Obama cuts funding for Yucca Mountain

[SkepticLance]

Transporting waste by ship is no different than transporting it by rail. It is vulnerable both ways. And no, the operators would not be seriously affected by radiation. A modest distance from well shielded waste will be sufficient.

 

I might add that the preliminary to any method of dealing with nuclear waste is to store it in a secure place - probably under water - for a few years, without moving it anywhere. The short half life isotopes decay in that time, and reduce the immediate radioactivity by a massive amount.

 

I might add that a sunk ship would not be a global catastrophe. In the 1950's the standard method of dealing with nuclear waste was to put it into steel drums and dump it in the deep ocean. Those drums have long since rusted open and released all that waste, and there is no empirical evidence whatever of environmental harm. And that was many ship loads! Another ship load is not going to change the situation to any measurable effect. Plus we have much better methods today of storing and transporting nuclear waste without rapid release into the environment.

[Mokele]

Interesting - have we actually sent down ROVs to check on the former dump sites and assessed the local ecosystems? It does sort of make sense, since it's metabolically inert and there seems to be very little flow of nutrients & organisms up from the bottom. Do you know a reference for this?

[SkepticLance]

To Mokele

The article I read on the subject was not specific in detailing how it was investigated. Just that the US Navy was assiduous in checking. You can take that with a pinch of salt if you wish.

 

However, it makes sense. The oceans are vast beyond our conception, with E18 tonnes of seawater. Any dissolved isotopes will be diluted to insignificance in no time, while any that remain undissolved will sit locally within sediments, and probably have little effect except on organisms that sit there long term.

 

And on exposing people to the radioactivity from waste, even without much shielding, the inverse square law means you do not have to be far from the waste before the level of extra radioactivity drops to the point of harmlessness. Combine a small amount of shielding with a reasonable distance within a ship of the living and working quarters from the waste storage, and the problem essentially disappears.

[bascule]

I might add that the preliminary to any method of dealing with nuclear waste is to store it in a secure place - probably under water - for a few years, without moving it anywhere.

 

Actually the standard method is dry cask storage

[SkepticLance]

bascule

You may note that I was talking of the 1950's, for long term disposal, before dry cask storage. Even dry cask really cannot be used immediately, due to the high heat emission of fresh waste.

 

Actually, the US has dumped relatively little waste at sea compared to the USSR.

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/naval/waste/wasteovr.htm

 

There has been a lot of activity by environmentalists in the past opposing the disposal of nuclear waste at sea, and it is now something of a dirty concept. The silly thing is that very little evidence exists of any significant harm from such disposal, though there is a lot of literature about potential harm.

 

I have also rather liked the idea of storing radioactive waste for a few years to get rid of short half life isotopes, and then dissolving the residue in acid, diluting it massively, and dispersing it out over the oceans. The actual quantity of radioactive Uranium 235 dissolved naturally in the oceans is about 50 million tonnes, and the extra tonnage of radioactive isotopes will be small by comparison. The great thing about this method is that it is final. However, it is not politically correct!

[Pangloss]

I'm sure the fact the Harry Reid is up for reelection in 2010 had nothing to do with this decision.

 

Absolutely. That's politics for you.

[iNow]

Absolutely. That's politics for you.

 

And still has nothing whatsoever to do with the viability of Yucca mountain as a storage facility for nuclear waste, nor how many billions and billions of dollars we must spend to even get the chance to "hope" it will eventually (just maybe) become the viable storage facility which has been promised (which, for aforementioned reasons, it probably never will).

[Pangloss]

And replacing it with something else is not likely very high on Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi's list of things to do. Reid sits in Environment, and Pelosi is the President of the People's Republic of California. I don't need to borrow Steven Chu's Nobel Prize to do that math.

 

Like I said, there's science, and then there's politics.

[iNow]

I understand, Pangloss, but to stay on topic... Not having a back-up option or replacement ALSO is not relevant to the viability of using Yucca mountain as a storage facility for nuclear waste.

[waitforufo]

Let's be clear on the issue here. Just because he cut funding for Yucca mountain doesn't mean he's against nuclear power. One issue is about waste handling, the other is about power generation. They are separate.

 

Okay then, lets stay on topic.

 

Obama makes himself out to be, among other things, the new FDR. Well FDR had huge public works projects that created much of our existing electric power generation. You know, things like the TVA (many dams), Grand Coulee, Boneville, Fort Peck and the completion of Hoover.

 

So if Obama is not against nuclear power, and our country needs to dramatically reduce its CO2 output, and Obama is the new FDR, how many nuclear power plant ground breaking ceremonies should we expect during Obama's administration?

