ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise"

[PamW]

25. 100% WRONG!!

kristopher,

They considered and weighed all 4 areas; but they selected a "once through" cycle that leaves us with long-lived waste to dispose of.

I don't think they put enough weight or cost on the long-lived waste.

Evidently, kristopher doesn't understand that there isn't one CORRECT way to do the weighting.

There are a multitude of ways to do that weighting.

I, and I think a lot of people here, would HIGHLY NEGATIVELY weight any scheme that leaves us with long-term waste to dispose of; as does the "once through" cycle.

Evidently, MIT didn't heavily negative weight the long-term waste problem; or they wouldn't have settled on a cycle like "once through" which leaves us with long-term waste to dispose of.

If they weighted the leaving of long-term waste; which is what most anti-nukes complain about; if they had weighted long-term waste VERY NEGATIVELY; then they would never have chosen the "once through" cycle.

If you believe as I do, and I think most here; that long-lived long-term waste is a bad thing; then you wouldn't select a fuel cycle that leaves you with long term waste.

You would select a closed fuel cycle that cleans-up after itself. That's what I'd recommend.

I don't know why you would be in favor of a "once through" cycle; unless you WANT long-lived waste to sit around so you have something to complain about.

PamW