How many tons of nuclear waste are produced a year? I need the source as well?
483731
In the US nuclear power plants produce 2,000 metric tons of waste a year.
757423
First find the mass weight of Strontium: 87.62 g/gmol\nNow find the mass weight of SrCO3: 87.62 + 12 + 3*16 = 147.62\n\nNow find the fraction of Sr in SrCO3: 87.62/147.62 = 0.594\n\nSo in order to get 100 ton of Sr which is only 59.4% of what you need SrCO3.  The the tonnes of SrCO3 you need is\n\n100 ton Sr --- 0.594\nx ton SrCO3 --- 1\nx = 100 / 0.594 = 168.4 ton SrCO3.\n\nNow, again, this is 2% of what is in the ore, so the amount of ore you need is\n\n168.4/2% = 168.4 * 50 = 8417 ton ore\n\nCheck\n8417 * 0.02 * 0.594 = 100  OK.
828967
A piece of uranium or plutonium is put in water, and then the water begins to boil releasing a large ammount of of energy. That energy is collected. What`s left over from this reaction is known as nuclear waste.
609686
I think that nuclear energy source is a viable energy source as long as we do everything we can to make it as safe as possible.  If we do nothing to find new energy sources our economy and our way of life can deteriorate.
409141
heres a show we did on depleated uranium http://www.philipdru.com/rokke_stream.html\n\nwe're tryin to bring things like this to peoples attention. tough going though, nobody wants to listen. weve gotten through to some people, makes it worth it. http://scotthortonshow.com/
174027
Obviously, don't get that stuff on yourself.  There is also the waste material produced (but all energy production involves waste which is the inefficient use of material in the production of energy).  Finally, remember that no one died at Three Mile Island.
235656
From US Dept. of Energy:\n\n"As of October 31, 2005, there are 104 commercial nuclear generating units that are fully licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate in the United States."
795216
Here you can find several papers on nuclear energy: http://www.coursework4you.co.uk/sprtcasei28.htm
125399
Technology is certainly going to help - for example, there are tests now of fusion power (this doesn't generate as much dangerous radioactive waste that current fission-based nuclear reactors do). But this won't be enough by itself - people need to learn to use less energy, because if we don't reduce the need, there will be a crisis. "Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac)"
283358
not a question...\n\nyes i know its from waste duh...
550697
A good place to start is http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/wastsolidmunicipalsolidwaste.html\n\nAdditionally, here is another EPA web site that should provide you with the information you seek.  http://oaspub.epa.gov/webimore/aboutepa.ebt4?search=21,235,452\n\nGood luck!
208864
Here is a little information about Nuclear Energy:\nhttp://home.clara.net/darvill/altenerg/nuclear.htm
779915
Search the USGS website, they might have something.  Or possibly the EPA website, but that might be more a longshot.  The goverment has all those records for sure, search some sites like the USGS site.
1064252
At the current rate of usage in the U.S., the known coal reserves are expected to last between 250 and 300 years.  Estimates will differ.  The U.S., Russia, and China have some of the largest coal reserves in the world.  Worldwide, however, coal is expected to last approximately 225 years at the current rate of usage.  Your question asks about an increase in usage of 3.1 percent per year.  The U.S. has approximately 275 billion tons of known coal reserves and used approximately 0.861 tons per person in 2000.  At a 3.1 percent increase per year in coal usage, I would estimate that this 275 billion tons would last until 2115, given no increase in population.  The U.S. population increases at a rate of approximately 1 percent per year.  Given this kind of increase in population and as such coal usage, I would estimate that the known coal reserves in the U.S. could diminish by 2095, about the same time as the oil reserves.  These are just guesses!
226685
Well, other forms of energy create so much more pollution that nuclear energy is the safest, most viable source of energy. I'll admit it's far from perfect, but considering the low output of energy collection devices such as solar and wind, nuclear energy has a huge output for a very low energy input.\n\nAnd nuclear power plants are among the most efficient power sources we have. Coal and nuclear plants are about 30-40% efficient. In contrast, the human body is only 20% efficient. Until we can develop a system of fusion that creates an acceptable amount of energy to warrant the energy required to start the reaction, fission is our best bet.
680137
To answer the first question, most power generation currently in use comes from burning things (coal, oil, gas, wood), that contain carbon in their molecular structure.  This carbon is combined with oxygen (typically from air), creating carbon dioxide, and releasing energy.  This carbon dioxide is released into the air.  Depending on the fuel source, other components and contaminants of the fuel may be burned or released as well, producing other types of pollution (such as mercury or acid rain).\n\nWith nuclear power (fission), the energy comes from a reaction contained entirely within a nuclear pile (generally made of uranium or plutonium).  Neither carbon nor oxygen needed for the process, and so CO2 is not produced.  In addition (at present), generally all of the waste products of the reaction are kept sealed and contained at special storage facilities.  While these waste products have the potential to be hazardous, because they are kept sealed, the environmental impact is greatly reduced.
158763
Trash. America is known for its problem with its waste and is polluting. I'm not one of those activist types, but 13 million tons? Come on.