One of the biggest and dangerous failures of the Obama administration

[Freewill]

I said it when he shut Yucca Mountain, he was doing it for Harry Reid. He and his supporters had big talk about what to do with the waste, but did absolutely nothing that I see. On site storage of the most hazardous of waste just doesn't seem like a good idea considering that there is constant talk of shutting the remaining nuclear plants. One reason to keep the plants running is that the cost of maintaining control over the spent fuel is so damn expensive.

I think that this Congress and Trump may actually do something, just what remains to be seen. My hope would be to put it in Harry's backyard.

1,800 tons of radioactive waste has an ocean view and nowhere to go

The nation’s inability to find a permanent home for the dangerous byproduct of its 50-year-adventure in nuclear energy represents one of the biggest and longest running policy failures in federal government history.

 

[washamericom]

I said it when he shut Yucca Mountain, he was doing it for Harry Reid. He and his supporters had big talk about what to do with the waste, but did absolutely nothing that I see. On site storage of the most hazardous of waste just doesn't seem like a good idea considering that there is constant talk of shutting the remaining nuclear plants. One reason to keep the plants running is that the cost of maintaining control over the spent fuel is so damn expensive.

I think that this Congress and Trump may actually do something, just what remains to be seen. My hope would be to put it in Harry's backyard.

1,800 tons of radioactive waste has an ocean view and nowhere to go

The nation’s inability to find a permanent home for the dangerous byproduct of its 50-year-adventure in nuclear energy represents one of the biggest and longest running policy failures in federal government history.

time to look a the future of more nuclear power.

 

[Freewill]

I said it when he shut Yucca Mountain, he was doing it for Harry Reid. He and his supporters had big talk about what to do with the waste, but did absolutely nothing that I see. On site storage of the most hazardous of waste just doesn't seem like a good idea considering that there is constant talk of shutting the remaining nuclear plants. One reason to keep the plants running is that the cost of maintaining control over the spent fuel is so damn expensive.

I think that this Congress and Trump may actually do something, just what remains to be seen. My hope would be to put it in Harry's backyard.

1,800 tons of radioactive waste has an ocean view and nowhere to go

The nation’s inability to find a permanent home for the dangerous byproduct of its 50-year-adventure in nuclear energy represents one of the biggest and longest running policy failures in federal government history.

time to look a the future of more nuclear power.

Gas production is putting the knife to nuclear, and coal. But before we progress with more nuclear the situation we have today needs addressed.

 

[konradv]

time to look a the future of more nuclear power.

Nuclear/fission power is last century. The key to energy development in the future is fusion.

ITER - the way to new energy



ITER- The world's largest puzzle

 

[Freewill]

time to look a the future of more nuclear power.

Nuclear/fission power is last century. The key to energy development in the future is fusion.

ITER - the way to new energy



ITER- The world's largest puzzle

Interesting. They did not say, or I didn't hear, how it would produce electricity for use.

This design just seems too complicated to ever be commercially feasible.

 

[CowboyTed]

time to look a the future of more nuclear power.

Nuclear/fission power is last century. The key to energy development in the future is fusion.

ITER - the way to new energy



ITER- The world's largest puzzle

Interesting. They did not say, or I didn't hear, how it would produce electricity for use.

This design just seems too complicated to ever be commercially feasible.

Seems the whole Yukka Mountain thing was a federal railroading and didn't involve local considerations... If Obama order it to Texas or Alabama with not consultation off the locals, it would have been condemned..

 

[Freewill]

time to look a the future of more nuclear power.

Nuclear/fission power is last century. The key to energy development in the future is fusion.

ITER - the way to new energy



ITER- The world's largest puzzle

Interesting. They did not say, or I didn't hear, how it would produce electricity for use.

This design just seems too complicated to ever be commercially feasible.

Seems the whole Yukka Mountain thing was a federal railroading and didn't involve local considerations... If Obama order it to Texas or Alabama with not consultation off the locals, it would have been condemned..

