A while back, I mentioned how I was debating jobs for the summer, and ended up doing research for a professor. I thought this article would be worth bringing up for discussion here. It's kind of dated, but still interesting.
The summation: A president who ostensibly wants to combat global warming is shutting down Yucca Mountain, leaving America's nuclear waste storage in limbo and jepeordizing the 20% of America's power that comes from nuclear waste which is emissions free.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=24743
He can't fight Congress on this even if he wants it. And the Majority leader in the Senate will lose his job if he changes his position or lets Obama talk him into letting it happen. That's the third rail of Nevada politics.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 09:21:24 PM
He can't fight Congress on this even if he wants it. And the Majority leader in the Senate will lose his job if he changes his position or lets Obama talk him into letting it happen. That's the third rail of Nevada politics.
Eh. While I understand, it is still summat depressing that the president who campaigned on a platform of combatting global warming is going to help destroy nuclear power.
I am very uneducated on the subject but Yucca Mountain was NEVER going to happen. It had been in the planning stages for 20 years, it seems a bit of a stretch to say Obama is shutting it down, would be a bit like the NYC Coroner declaring Jimmy Hoffa dead (if he hasn't been already).
Quote from: sbr on June 09, 2009, 10:12:07 PM
I am very uneducated on the subject but Yucca Mountain was NEVER going to happen. It had been in the planning stages for 20 years, it seems a bit of a stretch to say Obama is shutting it down...
Actually, that isn't much of a stretch given that his own administration claims it.
You are right in the assumption that this was unlikely to happen. The problem with solving the fossil fuel problem is that every solution is worse for somebody who can sabotage it, and so they will. In fact, I dare say the best means of combating global warming is to simply releasing all the hot air that is being emitted about the problem, and hope the consequences of continuing to ignore it are not as bad as some of the projections.
Since the solutions to global warming will occur in someone's back yard, they are not implementable. Pity, but that is human nature, after all.
No surprise about Yucca Mtn. So we won't get nuclear power much more implemented as a way to replace fossil fuel dependencies on foreign sources. All the talk, but no walk. And not blaming Pres Obama - he's just one of the current players in this soap opera.
So various small nuclear reactors around the nation, labs, research sites, or what ever, will still be storing waste on their sites, or elsewhere with variances from the Atomic Energy Dept. Continuing to be a less safe and secure method?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 09:21:24 PM
He can't fight Congress on this even if he wants it.
Why can't he? Isn't that what leadership is about - fighting for something that is important, even if it makes other people mad? Is Obama the representative for Nevada?
Why don't we just pay anotheer 200M to Palau?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2009, 09:18:02 AM
Why don't we just pay anotheer 200M to Palau?
I think they have already done their part, don't you?
What about Cuba? Once we send the prisoners to Palau, could we turn Gitmo into a nuclear waste disposal site? It is ours after all...
there's apparently not enough uranium the supply all the world's proposed reactors. while nuclear power may not be a dead end, it's really just a cul de sac.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 08:37:28 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 09:21:24 PM
He can't fight Congress on this even if he wants it.
Why can't he? Isn't that what leadership is about - fighting for something that is important, even if it makes other people mad? Is Obama the representative for Nevada?
this local representative seems happy:
{quote] Nevada Senator Harry Reid, who has been the most prominent anti-Yucca figure over a two-decade campaign wrote on his website that he "couldn't be happier for the people of Nevada" after more than two decades of effort. [/quote]
Ahhh, so it is Harry Reid calling the shots. Makes sense now.
The article does provide a good blueprint for moving forward - just open it up to who actually wants it and the money associated with it.
Maybe downtown Detroit could use some federal dollars? Lord knows there are plenty of places to stash some nuclear waste there - that Packard plant would be perfect.
Obama = wuss.
Nukular power is the way to go if he were really serious about his energy rhetoric.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 09, 2009, 09:16:40 PM
The summation: A president who ostensibly wants to combat global warming is shutting down Yucca Mountain, leaving America's nuclear waste storage in limbo and jepeordizing the 20% of America's power that comes from nuclear waste which is emissions free.
God damn it!
QuoteNukular power is the way to go if he were really serious about his energy rhetoric.
Yes and yes.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 09:57:41 AM
Ahhh, so it is Harry Reid calling the shots. Makes sense now.
The article does provide a good blueprint for moving forward - just open it up to who actually wants it and the money associated with it.
Maybe downtown Detroit could use some federal dollars? Lord knows there are plenty of places to stash some nuclear waste there - that Packard plant would be perfect.
The problem is you need very specific geology to be able to safely store nuclear waste on the timeframe involved, being 100,000 years or more.
Sidebar: In the mid 90s I had a fantastic 6 month job with Canada's nuclear company working with a bunch of scientists who were doing computer modelling of Canada's proposed underground nuclear storage vault. I helped to clean up and present some of their data in their final report, which hit Ottawa like a lead balloon a few months after I left, and Canada has not approved any final storage solution as of today.
But anyways, some of the criteria determined by AECL was that any storage site had to be geologically solid (harder than you think - most rock formations have fractures), must be virtually impervious to water (that's the big way for radiation to get out - water soluble radionuclides being washed out), must be in as remote a location as possible to try and guarantee to human interference with the site in an era long after human's have forgotten about it, and have no chance of tectonic or volcanic activity.
A few sites in the mountain west are about all that applies in the US.
The last admininstration streamlined the regulatory and application process and encouraged new plant projects. So far Obama hasn't changed that policy. But although there have been a bunch of applications, it is not clear that any of these projects will ever get off the ground. Not because of Obama, or Yucca mountain, or Greenpeace fanatics. Because it is just too expensive.
A current estimate is that a new nuclear plant would cost about $6 billion for 1000MW capacity, or about $6 million per megawatt. This is not very economic compared to the alternatives - ideally you would want to see something in the $1-2 million range. What makes it worse is that there is a long lag time between when the would be builder has to start spending the money and when the plant actually comes on line to earn income - so there is a huge financing burden and considerable financial risk involved.
When you look at those countries that put heavy emphasis on nuclear power generation what you immediately notice is that they are either doing so through state-owned companies (like France) or providing heavy state subsidies (like Japan). because of the economics, it is difficult to have a serious nuclear power industry anymore without heavy government subsidization. So while I understand why Berkut or derspeiss like the idea of nuclear power in theory, the real question is whether they think construction should be subsidized by the government. Becuase if it isn't, nuclear power just isn't going to be an important part of America's energy future.
Sweden very recently decided on a site for our final deposit. It will be next to one of our existing NPPs.
Ironically enough the whole "omg lol waste is dangerous and must be stored 4ever" just means unnecessary employment for hundreds or thousands of extra nukular guys. The issue itself is, rationally speaking, a big nothing. It doesn't matter what happens to the stuff 1,000 years from now, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 years. The long term problem doesn't exist. The stuff will essentially stay put and even if some of it will escape hundreds of years from now it doesn't matter. Costs 1,000 years in the future have to be astronomical to matter today.
Today's waste is tomorrow's fuel.
Frankly, I think my fellow Nevadans are fools for rejecting it. We charge them to store it here. We charge them to ship it here. Then when they want to back as fuel for the reactors of the future, we sell it back to them. Plus shipping and handling.
And extended warranty. :w00t: