What the hell is this bullshit?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/obama_irresponsible_on_nuclear.html
Quote
Obama irresponsible on nuclear power
In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama promised to build "a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants" in America. He quickly backed that up: In his proposed budget, out this week, he asks Congress to triple the amount of money in an Energy Department loan guarantee program for new power stations. "We are working hard to restart the American nuclear power industry," Energy Secretary Stephen Chu exclaimed Tuesday.
Sounds nice. Nuclear power is proven and pretty clean relative to, say, coal. But it still produces waste, and the administration's plan for that is... to close the nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nev.
That idea, also in Obama's budget, acknowledges political reality. Nevada's NIBMY's have a lock on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Yet it's bad policy -- nuclear waste currently sits in surface-level storage units strewn across the country. And it's more than a little jarring, not to mention irresponsible, for the president to push a large expansion of nuclear energy while eliminating the best way to clean up dangerous byproducts and not providing an alternative.
:yucky: mountain
Quote from: Jaron on February 03, 2010, 10:45:18 PM
:yucky: mountain
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.electricconsumer.org%2FPortals%2F1%2Fimages%2FJuly08%2FYuccaMountain.jpg&hash=f2656d7ebf7645e4ce2a8cb59a038a12a3b239df)
The post-Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal program will consist of:
a. building a secret tunnel from El Paso under the border to Juarez.
b. building a secret pumping station in El Paso.
c. pumping the nuclear waste to Mexico.
:)
Quote from: Caliga on February 04, 2010, 08:20:45 AM
The post-Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal program will consist of:
a. building a secret tunnel from El Paso under the border to Juarez.
b. building a secret pumping station in El Paso.
c. pumping the nuclear waste to Mexico.
:)
Didn't Russia offer itself, for a price, a few years ago as a price for dumping nuclear waste?
This has been the case for a while now. Politicians, including Obama prior to this, talk of nuke power but won't use Yucca mtn, and I'm not aware of any other suitable proposed site. But then, any site would get resistance, even though we claim to want and need nuclear power.
I read a news item, a while back, that the US does have many small nuclear facilities of some kind, corporations, universities, medical research, but not enough places to store the waste. Some facilities get waivers from the govt to store waste on site. Now that is worrying.
I've said before that I'd take a site in my town or in state nearby, as long as they're safe sites, which I think they are. Have to have them somewhere. For that matter, build something in the Berkshires of Western Massachusetts. Or a site off shore Mass. But we're having a tough time just getting wind turbines erected off the coast, though it appears that may actually be nearing approval, finally.
Same as nuclear power plants, which we have one in Plymouth Mass, another just over the border in New Hampshire (Seabrook, which anti-nukers fought tooth and nail to try and prevent it getting built).
Isn't there already a site in operation in New Mexico?
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2010, 09:10:16 AM
Isn't there already a site in operation in New Mexico?
It only accepts military waste, though.
I'm not surprised. Yucca's been a disaster from day 1, and has no support in Nevada.
We should dump the waste in ANWR.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 04, 2010, 09:11:00 AM
I'm not surprised. Yucca's been a disaster from day 1, and has no support in Nevada.
Yep. The idea that nuclear waste could be stored was never viable. People would much rather panic over a boogyman now than do more than worry over a global warming trend that will take decades, even when the later is going to do damage and the former is not.
People against Yucca? NIMBYs I can understand, but being against it on principle? What fucking stupid idiots that must be. The only alternative to secure storage is A) not using electricity or B) (what is done today) store the stuff in the power plants that made the waste.
Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2010, 11:04:33 AM
People against Yucca? NIMBYs I can understand, but being against it on principle? What fucking stupid idiots that must be. The only alternative to secure storage is A) not using electricity or B) (what is done today) store the stuff in the power plants that made the waste.
And B) is not an alternative.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 04, 2010, 10:57:37 AM
We should dump the waste in ANWR.
That would also help by eliminating most of the arguments against drilling for oil there.
YES! WE! CAN!
Yucca seems to be a technical clusterfuck anyway so dropping it may be sensible, I don't know.
Why didn't they secure the approval of the locals at a very early stage? Or did they and then lost it?
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 11:20:05 AM
Yucca seems to be a technical clusterfuck anyway so dropping it may be sensible, I don't know.
Why didn't they secure the approval of the locals at a very early stage? Or did they and then lost it?
