Good riddance to Yucca Mountain. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2212792/)

Good riddance to Yucca Mountain. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2212792/)

Obbamanation wants to shut down nukes as well ......... with no place to store the waste they will be forced to shut down ...


Viva la Wind and Solar .............. :jameo:

Obbamanation wants to shut down nukes as well ......... with no place to store the waste they will be forced to shut down ...


Viva la Wind and Solar .............. :jameo:

That is what I can't understand when I see these people drving into the nuke plant with Obama stickers on their cars.

Wait a second, I can believe it, they are the same people that voted for him for the one unspoken reason only.

Anyone conversant on nuclear waste and the practical implications of the waste? What is dangerous? What does France do with their waste?

Setting aside silly considerations such as right and wrong, obviously, a 'green' energy plan would require, at some point, the economic impetus to make it, whatever 'it' becomes, viable. That means the 'alternatives', oil, coal and nuke, would need to be more costly than 'the it'.

Oil and coal can be legislated out via cap and trade schemes. Get rid of a place to put nuke waste and, viola, that takes that out.

So, as a practical matter, what are the real dangers of nuke power waste?

Anyone conversant on nuclear waste and the practical implications of the waste? What is dangerous? What does France do with their waste?

Setting aside silly considerations such as right and wrong, obviously, a 'green' energy plan would require, at some point, the economic impetus to make it, whatever 'it' becomes, viable. That means the 'alternatives', oil, coal and nuke, would need to be more costly than 'the it'.

Oil and coal can be legislated out via cap and trade schemes. Get rid of a place to put nuke waste and, viola, that takes that out.

So, as a practical matter, what are the real dangers of nuke power waste?Worst case, or reality?

Spent fuel is really, really, really bad. So bad, they put it in containers that withstand being hit by a train, dropped over the side of an overpass, and then lit on fire with virtually no impact to the stuff inside (yes, those are real tests (http://www.ymp.gov/info_library/newsroom/videos.shtml)).

Yucca Mt was evaluated to be useful as a storage repository for so long the time is beyond understanding, and then was ordered to be safer longer.

A bunch of radioactive rock is pulled up out of the ground, used to make heat, and then put back in the ground (at much higher radiation levels).

The reality is, the spent fuel can be horribly bad for longer than we can manage. Managed properly (like Yucca Mt.), there's less risk to the general population than, say, a huge oil tanker with the third mate at the helm in Alaska, or a gas leak at Cove Point.

I think the Government has spent about 60 billion dollars buildingthe Yucca Mountain facility, Thats a lot of moeny tossed into a hole in the gorund.

Oh Well. Maybe they can put in some rides and make an amusement park out of it.

Anyone conversant on nuclear waste and the practical implications of the waste? What is dangerous? What does France do with their waste?

Setting aside silly considerations such as right and wrong, obviously, a 'green' energy plan would require, at some point, the economic impetus to make it, whatever 'it' becomes, viable. That means the 'alternatives', oil, coal and nuke, would need to be more costly than 'the it'.

Oil and coal can be legislated out via cap and trade schemes. Get rid of a place to put nuke waste and, viola, that takes that out.

So, as a practical matter, what are the real dangers of nuke power waste?

Larry, I'm a little too pre-occupied right now to spare enough focus to get deep into this topic, but I wanted to give a quick answer with regard to France. They do what we should be doing - they reprocess their fuel, so that they can reuse most of the good fuel that is left. They end up with a smaller quantity of actual 'waste' material, which makes it easier to store.

If you are willing to spend time exploring it, the NRC site is a wealth of information.

Larry, I'm a little too pre-occupied right now to spare enough focus to get deep into this topic, but I wanted to give a quick answer with regard to France. They do what we should be doing - they reprocess their fuel, so that they can reuse most of the good fuel that is left. They end up with a smaller quantity of actual 'waste' material, which makes it easier to store.

If you are willing to spend time exploring it, the NRC site is a wealth of information.Thanks! I forgot to answer that part of his questions.

Pres. Carter (the first one, not the current one) stopped American reprocessing of fuel so that there would be less risk of nuclear proliferation. It was a bad idea then, it's a worse idea today.

CNBC actually did a decent documentary. On Yucca (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=883661708&play=1), On reprocessing (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=883658022&play=1) If you can find the whole thing, it's worth watching.

Larry, I'm a little too pre-occupied right now to spare enough focus to get deep into this topic, but I wanted to give a quick answer with regard to France. They do what we should be doing - they reprocess their fuel, so that they can reuse most of the good fuel that is left. They end up with a smaller quantity of actual 'waste' material, which makes it easier to store.

If you are willing to spend time exploring it, the NRC site is a wealth of information.

There are times I am good with the Readers Digest version given that the comments are coming from someone I deem credible. You and This_Person qualify.

:buddies:

That is what I can't understand when I see these people drving into the nuke plant with Obama stickers on their cars.

Wait a second, I can believe it, they are the same people that voted for him for the one unspoken reason only.

Same can be said for those that work for defense directly or as a contractor. Democrats are not generally in their best interest, but they vote for them anyway.

One guy I worked I challenged on this very subject. His response, "I have to make a living." Well, duh. Don't vote for the people who are going to reduce military funding.

The Frog's reprocess their spent fuel so it cannot be too difficult. Deadly yes difficult, within existing technology. So WTF do why has my company been assessed MILLIONS of dollars each year for Yucca Puck ? Since 1986.