It is located out in the middle of no where in a freakin' desert. Billions were spent and now billions wasted on the project. At some point local consideration, which is unreasonable, has to be ignored or nothing will ever happen.

Anyway, read and learn:

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to abandon the Yucca Mountain project.[15] As a result, Senator Reid moved the Nevada primary to help Obama's campaign.[citation needed] After his election, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Obama he did not have the ability to do so.[16] On April 23, 2009, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and eight other senators introduced legislation to provide "rebates" from a $30 billion federally managed fund into which nuclear power plants had been paying, so as to refund all collected funds if the project was in fact cancelled by Congress.[17]

 

[DGS49]

Do some more research.

(1) The site has been found. It is a giant underground salt deposit in New Mexico called WIPP. Large enough to take all the spent fuel from all the nuke-u-ler power plants, forever. Parenthetically, there is currently an incredibly fucked up situation at WIPP that has stopped shipments of routine radioactive waste (I can explain for anyone who is interested), but that would not prevent the shipment and storage of spent fuel. The real political problem right now is that no politician has the balls to propose moving the spent fuel from the power plants to WIPP, because EVERY FUCKING COMMUNITY through which the spent fuel would travel will wake up its tree huggers to DEMAND that the containers NOT go through their precious community. It would be a political cluster fuck, and no politician will propose it, in our lifetimes.

(2) Yucca Mt would have been fine, and still would be fine, but until Harry Reid dies, it is not an option. It cost the taxpayers basically NOTHING, and was funded by a surcharge to electric ratepayers over many decades. Believe it or not, the reason Reid used to cancel moving spent fuel there was that studies showed that IN TEN THOUSAND YEARS, it is possible that some radioactive material - given the worst known possibilities - could seep into the water table. That is no exaggeration. Ten thousand fucking years.

(3) Spend fuel is not "waste," in any real sense. We have the technology to re-generate spent fuel and re-use it indefinitely. We have made a POLITICAL decision not to do this, because the technology to regenerate the fuel can also be used to make weapons-grade material, and we don't want OTHER COUNTRIES to use that technology, so we decline to use it ourselves.

(4) The containers in which spent fuel is ultimately stored (steel-reinforced concrete shells) are impervious to anything, and have been tested by dropping them from aircraft at 10,000 feet - which did not significantly damage them. Fears about "accidents" or terrorist attacks during transport are alarmist bullshit.

(5) No serious "climate change" solution that excludes Nuke is feasible. Nuclear power could be made "affordable" if the NRC were forced to scrap ALL OF ITS SAFETY REGS and start over, ending up with only those requirements that make technical sense. The future of Nuke is in small, modular reactors, which are incredibly safe.

 

[007]

Why can't they just put it on a cargo rocket and give it a one way trip into outer space?

Seems to me that would cheaper than trying to bury it and then perpetually maintain the burial site.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why can't they just put it on a cargo rocket and give it a one way trip into outer space?

Seems to me that would cheaper than trying to bury it and then perpetually maintain the burial site.

I hope you are kidding!

 

[Freewill]

Do some more research.

(1) The site has been found. It is a giant underground salt deposit in New Mexico called WIPP. Large enough to take all the spent fuel from all the nuke-u-ler power plants, forever. Parenthetically, there is currently an incredibly fucked up situation at WIPP that has stopped shipments of routine radioactive waste (I can explain for anyone who is interested), but that would not prevent the shipment and storage of spent fuel. The real political problem right now is that no politician has the balls to propose moving the spent fuel from the power plants to WIPP, because EVERY FUCKING COMMUNITY through which the spent fuel would travel will wake up its tree huggers to DEMAND that the containers NOT go through their precious community. It would be a political cluster fuck, and no politician will propose it, in our lifetimes.

(2) Yucca Mt would have been fine, and still would be fine, but until Harry Reid dies, it is not an option. It cost the taxpayers basically NOTHING, and was funded by a surcharge to electric ratepayers over many decades. Believe it or not, the reason Reid used to cancel moving spent fuel there was that studies showed that IN TEN THOUSAND YEARS, it is possible that some radioactive material - given the worst known possibilities - could seep into the water table. That is no exaggeration. Ten thousand fucking years.