Do you want a storage site for nuclear waste in your county?
When Sweden recently picked the site for final storage the two contenders both wanted to get it.
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 11:23:53 AM
When Sweden recently picked the site for final storage the two contenders both wanted to get it.
Do you want the Money that goes with a Nuclear Storage site in your county?
Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2010, 11:31:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 11:23:53 AM
When Sweden recently picked the site for final storage the two contenders both wanted to get it.
Do you want the Money that goes with a Nuclear Storage site in your county?
Americans do not understand pork.
Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2010, 11:31:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 11:23:53 AM
When Sweden recently picked the site for final storage the two contenders both wanted to get it.
Do you want the Money that goes with a Nuclear Storage site in your county?
Lol...
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 11:35:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2010, 11:31:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 11:23:53 AM
When Sweden recently picked the site for final storage the two contenders both wanted to get it.
Do you want the Money that goes with a Nuclear Storage site in your county?
Americans do not understand pork.
I take your moving the City of Kiruna 500 meters down the road and raise you a Bridge to Nowhere.
By letting the Yucca Mountain project go forward and then stopping it when they try to use it, they get all the benefits of the pork but none of the waste.
Quote from: frunk on February 04, 2010, 11:53:32 AM
By letting the Yucca Mountain project go forward and then stopping it when they try to use it, they get all the benefits of the pork but none of the waste.
The only possible response :worthy:
Quote from: Viking on February 04, 2010, 11:22:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 11:20:05 AM
Yucca seems to be a technical clusterfuck anyway so dropping it may be sensible, I don't know.
Why didn't they secure the approval of the locals at a very early stage? Or did they and then lost it?
Do you want a storage site for nuclear waste in your county?
I'd rather have it in my backyard than some of the coal slag piles and such we actually had back home. But people are all like, "OMG, radioactivity!" as if the word itself would kill you.
Quote
Nevada's NIBMY's have a lock on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Not just on Harry. There's not a single politician, Democrat or Republican (or AIP, Green, Constitition, CPUSA, Libertarian, SEP, WFP or any other wacko party) who supports it. It's a completely untenable position to take if you want to get elected.
My personal take--NV should have everyone pay them to take the spent rods and store them, and then later on, when those same rods can be used as fuel for more advanced reactors, sell the shit right back to everyone and make money again. There is the problem that a bunch of the promises the feds made to NM were not kept though.
The obvious solution is put nuclear waste on Iranian rockets to be shot into the Sun.
GOTCHA?
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 11:35:02 AM
Americans do not understand pork.
That part of Nevada was really offered that much pork for it, and Nevada has Las Vegas, which is worried about the effects on tourism.
One of the proposals I suggestsed this summer was that, given tribal sovereignty in terms of environmental laws, we should offer it to a tribal reservation.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 04, 2010, 01:38:30 PM
My personal take--NV should have everyone pay them to take the spent rods and store them, and then later on, when those same rods can be used as fuel for more advanced reactors, sell the shit right back to everyone and make money again. There is the problem that a bunch of the promises the feds made to NM were not kept though.
Really? My understanding is most people near the waste site in NM were pretty happy with the outcome.
No one appreciates the value of a third arm until you actually have one.
How much would Nevadans get paid to act as a nuclear dumping ground?
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2010, 02:51:25 PM
How much would Nevadans get paid to act as a nuclear dumping ground?
A lot more than Nebraska, or Washington State, or South Carolina got when they were made nuclear dumping grounds. Or, for that matter, Scotland and Spain.
If anyone is remotely interested in the Swedish handling of the storage issue, which seems to be a LOT smoother and more competent, this site offers some info: http://www.skb.se/Templates/Standard____23875.aspx
It may seem obvious but both final contenders were existing NPP sites.
This sucks. I was really hoping that Yucca Mountain would be finished, but then leak, so that the Beast of Yucca Flats could be created. :(
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 03:53:30 PM
If anyone is remotely interested in the Swedish handling of the storage issue, which seems to be a LOT smoother and more competent, this site offers some info: http://www.skb.se/Templates/Standard____23875.aspx
It may seem obvious but both final contenders were existing NPP sites.
I'm sure I've mentioned before that many moons ago (1996) I did a work term for AECL, Canada's nuclear company, doing a small part of the environmental assessment report for Canada's underground nuclear storage proposal. They attempted to get around the NIMBY issue by doing the assessment for no paarticular site, but doing a generic assessment.
