Recycling oil

Recycling oil
For the most part, you cannot recycle motor oil – it has to be disposed of properly. Your mechanic will do this for you.
You can, however, recycle cooking oil. Through proper treatment, the oil can be recycled for use in modified engines. This is called biodiesel. More about this in my next post

A common myth about recycling: not everything can be recycled.

A common myth about recycling: not everything can be recycled.

It is true that we cannot recycle organic waste to make anything useful, but nature uses organic waste in order to keep the ecosystem going. Such a system has kept this planet alive for many millions of years. They say coal and oil are not recyclable. Certainly this may be true in our lifetimes, but if coal and oil takes many millions of years to form, then certainly coal and oil are recyclable and replenishable, but it will take many millions of years to do so.

the nuclear debate - Nuclear waste can be made 'safe'

Nuclear waste can be made safe

You can make it ‘safer’ by enclosing it in a lead container, then burying it, but you cannot make it safe. Such a technique only removes radiation from alpha and beta particles which cannot go very far, but some gamma radiation particles, which can pass through almost everything, will escape. This is fine, as there is background radiation regardless, but if the box corrodes away, then we start having problems.

Also, radiation is affecting fish in rivers and streams where such boxes are already buried, which make them unsuitable for human consumption.

the nuclear debate - You can guarantee that uranium will not reach the hands of rogue nations

You can guarantee that uranium will not reach the hands of rogue nations

No you cannot. After you sell your uranium to a ‘trusted’ country, most likely at the highest price, then it is possible for that country to sell it off to another country. In other words, you cannot control the uranium once it is out of your hands.
If it somehow reaches the hands of a country of organization that wants to blow up another country’s national icon, than what is to stop them creating a more devastating effect?

The Nuclear debate - Nuclear reactors are not safe.

Nuclear reactors are not safe.
While the nuclear reactor disasters in Manhattan Island and Chernobyl showed nuclear reactors then were not safe, the Chernobyl disaster was worse because shortcuts were taken in the safety of the place (and safety is not likely to be a factor again if we ever learn things from accidents), my concern lies with someone who is willing enough to blow the place up. Chances guarantee that there will be at least one person willing enough to try. If such a thing happens, then the consequences will be worse than that of Chernobyl.

the uranium debate - There are alternatives to nuclear reactors

There are alternatives to nuclear reactors
There are indeed alternatives to uranium mining – fossil fuels, solar panels, wind farms, hydroelectric dams. As we are trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels, solar panels, wind farms, and hydroelectric dams can be considered.
The biggest two potential usurpers for nuclear power are solar panels and wind farms. It is not possible to generate all power by wind farms, as the current maximum output is 1MW. You would need hundreds to supply the energy necessary to power a major city.
It is also not possible for solar panels to be our major source of energy – the current efficiency rate suggests we need a panel 1km by 1km in size to generate the energy necessary to power a city of 1 million people in a developed nation.

The uranium debate
Many governments are trying to look at alternative to fossil fuels. One that has repeatedly come up us nuclear reactors and uranium mining. There has been heated emotional debate going on, especially in Australia, in relation to these matters. I aim to take a purely non-biased standpoint on this debate, in relation to what is being said. over the coming weeks, we will examine the rasons put forward for nulear reactors.

There is no alternative to nuclear reactors if we are to reduce fossil fuel use.
Currently, the most efficient energy is produced using fossil fuels, especially coal, at 60-80% efficiency. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric are around 20-30% efficient. Nuclear rectors currently are 50% efficient.
The reason why reactors are so enticing is the amount of potential energy output. If we used all the uranium in the core, we could get enough energy to power Australia continuously for a number of years. Since we can only use 1-2% of the core before we have to replace it, we can only imagine the amount of waste by-products generated.