(3) Spend fuel is not "waste," in any real sense. We have the technology to re-generate spent fuel and re-use it indefinitely. We have made a POLITICAL decision not to do this, because the technology to regenerate the fuel can also be used to make weapons-grade material, and we don't want OTHER COUNTRIES to use that technology, so we decline to use it ourselves.

(4) The containers in which spent fuel is ultimately stored (steel-reinforced concrete shells) are impervious to anything, and have been tested by dropping them from aircraft at 10,000 feet - which did not significantly damage them. Fears about "accidents" or terrorist attacks during transport are alarmist bullshit.

(5) No serious "climate change" solution that excludes Nuke is feasible. Nuclear power could be made "affordable" if the NRC were forced to scrap ALL OF ITS SAFETY REGS and start over, ending up with only those requirements that make technical sense. The future of Nuke is in small, modular reactors, which are incredibly safe.

Nuclear reprocessing does not reduce the volume of high-level waste, it separates out the useful isotopes leaving an increased volume of liquid high-level waste as a result of the solution-based chemical processes used to dissolve fuel rods and extract useful isotopes. It does reduce total radioactivity of the total waste, however the overall volume of the waste is higher and it does not eliminate waste nor heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository.[citation needed] Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), the environmental risks of the aqueous and organic waste streams, and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle.[5] In the United States, the Obama administration stepped back from President Bush's plans for commercial-scale reprocessing and reverted to a program focused on reprocessing-related scientific research.[6] Nuclear fuel reprocessing is performed routinely in Europe, Russia and Japan.

Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia

 

[washamericom]

time to look a the future of more nuclear power.

Nuclear/fission power is last century. The key to energy development in the future is fusion.

ITER - the way to new energy



ITER- The world's largest puzzle

cold fusion at room temp. solar is the answer to everything. if we use the sun to power our needs the confused weather change alarmists are happy, when they stop complaining the earth will cool from that too.

 

[konradv]

The key to energy development in the future is fusion. ITER - the way to new energy

ITER- The world's largest puzzle

Interesting. They did not say, or I didn't hear, how it would produce electricity for use. This design just seems too complicated to ever be commercially feasible.

It's still 2 or 3 decades in the future. What they're building isn't a power plant, but a proof of concept. There's a lot of heat generated, which would be used to drive steam turbines, when it becomes commercial. The date predicted for a feasible system is usually circa 2050.

 

[washamericom]

Do some more research.

(1) The site has been found. It is a giant underground salt deposit in New Mexico called WIPP. Large enough to take all the spent fuel from all the nuke-u-ler power plants, forever. Parenthetically, there is currently an incredibly fucked up situation at WIPP that has stopped shipments of routine radioactive waste (I can explain for anyone who is interested), but that would not prevent the shipment and storage of spent fuel. The real political problem right now is that no politician has the balls to propose moving the spent fuel from the power plants to WIPP, because EVERY FUCKING COMMUNITY through which the spent fuel would travel will wake up its tree huggers to DEMAND that the containers NOT go through their precious community. It would be a political cluster fuck, and no politician will propose it, in our lifetimes.

(2) Yucca Mt would have been fine, and still would be fine, but until Harry Reid dies, it is not an option. It cost the taxpayers basically NOTHING, and was funded by a surcharge to electric ratepayers over many decades. Believe it or not, the reason Reid used to cancel moving spent fuel there was that studies showed that IN TEN THOUSAND YEARS, it is possible that some radioactive material - given the worst known possibilities - could seep into the water table. That is no exaggeration. Ten thousand fucking years.

(3) Spend fuel is not "waste," in any real sense. We have the technology to re-generate spent fuel and re-use it indefinitely. We have made a POLITICAL decision not to do this, because the technology to regenerate the fuel can also be used to make weapons-grade material, and we don't want OTHER COUNTRIES to use that technology, so we decline to use it ourselves.

