coutufr]

Solutions do exist but they are useless unless everyone understands why we need to use them. A less egocentric and more educated (educated in the traditional sense of the word) World population is also a requirement to get things changed. It is definitely more of a social science than an engineering problem to solve.

 

[begreen]

Solutions do exist but they are useless unless everyone understands why we need to use them. A less egocentric and more educated (educated in the traditional sense of the word) World population is also a requirement to get things changed. It is definitely more of a social science than an engineering problem to solve.

That is correct, though we are approaching the point where technological solutions will not work regardless of cooperation. It is only going to be by global collective effort that we can slow down the massive changes that have been set into motion. It's going to take understanding and cooperation by all earthlings.

 

[Connecticut Yankee]

Put it a different way...

. . . A devil in the details is where does the Carbon Tax go, how is it redistributed and to whom.

Precisely. Just ask all those states that instituted lotteries on the basis that the revenue would be used "to support education" how their education budgets these days compare to what they were spending before the lottery.

Personally, I would prefer a "cap and trade" program. It worked very well on sulfur emisions, and I have no doubt it would also work on carbon emissions. But it probably would have a bigger effect on corporations that can afford to buy legislators generous campaign contributions than a consumer tax would.