 

I would like to see at least 50 during the next 4 years. Too high? Too low?

[iNow]

So if Obama is not against nuclear power, and our country needs to dramatically reduce its CO2 output, and Obama is the new FDR, how many nuclear power plant ground breaking ceremonies should we expect during Obama's administration?

 

I would like to see at least 50 during the next 4 years. Too high? Too low?

Maybe you should create your own thread, as that's hardly "on topic." This thread is about Yucca being closed, and why it's not viable as a nuclear waste storage facility (for reasons both logistic and monetary). The thread has nothing to do with Obama and his plans on new nuclear plants. I am struggling to see why so many people are having a hard time not conflating these two points.

 

 

EDIT: Never mind. I'm probably being too much of a hard ass. This is Pangloss' thread, so he can let it get as unfocussed and scattered as he'd like. Not sure why I try to keep things on topic all of the time. It just makes me look I care have some sense of academic integrity assumed authority.

Edited March 14, 2009 by iNow

[Mr Skeptic]

So if Obama is not against nuclear power, and our country needs to dramatically reduce its CO2 output, and Obama is the new FDR, how many nuclear power plant ground breaking ceremonies should we expect during Obama's administration?

 

I would like to see at least 50 during the next 4 years. Too high? Too low?

 

I think that depends on how many were started way before Obama, possibly even before Bush. It takes a long time from planning to ribbon-cutting, due to construction, regulations, politics, NIMBY, etc. I don't think any nuclear plants that are started by Obama will be finished while he is still in office.

[waitforufo]

I think that depends on how many were started way before Obama, possibly even before Bush. It takes a long time from planning to ribbon-cutting, due to construction, regulations, politics, NIMBY, etc. I don't think any nuclear plants that are started by Obama will be finished while he is still in office.

 

My point is that it falls in line with everything that Obama wants to do.

 

It will create a lot of jobs.

 

I will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

 

I will reduce our carbon footprint.

 

Yada, yada, yada.

 

Also, with respect to waste storage, we will be forced to find a place to store all future waste created by these new plants.

 

Here is what I suggest.

 

Obama gets Nancy and Harry to co sponsor a bill called something like the "National Electric Generation Emergency Act". When you want to do something fast, its always good to put in the word "Emergency." The act would

 

1) Empower the Army Corps of Engineers to select 100 sites for new nuclear power plants.

 

2) The sites will be purchased by the federal government by eminent domain. (I mean come on this is an emergency.)

 

3) From those 100 sites, the best 50 are selected for ground breaking in the next 4 years. (Look, if we can put a man on the moon in a decade, we should be able to break ground on 50 nuclear power plants in 4 years.)

 

4.) While the above is being done, the Army Corps of Engineers, with the support of nuclear power plant construction contractors, develops a common design for the power generation unit and sets specifications of unique site foundation designs.

 

5) Site foundation designs are sent out for bid. Bid winners begin immediate construction.

 

6) When foundations are complete, common generation unit construction begins.

 

7) The US Navy trains operators and operates the plants when complete.

 

8) After he whole system is up and running the system is privatized permitting the government to recoup is losses. This also means that the federal government would have to find solutions to troublesome plants poorly constructed or located on troublesome sites.

 

9) All waste generated from the new plants could be stored in lead lined concrete containers, shipped to Washington DC and stored on the National Mall until congress gets off its dead ass and comes up with a better storage solution.

[The Bear's Key]

In the 1950's the standard method of dealing with nuclear waste was to put it into steel drums and dump it in the deep ocean. Those drums have long since rusted open and released all that waste, and there is no empirical evidence whatever of environmental harm.

But there is...LOTS of evidence.

 

The 60s. Tree-huggers. A wave/army of environmentalists. All spawned from radioactive contamination.

 

Which transformed the ultra-conservative 50s into an entirely reverse 60s counterculture (and worse).

 

Either that, or we'd be forced to admit how flawed conservatism really is, as it couldn't even prevent its deterioration into total liberal mayhem.

[hide]/joking [/hide]/really[hide]/or am I? [/hide]

[doG]

Okay, this is just retarded.

 

Closing Yucca is a good thing. The question that we need to be asking is, "what do we do instead with that waste?"

 

If you don't like your job but you need it then it is wise to find a new one before you quit the one you have and downright stupid to quit the one you have before you have a new one.

 

Nuclear power means nuclear waste so we need a place to put it BEFORE we quit what we have. Bascule has it right, this move is retarded unless he's already got a new place to replace Yucca Mountain.

