Yucca Mountain is dead

[AK-74me]

Good riddance to Yucca Mountain. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine

Originally Posted by AK-74me

Good riddance to Yucca Mountain. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine

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 ..............

[AK-74me]

Originally Posted by RadioPatrol

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 ..............

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.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

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?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

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).

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.

[ImnoMensa]

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.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

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.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tilted

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, On reprocessing If you can find the whole thing, it's worth watching.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

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.

[2ndAmendment]

Originally Posted by AK-74me

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.