Replies to post #73575 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[Elmer Phud]

Professor, not only can spent nuclear fuel be recycled up to 10 times resulting in far less residue, but the waste is far less dangerous than the unreprocessed waste we're forced to store today. One expert says it can be handled after ~40 years. A far cry from the 10s of thousands of years we have all been lead to believe. Solar power is a viable source but not a replacement for the world's energy need. Only nuclear can do that, so say the experts whom I find highly credible.

[wbmw]

Re: The ”waste” of the American nuclear plants can be reprocessed and reused.

Sorry, Professor, but how does one process things like polonium and strontium? I'm just going off of memory here, but I seem to recall the atomic byproducts of fission are strange radioactive isotopes that don't mix chemically to form any usable materials.

If the French have figured it out, great, but I'm a bit skeptical that nuclear power will ever be without toxic materials that need to be "dealt with" after the reaction.

I'd prefer truly renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar (or oceanic?). You obviously can't run the whole world on these, but no one is putting the R&D into improving them outside of University research, or the rare case of private research from philanthropic trust funds, because the return on investment is usually viewed as too far out to make any money.

One of the reasons I believe in the new administration is because Obama has vowed to create jobs based on energy research, and I think there's a wealth of new technology waiting for the right kind of funding.

Nuclear is more of a stop-gap, because it's more efficient than oil and coal, while not having air-born pollution. But to pretend that there is no harmful byproduct is misleading, as least AFAIK.

[P2O I'm from MO]

This is cool...

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

Regards.