[The Bear's Key]

It's really funny: the struggle to find a 10,000 year ensured containment of nuclear waste, our concerns of safe transport, the expense and rigors involved with preventing meltdown at facilities, security costs and military standby against terror to protect not just each facility, but the storage of their waste and every instance of its transport to a larger containment unit -- with all that multiplied by the ever increasing number of facilities proposed.

 

And still, nuke energy gets promoted to being just as sensible as the other alternate energy markets growing quickly around the world.

[iNow]

Can anyone here describe how they handle waste in countries like France? Despite the neo-con rhetoric about "frenchies bad/americans good," we may be able to learn something from their approach and replicate any best practices which they've established.

[bascule]

our concerns of safe transport

 

 

the expense and rigors involved with preventing meltdown at facilities

 

Only if you're using a positive void coefficient reactor like Chernobyl

 

And still, nuke energy gets promoted to being just as sensible as the other alternate energy markets growing quickly around the world.

 

Storage of nuclear waste is the primary concern which has not been addressed.

[Mr Skeptic]

And still, nuke energy gets promoted to being just as sensible as the other alternate energy markets growing quickly around the world.

 

More sensible, really. Coal fired power plants release into the air, more radioactivity than nuclear power plants produce, yet it is nuclear plants that get all the fear about radioactivity. Nuclear power plants are safer, more reliable, and can produce energy continuously, compared to many alternatives. It absolutely makes sense to replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants, and then we will have a long time to worry about renewable energy. It would also be ideal to provide some baseload power, though admittedly not as good as hydro that could also function as storage.

 

For transport, the storage containers can survive being hit by a train, and for storage, you just need a bloody great hole. Just keep it dry. If you consider the volume of waste, and the volume of a bloody great hole, there should be plenty of room. There are also permanent solutions, but I'm not sure how viable they are.

 

On even the other hand, having a big scary pile of waste that needs maintenance is like being too dangerous to fail, so people would try to ensure the survival of our society, right?

[waitforufo]

I think this has been the Democrats' goal in continuing to underfund Yucca Mountain. The only real argument against nuclear power is the issue of waste. By underfunding or otherwise preventing the problem from being solved, other solutions like wind and solar look more attractive. However this belies the fact that there's already a substantial amount of waste in dry cask storage and now there's no permanent solution in sight. The government is paying $500 million a year in fines to facilities temporarily storing the waste because they have failed to open the facility.

 

I glad we can all admit this is a Democrat/Progressive problem. Republicans/Conservatives would have been building nuclear power for some time now. So what are Democrats and Progressives doing to solve this problem within their ranks?

[Pangloss]

Can anyone here describe how they handle waste in countries like France? Despite the neo-con rhetoric about "frenchies bad/americans good," we may be able to learn something from their approach and replicate any best practices which they've established.

 

Yes, please add that angle into the discussion. I remember asking about this the last time we talked about nuclear, asking basically if we could do what the French have been doing (recycling nuclear waste), and what I dimly recall is Bascule saying that it might not be as applicable due to the smaller number of nuclear plants in this country. But if the plans for a large increase in the number of plants were to go forward, perhaps the recycling issue could be revisited.

[bascule]

France has also been stockpiling nuclear waste in the hopes it can be reprocessed in the future.

 

Britain tried to reprocess nuclear waste at facilities like Sellafield II, which (certain parts of which) are being shut down after massive protests surrounding nuclear waste released from the facility.

 

It's not that nuclear reprocessing is doomed, but it certainly needs to be done in a better manner than Sellafield II.

[iNow]

So, if I understand this correctly, everyone is basically putting the nuclear waste into Ziplock bags, stacking them in a room, and waiting for a bigger more permanent trash can to come around?

 

Nobody has this worked out yet? If so, that's certainly disheartening.

[Sisyphus]

(AFAIK, there are no nuclear power plants in South America or Africa).

 

Actually, there are plants in Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa, with plans in the works in Chile and several north African countries (who would at least have the Sahara).

[waitforufo]

Yes, please add that angle into the discussion. I remember asking about this the last time we talked about nuclear, asking basically if we could do what the French have been doing (recycling nuclear waste), and what I dimly recall is Bascule saying that it might not be as applicable due to the smaller number of nuclear plants in this country. But if the plans for a large increase in the number of plants were to go forward, perhaps the recycling issue could be revisited.

 

I agree, the solution to nuclear waste storage is to build lots of new nuclear power plants. If we had say 100 new plants in the next decade, the problem of storage could not be ignored. So let's get started building new plants.