But even then the government chickened out and shelved the proposal, and Canada has no plans for permanent nuclear storage. :thumbsdown:
Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2010, 04:10:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 03:53:30 PM
If anyone is remotely interested in the Swedish handling of the storage issue, which seems to be a LOT smoother and more competent, this site offers some info: http://www.skb.se/Templates/Standard____23875.aspx
It may seem obvious but both final contenders were existing NPP sites.
I'm sure I've mentioned before that many moons ago (1996) I did a work term for AECL, Canada's nuclear company, doing a small part of the environmental assessment report for Canada's underground nuclear storage proposal. They attempted to get around the NIMBY issue by doing the assessment for no paarticular site, but doing a generic assessment.
But even then the government chickened out and shelved the proposal, and Canada has no plans for permanent nuclear storage. :thumbsdown:
I seem to remember you mentioning this. Canada FTL.
Since my personal knowledge on the subject is literally a decade out of date, I googled and found this summary of what's been happening. Apparently the plan is now to identify a willing community up front, and then try again.
Brain - it suggests that 'Wiles said Canada is in the upper echelon of countries that are looking at taking care of its nuclear waste. Finland began burying spent radioactive fuel two years ago and Sweden and Canada are "neck and neck" when it comes to their programs."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/19/f-nuclear-waste-storage-options.html
Unlike your neighbors you actually seem to look at what has worked elsewhere. How about that.
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 04:32:39 PM
Unlike your neighbors you actually seem to look at what has worked elsewhere. How about that.
But that's all we're doing. Looking and talking. We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and not one stick of fuel is in permanent storage. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2010, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 04:32:39 PM
Unlike your neighbors you actually seem to look at what has worked elsewhere. How about that.
But that's all we're doing. Looking and talking. We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and not one stick of fuel is in permanent storage. :rolleyes:
But think of all the consultants that have bought new homes, cars.
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 04:36:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 04, 2010, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 04, 2010, 04:32:39 PM
Unlike your neighbors you actually seem to look at what has worked elsewhere. How about that.
But that's all we're doing. Looking and talking. We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and not one stick of fuel is in permanent storage. :rolleyes:
But think of all the consultants that have bought new homes, cars.
True enough. And the unviersity students that earned money to go to law school... :cool:
Maybe they could build a storage site to bury nuclear waster off the Massachusetts shore, right under the wind turbine field that may actually, finally, at long last, be close to nearing an affirmative answer to begin construction. :cool:
Ah, found some more things (thanks Wiki! :D )
Quote
Re-use of waste
Another option is to find applications of the isotopes in nuclear waste so as to re-use them.[52] Already, caesium-137, strontium-90 and a few other isotopes are extracted for certain industrial applications such as food irradiation and radioisotope thermoelectric generators. While re-use does not eliminate the need to manage radioisotopes, it may reduce the quantity of waste produced.
The Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method,[53] Canadian patent application 2,659,302, is a method for the temporary or permanent storage of nuclear waste materials comprising the placing of waste materials into one or more repositories or boreholes constructed into an unconventional oil formation. The thermal flux of the waste materials fracture the formation, alters the chemical and/or physical properties of hydrocarbon material within the subterranean formation to allow removal of the altered material. A mixture of hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and/or other formation fluids are produced from the formation. The radioactivity of high-level radioactive waste affords proliferation resistance to plutonium placed in the periphery of the repository or the deepest portion of a borehole.
A 1990 proposed type of breeder reactor called a traveling wave reactor is claimed, if it were to be built, to be able to be fueled by depleted uranium, which is currently considered nuclear waste. [54]
Quote
National management plans
See also: High-level radioactive waste management
Most countries are considerably ahead of the United States in developing plans for high-level radioactive waste disposal. Sweden and Finland are furthest along in committing to a particular disposal technology, while many others reprocess spent fuel or contract with France or Great Britain to do it, taking back the resulting plutonium and high-level waste. "An increasing backlog of plutonium from reprocessing is developing in many countries... It is doubtful that reprocessing makes economic sense in the present environment of cheap uranium."[56]
In many European countries (e.g., Britain, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) the risk or dose limit for a member of the public exposed to radiation from a future high-level nuclear waste facility is considerably more stringent than that suggested by the International Commission on Radiation Protection or proposed in the United States. European limits are often more stringent than the standard suggested in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiation Protection by a factor of 20, and more stringent by a factor of ten than the standard proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository for the first 10,000 years after closure. Moreover, the U.S. EPA's proposed standard for greater than 10,000 years is 250 times more permissive than the European limit.[57]
Conclusion:
US a backwater country, Canada is slightly ahead, Europe rulez!!!
