User talk:Bairdjr

Welcome...

Hello, Bairdjr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Oil shale
I'm sorry thatI felt the need to revert one of you first ever edits to Oil shale. I felt that it was far too detailed when compared with the rest of the article and without a source would end up being reverted anyway. I see that you added essentially the same text to the Radioactive waste page; I'll leave people who watch that to decide what they think of your addition. I suspect that they will want just a summary, together with a source. The best place to put this in as a substantial addition rather than a summary would be Oil shale extraction, but again you will need a source or other editors will suspect WP:OR. I hope that you don't find this too offputting, we need as many enthusiastic and knowledgeable editors as we can get. Mikenorton (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm the guy who did what Mikenorton thought would be done on Radioactive waste. I just wanted to echo his sentiments - try just a short para with references, under the heading "re-use of waste", near the end of the article. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to revert your edits on oil shale because this is not the place to promote the use of nuclear waste. Also, the link you added was dead one. Also, I also disagree with Mikenorton about adding this to the Oil shale extraction as there is no any research not taking about tests about this technology. Beagel (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no dead links in this post.

As to research, Lord Oxburgh, one of the world’s leading geologists and a former Chairman of Shell in the U.K. has said of this approach, “I have often myself wondered whether it would be feasible to harness the heat generated by sequestered nuclear materials. I suspect that the major problems might well be political rather than technological.”

Chevron has noted the real technical value but are afraid of the difficult public issues.

After a six month review the best DOE could come up with was “Because of the legal direction given to RW (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management) by Congress, the proposed technology is not within the directions given RW through law. Current law directs RW to accept spent nuclear fuel and high-level wastes and dispose of them…. putting them to another use before disposal is not allowed under current law.

As Richard K. Lester, professor of nuclear science and engineering, MIT recently pointed out in a Boston Globe article, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/21/clearing_the_path_toward_a_nuclear_renaissance/ “it is long past time for a broad-based, high-quality scientific and engineering program to develop new approaches to nuclear-waste disposal. The technology in use today was frozen 25 years ago.”

The problem with North American unconventional oil is the capital and environmental cost of the power plants (gas in Alberta and coal in Colorado) to produce it.

U.S. spent nuclear fuel represents 50 odd reactors worth of free, carbon-free energy. The U.S. inventory is one quarter of the global supply. It is a “no brainer” to import the global inventory, quadruple North America’s proven reserves of synthetic oil and eliminate the potential for proliferation or terrorism presented by this material abroad.

Jim Baird www.nuclearhydrocarbons.com