Sweden disposes of low-level short-lived radioactive waste at its Final Repository for Radioactive Operational Waste (SFR), in granite rock 50 meters (164 feet) below the Baltic Sea. The SFR is 60 meters offshore, connected by a tunnel to the site of the Forsmark nuclear power plant in central Sweden. The first of its kind in the world, the SFR has been in operation since 1988. Radioactive waste will remain at SFR for 500 years, until its radioactivity is reduced to acceptable levels.

The SFR uses a multi-barrier approach to containing radiation. Some low-level radioactive waste is put into large rock vaults of granite bedrock. Other low-level radioactive waste is put into silos surrounded by protective barriers of clay and concrete.

Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste

After an initial one-year cool down period at the nuclear power facility, spent nuclear fuel is sent to Sweden’s Central Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel, or CLAB, located in Oskarshamn in southern Sweden. During the first 30 years at CLAB, spent nuclear fuel cools in water in an underground rock cavern built to shield against radiation release. Construction is underway to enlarge the facility.

Sweden’s spent nuclear fuel was sent to France for reprocessing until the mid 1980s, when it was decided by Swedish authorities that disposal would be less costly than reprocessing.

You see Bob, nothing makes the radioactivity go away. And all nuclear powered nations are storing it. The short term storage for low level radioactivity is 500 years. It’s a matter of time if this industry expands everywhere that storage becomes a serious problem.

It’s all about money still. It’s cheaper to store it than reprocess. Even your saying nuclear is the answer has motive. It’s what you do for a living and I don’t blame you. But it is not environmentally sound in the long run because it is not sustainable and an overabundance of radioactive graveyards is far more dangerous than a barge of garbage or two. The global warming crowd are a little more savvy than that.

I honestly think geothermal is going to play a big part in our energy future. Way back when I worked at Fermi, I knew a carpenter who used the geothermal heat from underground to heat a trout pond and warm his horse barn simultaneously. Free, constant heat. I’ve done a patent search for a process I’m developing that in part uses some of that thermal heat. I hoping for a pending patent within a year. If you’ve got any new green ideas of your own, now is the time to go for it. Thanks Bob.

I have no problem with nuclear power but as any engineer admits, there is no solution to effectively getting rid of the radioactive refuse. It’s buried in huge extremely reinforced concrete containment vessels. How much ground should be donated to a graveyard like this and for how long? These graveyards will keep growing with more use. See the problem here? We’re using another form of energy that will ultimately become too cumbersome for the environment. Not the air, but the earth. It’s just not sustainable. There are nations like Germany that have at least ¼ to 1/3 nuclear power. I don’t know if their plants are new enough that disposal hasn’t posed a problem yet, but where is all that radioactive refuse going? I know already countries that are arguing about carting radioactive waste across borders.

Radioactive waste like this doesn’t dissipate for a thousand years. Our best bet is to encourage science more instead of dissing it. Science has taken a direct hit during the Bush/Cheney admin., enough to create doubt about global warming, one of the greatest detriments to moving forward environmentally, especially when the biggest contribution to mankind would be science’ ability to stabilize radioactive material.

As for the Fermi plant in Monroe here, they already have the land, already buried waste, nothing else is happening there anyway… I did a blog on some of the new reactors and other potential sources for biofuels: http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/03/pebble-bed-reactors-or-pbrs-coming-to-america-soon/.

Yes I’ve read the Kyoto Treaty before, but would have to have a refresher. The U.S. biggest reason for refusing to sign was that it would hurt our industry. Since we have little of that left, now would be the perfect time to green-up enough to join the rest of the world since we’re revamping our manufacturing sectors anyway. It’s perfect timing actually. We need new jobs in brand new sectors.

As for global warming. Like any new phenomena, science on this is evolving daily because it is nothing like we’ve known before and is affecting hundreds of ecosystems at once. Understand that the data library for global warming will continue to grow. It’s not like we don’t have anything to measure against either, because we do. I’ve done a blog on the “Little Ice Age” and the “Medieval Warming Period.” Events today are quicker and more extreme than that and with 6.7 billion people on earth.

You’re behind on info like a find a lot of naysayers to be. I did many blogs long ago, answering most of your queries, especially one about our first global warming that happened 40 million years ago caused by methane gas. Scientists are able to take core samples at the bottom of frozen lakes in the Arctic and ice core samples that trap air bubbles of what used to be the atmosphere. They can tell how old the stuff is. Amazing stuff. We know more about the past than you think.

I’m sorry my website is out of control, but blogs about many of your questions are there with reputable links to reputable sources.
.
Here are a few I ran across. The latest from Science Daily says man has been affecting the environment for 2000 years:

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/05/humans-have-been-affecting-the-earths-atmosphere-for-at-least-2000-years/.

Watch this. It is a fascinating video learning tool.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/07/national-geographics-planet-earth/.

Can you give me any reasonable answer as to why we shouldn’t be building as many nuclear power plants as we can as fast as we can.

I am in agreement with you half way. Lets do all the energy things you want to do. However, not because of some silly notion as global warming, but because its better, more efficant and we will reduce our reliance on those not so stable nations around the world…

So you and I are headed in the same direction just not for the same reasons.

Would really like to hear your thoughts on nuclear ….and have you read the kyoto treaty

Have a nice evening!!!

Try reading this if you can understand it: http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/has-climate-warmed-since-1998.html.

If you can’t understand it, then you shouldn’t comment like you’ve a novel idea. Check the date on the article–2006.

it WARMED 1/2 a degree for 70 or 80 year’s ending in 1998. It has stopped warming since and Maybee even cooled. Also, Nov of this year was the coldest in memory.

The sales a ELETRIC cars has slowed in the UK all this year not just sence gas got let expensive.

sorry

Global warming has not been provided. You are using the word “believers” the in the same context as Christians do about their faith. Is this a faith issue for you?

Again, and for the millionth (spelling?) time, it cooled by 1/2 of a degree over seventy or eighty years. For the past ten it has warmed….

Why should we all just “drink the purple koolaid” duew to a very small fews “faith?”

This is nuts.

Also why aren’t you calling for nuclear power? This is the cleanest mass produced energy availible and would completely shut down the coal plants.

You lived with it in Monroe forever, why not call for it everywhere?

The Kyoto treaty is a document not meant to benefit the USA…we will be severely disadvantaged by it. We should NEVER sign that piece of trash…
Have you actually read it?