I'm not feeling good, suddenly :P
$8 Billion for nuclear power. This administration is schizophrenic. :bleeding:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35421517/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 16, 2010, 08:03:20 PM
$8 Billion for nuclear power. This administration is schizophrenic. :bleeding:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35421517/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
Why is it schizo? Yucca is not necessary to biuld power plants any time soon.
I find it irresponsible in the extreme to build nuclear plants when you have no where to put the waste.
I guess Obama's opposition to nuclear energy during the campaign is no longer operative.
Every statement by Obama comes with an expiration date. Every. Last. One.
I'd think you'd like that Hans, as pretty sure you didn't like any of his campaign statements :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 16, 2010, 08:15:05 PM
I find it irresponsible in the extreme to build nuclear plants when you have no where to put the waste.
To be fair not everyone wants to look like you do, chemo.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 16, 2010, 08:15:05 PM
I find it irresponsible in the extreme to build nuclear plants when you have no where to put the waste.
Any new plants won't be producing waste for 10+ years. That's someone else's problem.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2010, 10:25:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 16, 2010, 08:15:05 PM
I find it irresponsible in the extreme to build nuclear plants when you have no where to put the waste.
To be fair not everyone wants to look like you do, chemo.
Why wouldn't everyone want to look handsome?
Anyways, storing the waste is the safe option, you know the one that prevents people from "looking like me".
Quotehttp://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_hanford_waste_study.html
Last updated February 16, 2010 10:51 a.m. PT
Study: More Hanford waste would harm groundwater
By ANNETTE CARY
TRI-CITY HERALD
TRI-CITIES, Wash. -- A new draft study shows importing radioactive waste for disposal at Hanford would significantly increase pollution in ground water beneath the nuclear reservation, according to the Washington State Department of Ecology.
The state long has opposed the Department of Energy sending radioactive waste to Hanford for disposal. But the draft Hanford Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement that's open for public comment puts some numbers to that assertion.
"We're cleaning up Hanford of some of the constituents we care most about and then recontaminating it with off-site waste to above the acceptable level from a cancer risk standpoint or a safe drinking water standpoint," said Suzanne Dahl, tank waste treatment section manager for the Department of Ecology.
Under some scenarios that appear likely, the amount of certain long-lived radioactive isotopes that would be imported and buried at Hanford would account for as much as 90 percent of the releases of that isotope to the environment, according to the state. Some of the worst contamination could occur 1,000 or more years from now.
The draft study prepared by DOE looks at sending 107,000 cubic yards of radioactive waste, some mixed with hazardous chemicals, to Hanford for disposal. However, DOE officials agreed as part of a settlement agreement of a state lawsuit not to import that waste until the Hanford vitrification plant is fully operational to treat the waste. That's scheduled for 2022.
But importing waste could then again become an option.
In the summary of the 6,000-page draft study, DOE writes that "receipt of off-site waste streams that contain specific amounts of certain isotopes, specifically iodine 129 and technetium 99, could have an adverse impact on the environment."
It suggests two alternatives: Robust treatment of the waste such as turning it into glass before burying it at Hanford, or limiting or restricting disposal of waste with those isotopes.
Iodine 129 and technetium 99 are of concern because both spread readily in ground water rather than clinging to soil and also are long-lived. Isotopes of cesium and strontium are more prevalent in the waste proposed to come to Hanford, but half of the radioactivity of those isotopes decays in about 30 years.
In contrast, 212,000 years are required for half of the radioactivity of technetium 99 to decay and 15.7 million years are required for half of the radioactivity of iodine 129 to decay.
Under current proposals, imported waste would not be processed at Hanford. It could go straight to a lined landfill in central Hanford, such as the Integrated Disposal Facility which also is planned to hold some Hanford tank waste.
The 53 million gallons of waste now held in Hanford's underground tanks will be separated into low-activity radioactive waste and high-level radioactive waste to be turned into a stable glass form at the vitrification plant for long-term disposal.
