"My household uses about 140 kWh/day"
Over 4 times the average? Don't you think that's irresponsible? You should be ashamed instead of trying to tell the rest of the world how to solve things. If it wasn't for people like you, we might not even have this problem.
"The French reprocess their spent fuel to reclaim about 95% of the usable fuel to return it back into the fuel cycle."
At the moment, there is only one reactor in the world capable of doing this, and it's meant for research. The first commercial reactor that will work like this is planned for 2016 (with the current 'cheap' Uranium, such installations form a substantial financial risk, and it may take a long time before we see more of them). But even those reactors can only reduce the amount of socalled High Level waste, and they will increase the amount of Low and Mid Level waste (with half-times up to 200 years). While this looks like a great benefit, we must not forget that most accidents happen with Low Level waste.
"But, I would only need enough for about 100 years, or about 0.184 grams of matter."
Yeah, sure. But right now, you are burning huge amounts of coal and oil. We don't have fission yet, but you can already try to spend a bit less and buy a solar panel to compensate for the rest, you know.
"There is a quickly realizable maximum energy yield in solar power."
The earth receives more energy from the sun in a year, then the total amount used by all humans in history. But maybe you are capable of wasting all of it, just by yourself...
Oh, and btw...
http://www.ecology.at/ecology/files/pr577_1.pdf
"Nuclear is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. Using
current uranium ore grades (~ 2% concentration) results in 32g of CO2 equivalent
(CO2eq) per kWh of nuclear electricity (kWhel) in Germany. In France, it is only
8g/kWhel, while it is higher in Russia and in the USA, 65g and 62g respectively. One
reason for this is the quality of uranium: the lower the grade, the more CO2. A substantial
increase of nuclear electricity generation would require the exploitation also of lower
grade uranium ores and thus would increase the CO2-emissions up to 120g
CO2eq/kWhel, which is much more than other energy technologies: natural gas co-generation
50-140g CO2eq/kWhel); wind power 24g, hydropower 40g; energy conservation
5g CO2eq/kWhel) [OEKO 2007]."
Over 4 times the average? Don't you think that's irresponsible? You should be ashamed instead of trying to tell the rest of the world how to solve things. If it wasn't for people like you, we might not even have this problem.
"The French reprocess their spent fuel to reclaim about 95% of the usable fuel to return it back into the fuel cycle."
At the moment, there is only one reactor in the world capable of doing this, and it's meant for research. The first commercial reactor that will work like this is planned for 2016 (with the current 'cheap' Uranium, such installations form a substantial financial risk, and it may take a long time before we see more of them). But even those reactors can only reduce the amount of socalled High Level waste, and they will increase the amount of Low and Mid Level waste (with half-times up to 200 years). While this looks like a great benefit, we must not forget that most accidents happen with Low Level waste.
"But, I would only need enough for about 100 years, or about 0.184 grams of matter."
Yeah, sure. But right now, you are burning huge amounts of coal and oil. We don't have fission yet, but you can already try to spend a bit less and buy a solar panel to compensate for the rest, you know.
"There is a quickly realizable maximum energy yield in solar power."
The earth receives more energy from the sun in a year, then the total amount used by all humans in history. But maybe you are capable of wasting all of it, just by yourself...
Oh, and btw...
http://www.ecology.at/ecology/files/pr577_1.pdf
"Nuclear is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. Using
current uranium ore grades (~ 2% concentration) results in 32g of CO2 equivalent
(CO2eq) per kWh of nuclear electricity (kWhel) in Germany. In France, it is only
8g/kWhel, while it is higher in Russia and in the USA, 65g and 62g respectively. One
reason for this is the quality of uranium: the lower the grade, the more CO2. A substantial
increase of nuclear electricity generation would require the exploitation also of lower
grade uranium ores and thus would increase the CO2-emissions up to 120g
CO2eq/kWhel, which is much more than other energy technologies: natural gas co-generation
50-140g CO2eq/kWhel); wind power 24g, hydropower 40g; energy conservation
5g CO2eq/kWhel) [OEKO 2007]."