Nuclear Waste
Is “nuclear waste” an outdated term? Most of the nation spent nuclear fuel—which will no longer find a permanent resting place at anywhere—is actually pretty useful stuff. In addition to a lot of basically inert uranium-238, those spent fuel rods also contain radioactive isotopes that can be used for medical and industrial purposes, as well as decent amounts of uranium-235 and plutonium, which can be reprocessed and used again as nuclear fuel. If we can just keep reusing that nuclear fuel, maybe there’s no need for any place--style waste repository, after all.
Unfortunately, there are two big reasons that reprocessing is unlikely to solve the problem of nuclear waste. The first is that it’s not cost-effective, and won’t be for a long time yet. Reprocessing is an expensive undertaking, and mining new uranium for nuclear fuel is—relatively speaking—quite cheap. Harvard nuclear-policy researcher Matthew Bunn calculates that the price of uranium would have to go higher than $360 per kilogram before reprocessing becomes cost-competitive. The current price of uranium is about $100 per kilogram—far below the level at which reprocessing could compete. What's more, Bunn thinks that this price has been significantly inflated by short-term production bottlenecks and is likely to drop in the future.
Of course, if running reactors on reprocessed fuel helped reduce the overall amount of nuclear waste—and therefore the need to build expensive waste repositories —there might be a case for doing so even if it costs more than running them on newly-mined uranium. But if anything, reprocessing actually increases the demands on nuclear-waste repositories. That’s because the most important consideration when designing a long-term waste repository is not the volume of radioactive waste but the amount of heat it gives off. And according to Alison MacFarlane, George Mason University professor of nuclear policy, spent mixed-oxide fuel—which is what’s left over after running a reactor on reprocessed nuclear waste—is about three times as hot as regular spent fuel rods.
It’s possible that, one day, more advanced reactors—fast breeder reactor, say—will be able to cost-effectively make use of spent nuclear fuel to produce electricity. Unfortunately, that day is a long ways off. Until then, nuclear waste will remain nuclear waste.

soumya ranjan lenka

E-waste: A Recyclable resource

i found this article is very interesting...... so i put this here............
E- waste: A Recyclable Resource
In the 1970s, Gordon E. Moore theorized that computer processing power doubles about every 18 months especially relative to cost or size. His theory, known as Moore’s Law, has proved largely true. Thinner, sleeker, and faster computers have replaced the big boxes and monitors people once owned 10 years ago.
This phenomenon is not limited to computers. Each day, various types of consumer electronics are constantly upgraded or scrapped in favor of technological advancements. In the process, scores of TVs, VCRs, cassette decks, CD players, cell phones and bulky video cameras become what is known as electronic waste (e-waste).
Americans amassed an enormous amount of electronic devices—an estimated three billion total. Given the large amount of potential products involved, e-waste includes a broad range of devices. Unfortunately, improper disposal of e-waste creates a significant burden on landfills because toxic substances can leach into the soil and groundwater. Absent recycling, the problem could escalate.
The total annual global volume of e-waste is expected to reach about 40 million metric tons. In the U.S. alone, it is estimated that we generated 1.5 billion pounds of all kinds of e-waste in 2006. This includes an estimated 44 million computers and televisions.
This amount is likely to increase because e-waste is growing at three times the rate of other municipal waste. Although e-waste accounts for only one to four percent of municipal waste, it may be responsible for as much as 70 percent of the heavy metals in landfills, including 40 percent of all lead.
Certain items are particularly harmful. For instance, cathode ray tube (CRT) television monitors contain, on average, four to eight pounds of lead, a highly toxic heavy metal.
E-waste should not be considered “waste.” It is a resource. Useful materials such as glass, copper, aluminum, plastic and other components can often be extracted and reused.
With an increasing array of environmentally-friendly options now available, consider recycling or donating old electronic devices. With either choice, we can reduce the amount of e-waste landfilled and put our outdated items to good use.