National law requires high-level waste to be disposed of at a national repository deep underground, such as the one previously proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nev., but glassified low-activity waste would be buried in a central Hanford landfill.
Tank waste from Hanford would have 48.2 curies of iodine that would be immobilized in glass primarily from the low-activity waste. The proposed imported waste would add an additional 15 curies of iodine, which under current plans would not be immobilized in glass.
About 1,800 curies of technetium 99 would be expected from off-site sources, compared with 29,700 curies of technetium from Hanford tanks that would be immobilized primarily in the low-activity waste glass.
Radioactive iodine releases from the Integrated Disposal Facility would peak 1,000 or 2,000 years in the future at 18 picocuries per liter. The drinking water standard is 1 picocurie per liter.
"When you look at the ground water releases from the Integrated Disposal Facility, it goes up significantly when you have off-site waste," Dahl said.
About 90 percent of the radioactive iodine that would be released from the landfill would come from waste imported to Hanford, and about 75 percent of the radioactive technetium released from the landfill would come from waste imported to Hanford, according to the state.
That's assuming of all the low-activity tank waste is treated at the vitrification plant, rather than through alternate methods the state does not support, such as bulk vitrification.
"It is so significant it is hard to imagine it would be acceptable to be disposed of at Hanford," Dahl said. "Certainly it would have to be significantly mitigated, and they may not be able to mitigate that far."
Washington voters in 2004 approved Initiative 297, which would have blocked sending more radioactive waste to Hanford until waste already there had been cleaned up. It was found unconstitutional, however, and never became law.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 16, 2010, 08:15:05 PM
I find it irresponsible in the extreme to build nuclear plants when you have no where to put the waste.
On site storage is safe, and has been for decades. Moreover the people of Nevada have made it very, very clear they are opposed to Yucca. So why are you ready to trample on states' rights for a storage t site not immediately necessary?
Long time storage is a lousy solution to the problem but unfortunately there's no other at the time beeing. I certainly don't envy the builders. They're going to have to construct something that will last for 100 000 years, minimum. I don't think most people realize how big that number is. Early modern man is roughly 200 000 years old. To me that sounds like a 99% fail rate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 16, 2010, 11:27:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2010, 10:25:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 16, 2010, 08:15:05 PM
I find it irresponsible in the extreme to build nuclear plants when you have no where to put the waste.
To be fair not everyone wants to look like you do, chemo.
Why wouldn't everyone want to look handsome?
Anyways, storing the waste is the safe option, you know the one that prevents people from "looking like me".
Yes, but I wanted to go for the cheap shot.
Anyway, Hans, when did Obama declare he was opposed to nuclear power?
Quote from: Faeelin on February 17, 2010, 08:09:16 AM
Anyway, Hans, when did Obama declare he was opposed to nuclear power?
Oh don't encourage him. He's been repeating that line ever since he read it off Crazy McLoonut's Blog.
The Obama admin will have created or saved from being closed at least 2 nuclear power plants. :D
Maybe it's time to open up the debate on nuclear waste, try to get something resolved on a more lasting, long term and safe basis. Are multiple small temporary waste sites safe? That means multiple environmental, cost and maybe most of all security concerns over the stuff being stolen. And if we are serious about weaning off of foreign fuel sources, maybe we should look to something like building about one nuke plant per state? Along with more gas/oil exploration in N. America; supposedly we have huge reserves of natural gas in NA.
Quote from: Vricklund on February 17, 2010, 03:10:12 AM
Long time storage is a lousy solution to the problem but unfortunately there's no other at the time beeing. I certainly don't envy the builders. They're going to have to construct something that will last for 100 000 years, minimum. I don't think most people realize how big that number is. Early modern man is roughly 200 000 years old. To me that sounds like a 99% fail rate.
How is it a lousy solution?
On MSNBC last night they had a dude wearing a lab coat surrounded by diagrams and charts explaining why nuclear power really isn't that dangerous after all. :lol:
The 100,000 years stuff is purely political, there are no rational safety reasons for that kind of spec.
IIRC the concern is really only the first 10,000 years.
Not if you are approaching rationality. From a safety perspective that kind of timescale makes very little sense.
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 02:05:18 PM
The 100,000 years stuff is purely political, there are no rational safety reasons for that kind of spec.
Besides who knows what the voters will be like in that time.