The Frog's reprocess their spent fuel so it cannot be too difficult. Deadly yes difficult, within existing technology. So WTF do why has my company been assessed MILLIONS of dollars each year for Yucca Puck ? Since 1986.You can't reprocess it all, there's always waste. Not to mention the incidental irradiated material (much shorter half-life, though).

And, we don't live in France. We used to reprocess, but don't do it any more.

There's actually a lot of good info on Wiki:
Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste)

You can't reprocess it all, there's always waste. Not to mention the incidental irradiated material (much shorter half-life, though).

And, we don't live in France. We used to reprocess, but don't do it any more.

I thought pebble bed was the kewl thing?

I thought pebble bed was the kewl thing?

Pebble bed is kewl, but I don't think anybody has gotten one working yet. I also like micro-nukes:
Toshiba 4S - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S)

(I've said this more than once on here but here goes)
If the US Navy can put nuclear power to work on something as small as a submarine (30something feet wide, 360something ft long) since the 1950's (thank you Admiral Hyman G. Rickover) then why the hell can't we use nuclear power throughout the US?
Can ANYONE name me the amount of times we've had a nuclear accident on ANY of our warships? Anyone? Bueller?

The Frog's reprocess their spent fuel so it cannot be too difficult. Deadly yes difficult, within existing technology. So WTF do why has my company been assessed MILLIONS of dollars each year for Yucca Puck ? Since 1986.

It's not an issue of it being difficult - we certainly know how to do it. Spent nuclear fuel contains plutonium-239 (as well as other plutonium and uranium isotopes), which is what is used in high yield fission warheads. As This_person pointed out earlier, some people are concerned that commercial reprocessing of this material may open the door for some concentrated portions of weapons grade nuclear material to fall into dangerous hands. For various reasons, I think that concern is not compelling enough that it should block our reprocessing activities.

There is also the issue of the cost effectiveness of reprocessing fuel. And, even with reprocessing, you are still left with radioactive material that must be stored into perpetuity. It's just more concentrated, and thus less in quantity. On the whole though, we should be reprocessing - not doing so is just a lingering remnant of a paranoid, uninformed era with regard to nuclear power.

Thanks! I forgot to answer that part of his questions.

Pres. Carter (the first one, not the current one) stopped American reprocessing of fuel so that there would be less risk of nuclear proliferation. It was a bad idea then, it's a worse idea today.

CNBC actually did a decent documentary. On Yucca (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=883661708&play=1), On reprocessing (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=883658022&play=1) If you can find the whole thing, it's worth watching.

I'm sorry This_person, I hadn't seen your first post when I started to answer Larry's question earlier. Are you somehow connected with nuclear energy by way of your profession, or is it just something you've taken an interest in?

I'm sorry This_person, I hadn't seen your first post when I started to answer Larry's question earlier. Are you somehow connected with nuclear energy by way of your profession, or is it just something you've taken an interest it?

Not to speak for him but he works here at Calvert Cliffs, as we've had the conversation on here before.

Not to speak for him but he works here at Calvert Cliffs, as we've had the conversation on here before.

Cool, I thought that might be the case and was just curious.

A senior reactor operator at Calvert Cliffs and I do have an interest in the issue.

I'm sorry This_person, I hadn't seen your first post when I started to answer Larry's question earlier. Are you somehow connected with nuclear energy by way of your profession, or is it just something you've taken an interest in?AK had it right, I'm also an operator at Calvert Cliffs, with previous jobs at other commercial plants and the Navy.

We're far more safe than any other form of commercial energy production, with far more controls on us to make sure that stays true.

In my humble opinion, Three Mile Island did us a great deal of damage - not by having an accident, but by being evasive, inaccurate, and incomplete in their reporting of their issue and totally blowing the followup information. They didn't stress to people that one of the worst case scenerios is what played out for them, yet there was never any risk to the surrounding population. The safety systems all worked exactly as they should have, and the containment meant to protect when the safety systems don't work also worked to protect everybody. As that CNBC special talks about, Three Mile Island's other unit is still up and operating, people walking around without three eyes or 7 fingers per hand :lol:.

We're designed, operated, maintained, and regulated so much differently than the old Soviet style plants that Chernobyl is a virtual impossibility in the US. People have far more to fear from Cove Point, or their local gas station really, than they do from a nuke plant in their back yard.

AK had it right, I'm also an operator at Calvert Cliffs, with previous jobs at other commercial plants and the Navy.

We're far more safe than any other form of commercial energy production, with far more controls on us to make sure that stays true.

In my humble opinion, Three Mile Island did us a great deal of damage - not by having an accident, but by being evasive, inaccurate, and incomplete in their reporting of their issue and totally blowing the followup information. They didn't stress to people that one of the worst case scenerios is what played out for them, yet there was never any risk to the surrounding population. The safety systems all worked exactly as they should have, and the containment meant to protect when the safety systems don't work also worked to protect everybody. As that CNBC special talks about, Three Mile Island's other unit is still up and operating, people walking around without three eyes or 7 fingers per hand :lol:.

We're designed, operated, maintained, and regulated so much differently than the old Soviet style plants that Chernobyl is a virtual impossibility in the US. People have far more to fear from Cove Point, or their local gas station really, than they do from a nuke plant in their back yard.

I completely agree. In fact, the argument about how damaging Three Mile Island was, and why, is the same argument I make all the time. I think that the relative merits of nuclear energy are clear to those who understand the science of it - unfortunately, few take the time to understand things.

http://forums.somd.com/politics/170851-bipartisonship-we-ain-t-interested-no-bipart.html#post3610793