(4) The containers in which spent fuel is ultimately stored (steel-reinforced concrete shells) are impervious to anything, and have been tested by dropping them from aircraft at 10,000 feet - which did not significantly damage them. Fears about "accidents" or terrorist attacks during transport are alarmist bullshit.

(5) No serious "climate change" solution that excludes Nuke is feasible. Nuclear power could be made "affordable" if the NRC were forced to scrap ALL OF ITS SAFETY REGS and start over, ending up with only those requirements that make technical sense. The future of Nuke is in small, modular reactors, which are incredibly safe.

Nuclear reprocessing does not reduce the volume of high-level waste, it separates out the useful isotopes leaving an increased volume of liquid high-level waste as a result of the solution-based chemical processes used to dissolve fuel rods and extract useful isotopes. It does reduce total radioactivity of the total waste, however the overall volume of the waste is higher and it does not eliminate waste nor heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository.[citation needed] Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), the environmental risks of the aqueous and organic waste streams, and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle.[5] In the United States, the Obama administration stepped back from President Bush's plans for commercial-scale reprocessing and reverted to a program focused on reprocessing-related scientific research.[6] Nuclear fuel reprocessing is performed routinely in Europe, Russia and Japan.

Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia

the technology is getting faster. i see nuclear powered cruise ships on the horizon.

 

[washamericom]

Why can't they just put it on a cargo rocket and give it a one way trip into outer space?

Seems to me that would cheaper than trying to bury it and then perpetually maintain the burial site.

great idea, we could write "courtesy of uranium hillary" on the side... then blame the russians.

 

[washamericom]

The key to energy development in the future is fusion. ITER - the way to new energy

ITER- The world's largest puzzle

Interesting. They did not say, or I didn't hear, how it would produce electricity for use. This design just seems too complicated to ever be commercially feasible.

It's still 2 or 3 decades in the future. What they're building isn't a power plant, but a proof of concept. There's a lot of heat generated, which would be used to drive steam turbines, when it becomes commercial. The date predicted for a feasible system is usually circa 2050.

same as global warming.

 

[konradv]

Why can't they just put it on a cargo rocket and give it a one way trip into outer space? Seems to me that would cheaper than trying to bury it and then perpetually maintain the burial site.

Sending waste into space would be prohibitively expensive. It's much cheaper to bury it or, better yet, not generate it at all. That'll be one of the greatest benefits of fusion power, much lower amounts of nuclear waste.

 

[konradv]

The key to energy development in the future is fusion. ITER - the way to new energy

ITER- The world's largest puzzle

Interesting. They did not say, or I didn't hear, how it would produce electricity for use. This design just seems too complicated to ever be commercially feasible.

It's still 2 or 3 decades in the future. What they're building isn't a power plant, but a proof of concept. There's a lot of heat generated, which would be used to drive steam turbines, when it becomes commercial. The date predicted for a feasible system is usually circa 2050.

same as global warming.

How so? No CO2 or other GHGs generated.

 

[Freewill]

Why can't they just put it on a cargo rocket and give it a one way trip into outer space? Seems to me that would cheaper than trying to bury it and then perpetually maintain the burial site.

Sending waste into space would be prohibitively expensive. It's much cheaper to bury it or, better yet, not generate it at all. That'll be one of the greatest benefits of fusion power, much lower amounts of nuclear waste.

Right now, there is no fusion power.

 

[Freewill]

Do some more research.

(1) The site has been found. It is a giant underground salt deposit in New Mexico called WIPP. Large enough to take all the spent fuel from all the nuke-u-ler power plants, forever. Parenthetically, there is currently an incredibly fucked up situation at WIPP that has stopped shipments of routine radioactive waste (I can explain for anyone who is interested), but that would not prevent the shipment and storage of spent fuel. The real political problem right now is that no politician has the balls to propose moving the spent fuel from the power plants to WIPP, because EVERY FUCKING COMMUNITY through which the spent fuel would travel will wake up its tree huggers to DEMAND that the containers NOT go through their precious community. It would be a political cluster fuck, and no politician will propose it, in our lifetimes.

(2) Yucca Mt would have been fine, and still would be fine, but until Harry Reid dies, it is not an option. It cost the taxpayers basically NOTHING, and was funded by a surcharge to electric ratepayers over many decades. Believe it or not, the reason Reid used to cancel moving spent fuel there was that studies showed that IN TEN THOUSAND YEARS, it is possible that some radioactive material - given the worst known possibilities - could seep into the water table. That is no exaggeration. Ten thousand fucking years.

(3) Spend fuel is not "waste," in any real sense. We have the technology to re-generate spent fuel and re-use it indefinitely. We have made a POLITICAL decision not to do this, because the technology to regenerate the fuel can also be used to make weapons-grade material, and we don't want OTHER COUNTRIES to use that technology, so we decline to use it ourselves.

(4) The containers in which spent fuel is ultimately stored (steel-reinforced concrete shells) are impervious to anything, and have been tested by dropping them from aircraft at 10,000 feet - which did not significantly damage them. Fears about "accidents" or terrorist attacks during transport are alarmist bullshit.

(5) No serious "climate change" solution that excludes Nuke is feasible. Nuclear power could be made "affordable" if the NRC were forced to scrap ALL OF ITS SAFETY REGS and start over, ending up with only those requirements that make technical sense. The future of Nuke is in small, modular reactors, which are incredibly safe.

Nuclear reprocessing does not reduce the volume of high-level waste, it separates out the useful isotopes leaving an increased volume of liquid high-level waste as a result of the solution-based chemical processes used to dissolve fuel rods and extract useful isotopes. It does reduce total radioactivity of the total waste, however the overall volume of the waste is higher and it does not eliminate waste nor heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository.[citation needed] Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), the environmental risks of the aqueous and organic waste streams, and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle.[5] In the United States, the Obama administration stepped back from President Bush's plans for commercial-scale reprocessing and reverted to a program focused on reprocessing-related scientific research.[6] Nuclear fuel reprocessing is performed routinely in Europe, Russia and Japan.

Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia

the technology is getting faster. i see nuclear powered cruise ships on the horizon.

Doubtful:

Economics of nuclear propulsion
Savannah was a demonstration of the technical feasibility of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships and was not expected to be commercially competitive. She was designed to be visually impressive, looking more like a luxury yacht than a bulk cargo vessel, and was equipped with thirty air-conditioned staterooms (each with an individual bathroom), a dining facility for 100 passengers, a lounge that could double as a movie theater, a veranda, a swimming pool and a library. Even her cargo handling equipment was designed to look good. By many measures, the ship was a success. She performed well at sea, her safety record was impressive, and her gleaming white paint was never smudged by exhaust smoke (except when running the diesel generator). From 1965 to 1971, the Maritime Administration leased Savannah to American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines for revenue cargo service.

However, Savannah's cargo space was limited to 8,500 tons of freight in 652,000 cubic feet (18,500 m3). Many of her competitors could accommodate several times as much. Her streamlined hull made loading the forward holds laborious, which became a significant disadvantage as ports became more and more automated. Her crew was a third larger than comparable oil-fired ships and received special training in addition to that required for conventional maritime licenses. Additionally, a labor dispute erupted over a disparity in pay scales between deck officers and nuclear engineering officers. The pay issue continued to be a problem, so the Maritime Administration canceled its contract with States Marine Lines and selected American Export Isbrandtsen Lines as the new ship operator. A new crew was trained, delaying further use for almost a year.[8]

As a result of her design handicaps, training requirements, and additional crew members, Savannah cost approximately US$2 million a year more in operating subsidies than a similarly sized Mariner-class ship with a conventional oil-fired steam plant. The Maritime Administration placed her out of service in 1971 to save costs, a decision that made sense when fuel oil cost US$20 per ton. In 1974, however, when fuel oil cost $80 per ton, Savannah's operating costs would have been no greater than a conventional cargo ship.[note 1][note 2]

NS Savannah - Wikipedia