It will take 100 000 years for the waste to have the same radioactive level as the ore had when it was mined. Everything is relative I guess. Especially when it comes to nuclear physics. :P
Quote from: Vricklund on February 17, 2010, 02:28:35 PM
It will take 100 000 years for the waste to have the same radioactive level as the ore had when it was mined. Everything is relative I guess. Especially when it comes to nuclear physics. :P
I don't follow. Are you saying that the 100,000 year design stuff makes sense or that it doesn't?
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: Vricklund on February 17, 2010, 02:28:35 PM
It will take 100 000 years for the waste to have the same radioactive level as the ore had when it was mined. Everything is relative I guess. Especially when it comes to nuclear physics. :P
I don't follow. Are you saying that the 100,000 year design stuff makes sense or that it doesn't?
I think his problem is that the oldest known structures surviving in relatively complete form on Earth are only about 5000 years old, and they are hardly undamaged. I think he doubts our engineering is up to the job.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:37:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: Vricklund on February 17, 2010, 02:28:35 PM
It will take 100 000 years for the waste to have the same radioactive level as the ore had when it was mined. Everything is relative I guess. Especially when it comes to nuclear physics. :P
I don't follow. Are you saying that the 100,000 year design stuff makes sense or that it doesn't?
I think his problem is that the oldest known structures surviving in relatively complete form on Earth are only about 5000 years old, and they are hardly undamaged. I think he doubts our engineering is up to the job.
The important thing is that from a safety perspective it doesn't matter if the man-made barriers fail after some time (and this time is a lot shorter than thousands of years). If we are designing it to the same safety levels as other things. And there is no really rational reason why we should demand more safety from nuclear stuff than we do from everything else.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:37:40 PM
I think his problem is that the oldest known structures surviving in relatively complete form on Earth are only about 5000 years old, and they are hardly undamaged. I think he doubts our engineering is up to the job.
The reality is actually even more scary than this number indicates. We're not using the ancient engineering methods to build structures for nuclear waste disposal, we're using modern engineering methods. The oldest known surving structures built in 21st century are only about 10 years old.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2010, 02:45:30 PMThe oldest known surving structures built in 21st century are only about 10 years old.
Man, that's fucking terrible!
We could use Boston's Big Dig underground highway for storage. After all, given how much over design it's leaking I'd have to think it's life span for a roadway will be short. Then it could be converted to nuclear waste storage, so as not to waste that cost of 16 billion initial build costs. ;)
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2010, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:37:40 PM
I think his problem is that the oldest known structures surviving in relatively complete form on Earth are only about 5000 years old, and they are hardly undamaged. I think he doubts our engineering is up to the job.
The reality is actually even more scary than this number indicates. We're not using the ancient engineering methods to build structures for nuclear waste disposal, we're using modern engineering methods. The oldest known surving structures built in 21st century are only about 10 years old.
These structures really aren't feats of advanced engineering. You bore out a hole deep in the ground under a mountain. You seal the hole.
From what I remember the AECL analysis assumed that the man-made barriers failed in a remarkably short period of time, and by man-made barriers I am referring to the cylinders or whatever that the fuel is stored in. The rest of the barriers are geologic, not man-made, and typically has a lifespan of hundreds of millions of years.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 17, 2010, 08:09:16 AM
Anyway, Hans, when did Obama declare he was opposed to nuclear power?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDnbVr3283o&feature=player_emb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDnbVr3283o&feature=player_emb)
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 17, 2010, 05:17:17 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 17, 2010, 08:09:16 AM
Anyway, Hans, when did Obama declare he was opposed to nuclear power?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDnbVr3283o&feature=player_emb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDnbVr3283o&feature=player_emb)
Actually he never says he's against it. He says he's not particularly for it. " I have not ruled out nuclear energy".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU&NR=1
But of course you have to see his entire statement instead of being dishonest about it.
Hrmm. "Nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent.... my general fview is that until we can make certain that nuclear plants are safe, that I am opposed to Yucca Mountain... unitl the nuclear industry can show they can produce clean safe energy without enormous subsidies, I don't think that's the best option."
A fault line in Nevada? WTF?
Eh. He's got a point about the subsidies.
He's full of shit and is pandering to the NIMBY crowd. Renewable energy currently gets more federal subsidies than nuclear, but of course that isn't a problem. :rolleyes: