No more nuclear power for the US?

[Cleon]

What a load of crap. If Yucca Mtn. isn't good enough, no place is.

Yep. In fact, I'd go so far as to say no place is good enough. That crap will be dangerous for a long, long, long time.

Fortunately, new technology means that the "hiding the radioactive waste under a big rock" method of disposal is unnecessary.

This is just a way to assure there will be no further nuke plants built while pretending you support them.

Mind-reading, eh?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Nuclear power really needs to be used more.

While it's byproduct is, sadly, very harmful, it's benefits far outweigh it's negatives.

With proper research, something like a pebble-bed reactor could minimize the potential of a meltdown to practically 0.

It's also "cleaner" in that it's byproducts are the nuclear waste....and hot water.

It's also got a footprint a fraction the size of a wind-farm, while at the same time generating as much energy.


It's really a sad story about how quickly we moved to kill nuclear power in this nation. I mean, FRANCE, of all places, is better with nuclear power than we are. That's just sad.

But not in Iran eh?


I think nuclear is the way forward not just in the US and other Western countries but also in all countries.

 

[BeAChooser]

Mind-reading, eh?

Defending Obama, eh?

 

[Cleon]

Defending Obama, eh?

Uh, what?

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is just a way to assure there will be no further nuke plants built while pretending you support them.

And Obama's pretending to support them ... why? To appease his rabidly pro-nuclear base? Oh, wait ...

Another way he's "pretending" to support them, it would seem, is by appointing the strongly pro-nuclear Steven Chu as his Secretary of Energy.

What a load of crap. If Yucca Mtn. isn't good enough, no place is.

There does, in fact, seem to be a better place than Yucca mountain to put high-grade radioactive waste, i.e. in thorium reactors.

But could the Democrats be ready to take this momentous step? Well, a clue might be vouchsafed us in the
Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act, a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Orin Hatch (R) and some bloke called Harry Reid whom you may have heard of.

Some advantages of this process would seem to be:

* It produces electricity.
* Its waste doesn't require safe storage for a million years.
* It can be used to destroy high-grade nuclear waste and surplus weapons stocks.
* It is incapable of producing weaponizable material, meaning that the US can sell the technology to people who want nuclear power but whom we don't want to get their hands on naughty isotopes. And, of course, to other less dubious people.
* The US has plenty of thorium.
* As Obama has said, it is unlikely that CO₂ emissions targets can be met without the use of nuclear power.
* You can actually find environmentalists who like it.

So, what you have to ask yourself, when attempting to read Obama's mind, is: is he an idiot? And the answer would seem to be no, based on the evidence to date.

 

[fishbob]

It is true that environmentalists have opposed hydroelectricity and environmentalists are also opposing a huge wind mill project here in California. Saw a blurb about it on the news so I don't know any specifics. I think its quite clear that we're supposed to get our electricity from happy thoughts and puppy dog whiskers.

You are confusing environmentalists with NIMBYs and NOPEs and BANANAs.
I hate those guys.

 

[Beeyon]

Fortunately, new technology means that the "hiding the radioactive waste under a big rock" method of disposal is unnecessary.

Why not hide it under a big rock in the short term then? If a long term solution is assured, all the more reason to use yucca mountain right now. The repository's requisites should be less is it only needs to last 200-300 years.

 

[joobz]

Had an interesting conversation regarding this topic tonight. He's a ceramic engineer, and was simply mentioning the amount of nuclear based research being performed has greatly increased in the past 2 years. From a practical "grassroots" point of view, the research groups are getting funding in the area now. So, perhaps things are quite dead yet.

Although, his response when I mentioned the Obama's Yucca mountain halting was "S***!"

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Why not hide it under a big rock in the short term then? If a long term solution is assured, all the more reason to use yucca mountain right now. The repository's requisites should be less is it only needs to last 200-300 years.

Do any of the current waste storage areas have a pressing need to get rid of any waste? If not, why risk moving it?

 

[Beeyon]

Do any of the current waste storage areas have a pressing need to get rid of any waste? If not, why risk moving it?

Well, based solely on the discussion here, nuclear waste appears to be a bad thing. If we're worried about its environmental impact on a rock in a desert, we should be even more worried about its possible impact in population centers, no? More importantly! In order to expand our nuclear capacity greatly, we'd probably have to expand the waste centers. Might as well just make one big safe one that will hold the waste for 50-200 years far away from anywhere people live. And if you don't accept that expanding our nuclear capacity is something we should be doing, I don't think I'll be able to explain it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why not hide it under a big rock in the short term then? If a long term solution is assured, all the more reason to use yucca mountain right now.

Why the obsession with this particular big rock? What did it do to you?

We can't use it "right now" because the facility wasn't scheduled to be finished until 2020. And, as I understand it, the reason for using Yucca Mountain in the first place was that the containment had to last a million years. Remove that constraint, and it may no longer be the best solution.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, based solely on the discussion here, nuclear waste appears to be a bad thing. If we're worried about its environmental impact on a rock in a desert, we should be even more worried about its possible impact in population centers, no?

I don't think anyone is worried about it's impact on rock or planning to move it into population centers. Got an answer to either question I asked?

More importantly! In order to expand our nuclear capacity greatly, we'd probably have to expand the waste centers.

No, there are potentially better ideas. Re-read the thread. This stuff doesn't have to be waste.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yep. In fact, I'd go so far as to say no place is good enough. That crap will be dangerous for a long, long, long time.

Fortunately, new technology means that the "hiding the radioactive waste under a big rock" method of disposal is unnecessary.

Mind-reading, eh?

Compared to the particulate matter, sulfur, carbon monoxide, and radioactive material coal plants spew out, sticking contaminated materials under a mountain seems fairly wise.

 

[WildCat]

Yep. In fact, I'd go so far as to say no place is good enough. That crap will be dangerous for a long, long, long time.

Not particularly. The more radioactive something is the shorter the half-life. It would degrade to a much lower-level threat long before the chicken little claim of "it will be dangerous for 10,000 years!".

Mind-reading, eh?

Nope, I have a working BS meter.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Nope, I have a working BS meter.

Unfortunately, you're holding it the wrong way round.

 

[WildCat]

And Obama's pretending to support them ... why? To appease his rabidly pro-nuclear base? Oh, wait ...

Another way he's "pretending" to support them, it would seem, is by appointing the strongly pro-nuclear Steven Chu as his Secretary of Energy.

If he's "strongly pro-nuclear" he seems to be muzzled at the moment, and is toeing the party line.

There does, in fact, seem to be a better place than Yucca mountain to put high-grade radioactive waste, i.e. in thorium reactors.

But could the Democrats be ready to take this momentous step? Well, a clue might be vouchsafed us in the
Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act, a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Orin Hatch (R) and some bloke called Harry Reid whom you may have heard of.

Some advantages of this process would seem to be:

* It produces electricity.
* Its waste doesn't require safe storage for a million years.
* It can be used to destroy high-grade nuclear waste and surplus weapons stocks.
* It is incapable of producing weaponizable material, meaning that the US can sell the technology to people who want nuclear power but whom we don't want to get their hands on naughty isotopes. And, of course, to other less dubious people.
* The US has plenty of thorium.
* As Obama has said, it is unlikely that CO₂ emissions targets can be met without the use of nuclear power.
* You can actually find environmentalists who like it.

So, what you have to ask yourself, when attempting to read Obama's mind, is: is he an idiot? And the answer would seem to be no, based on the evidence to date.

Oh boy, so while we're waiting 50 years for the thorium reactors to come on-line we're just supposed to keep the waste scattered throughout population centers all over the country? Why not stick it in Yucca Mountain, it could always be removed for fuel later if needed.

 

[WildCat]

Why the obsession with this particular big rock? What did it do to you?

We can't use it "right now" because the facility wasn't scheduled to be finished until 2020. And, as I understand it, the reason for using Yucca Mountain in the first place was that the containment had to last a million years. Remove that constraint, and it may no longer be the best solution.

The only reason it's not completed now is opposition from the NIMBYs in Nevada. Being such staunch environmentalists, I'm sure they'd cheer if Hoover Dam was dismantled to allow the Colorado to run free again!

Now that's something i'd like to see...

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If he's "strongly pro-nuclear" he seems to be muzzled at the moment, and is toeing the party line.

DOE doesn't appear muzzled:

http://www.energy.gov/energysources/nuclear.htm

Oh boy, so while we're waiting 50 years for the thorium reactors to come on-line we're just supposed to keep the waste scattered throughout population centers all over the country? Why not stick it in Yucca Mountain, it could always be removed for fuel later if needed.

Could someone please explain the urgent need to move this stuff?

 

[joobz]

Oh boy, so while we're waiting 50 years for the thorium reactors to come on-line we're just supposed to keep the waste scattered throughout population centers all over the country? Why not stick it in Yucca Mountain, it could always be removed for fuel later if needed.

Why 50 years? We had some tests of it in the 60s.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

DOE doesn't appear muzzled:

http://www.energy.gov/energysources/nuclear.htm


Could someone please explain the urgent need to move this stuff?

A lot of material is being stored at the power plants which can't handle as much as they currently have, let alone decades worth more. Why not move it to a secure location?