Obama cuts funding for Yucca Mountain

[iNow]

I asked for solutions, not methods by which you think we MAY find said solution. Your argument is akin to suggesting we infect every citizen with cancer so we'd be "forced" to find a cure. It's silly, and is hardly an approach we should use.

 

They've been saying, "We'll figure out what to do with the waste later" for decades now, and you know what? We still haven't figured out what to do with the waste. That should inform you decision on how to proceed, or in this case, why to be hesitant and measured prior to moving forward.

[doG]

There's really just one solution and that's storage. Sure, you might can recycle part of the waste but whatever part you can't recycle will have to be stored. There's just not anything else you can physically do with it but put it somewhere safe and leave it there. So the only real questions are where to locate sites and how many?

[The Bear's Key]

The ziplock analogy is keen.

 

If Obama were to favor other sources of energy and leave out nuclear, I'd say great. Yet if that's the case, he needs to be upfront about it -- sneaky doesn't work.

 

Using all possibilities of achieving a goal is hardly scientific. In that light.....if Dems and Obama haven't been good cheerleaders of nuclear power, it's a matter of concern over industry, not science.

 

For there is a limit to free market. It ends on the doorstep of citizen rights. We don't want the contamination that industry has failed to eliminate since its beginnings, and we don't want the cost and insane decomposition time put on us.....yet the businesses that chose such a risky investment try to force the consequences of that on us.

 

Plus I can't rely entirely on the science of nuke waste handling. It's been tainted by special interests. Even the Bush team contributed, appointing "scientists" who'd be likely to agree on the safety of nuke waste.

 

And let's do a bit of examining. If nuclear power were so feasible, you'd think nations like Rusia and China would be using it to the fullest. Really, why not? There's no free media to warn citizens, and protest doesn't have much umph without constitutional rights to back it up.

 

Yet reports by the U.S. Department of Energy show a much different picture, at the links below.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Russia/Background.html

 

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/pdf.pdf

 

Pg. 13

EIA and independent sources forecast that China will add between 15 and 30 GW of new nuclear energy capacity by 2020, but even with this expansion, nuclear power will only represent between 2.5 and 4.5 percent of total installed generating capacity.

 

 

Pg. 17 (total energy consumption, 2004)

Coal (69%), Oil (22%), Hydroelectricity (6%), Natural Gas

(3%), Nuclear (1%), Other Renewables (0%)

 

The last has changed quite a bit. "Other renewables" is growing pretty fast now, as we can see in the articles below.

 

 

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91344/6496247.html

The facts cited as follows will evidently confirm the report released last month by the Climate Group that China is the world's leading producer of energy from renewable sources and is on the way to overtaking developed countries in creating clean technologies.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7535839.stm

Figures within the report showed that China was already the leading producer in terms of installed renewable generation capacity.

 

It has the world's largest hydroelectricity capacity since the controversial Three Gorges project began producing electricity, and the fifth largest fleet of wind turbines on the planet.

 

 

.

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/nuc_waste.pdf

 

Pg 27 (of 41)

Recent instances of flask contamination above agreed limits

Start reading at that heading.

 

 

Pg 25-26 (of 41)

During a journey flasks can be exposed to changes in atmospheric conditions, such as air temperature or humidity and small amounts of contaminated water can pass through the paint on the outside of the flask. It is obviously not possible to identify this form of contamination at the beginning of a journey.

Nothing is foolproof it seems, when it comes to nuclear waste. And besides, the flasks are still vulnerable to terror attacks.

 

The company who tested the safety of the nuclear flasks in bascule's YouTube ad was called NUKEM. Their website doesn't exist anymore....however, you can travel to past versions of its website at the links below.

 

2003 snapshot on archive.org

http://web.archive.org/web/20030609231635/http://www.nukem.com/

 

2005

http://web.archive.org/web/20051227141652/http://www.nukem.com/

Edited March 15, 2009 by The Bear's Key
minor grammatical stuff

[SkepticLance]

Bear

Nuclear world wide is 12%. In countries like France, it is the dominant source. The USA uses coal, natural gas and oil as its main sources. How long do you think that can continue?

 

The major release into the atmosphere of radioactives comes from burning coal. Nuclear power by comparison releases next to nothing. And the radioactives from coal are the least harm from this source of energy. Coal is the real nasty in the world today - not nuclear.

 

Wind uses enormous amount of land area and is immensely ugly. James Lovelock says that each Gigawatt requires 2500 sq. km of land. Right or wrong, it is clear that wind energy is not the answer, though it will have a place. Solar is still too expensive. Hot rock is the best new technology but is still a few years away. Hydroelectricity is oversubscribed already. Wave energy is probably a couple of decades away. Of all the proven technologies, the one with the greatest potential is nuclear.

 

China is building a number of nuclear power stations, though it still relies too heavily on coal. It is developing renewables, sure - but they are still a minor part of total generation. It is rapidly using up its available hydroelectric resource.

 

The biggest problem with disposing of nuclear waste is not technical. There are several methods available right now. The biggest problem is political - getting people to agree on what to do. I have pointed out that the Australian desert is a safe repository. Also that solution in the ocean would work. Others pointed out the possibility of recycling. There is also an area in southern Africa that meets the three criteria for a long term repository - geologically stable, totally arid, and with next to no people living there.

 

Yucca Mountain does not meet those three criteria, and is definitely not ideal. Transporting nuclear waste to a better long term store can be done with reasonable safety using modern methods of encasing the waste. No, it is not 100% perfect, but what is? And we already know that a shipload or two of waste in the oceans will do little harm. Many shiploads are already mouldering on the seabed, and doing no harm that has been measured.

 

Large amounts of waste in steel drums, long since corroded to nothing, were dumped in the 1950's on the sea bed and there are several nuclear submarines also on the seabed, with their reactors slowly leaking into the sea. No significant harm has been detected from these. So let's not get paranoid about the possibility of a wee bit more, in carrying the waste to an essential long term repository.

[bascule]

Nothing is foolproof it seems, when it comes to nuclear waste. And besides, the flasks are still vulnerable to terror attacks.

 

How exactly is it the casks are vulnerable to "terror attacks"?

 

I can try to dream up a scenario... here it goes. Terrorists find a particular cask shipment is going to go totally unmonitored. They manage to intercept the cask and load it onto a truck with nobody noticing. They bring it back to a secret facility where they spend several hours unwelding/unbolting it. They then take the waste and stick it into the water supply of a major metropolitan area.

 

It's... possible I suppose... but when you're looking at potential terrorism anything is possible. Terrorists could steal an electrical windmill, set it up in the middle of a city, and when the windmill starts rotating particularly fast they could set off an explosion, sending shards of windmill flying in all directions, maiming and killing people.

[Sisyphus]

The terrorism threat with significant quantities of radioactive material is always dirty bombs. However, there would surely be few enough shipments that they could all be well-guarded, so theft is probably a negligible risk. Actually bombing a train carrying waste, however, could cause one hell of a mess anywhere along the transport route. How much of a mess and how likely it would be I'm not qualified to say. But dismissing it by saying "anything could be used as weapon" is rather disingenuous.

[The Bear's Key]

Sisyphus is closer on point to what I meant.

 

But here's the rub: nuclear energy is the only kind that needs security detail, possibly also by military, at every level of production and waste storage.

 

Economically, it's not that great an option. Safety-wise, it's far behind the other technologies (and I don't mean coal).

 

The other green technology markets are showing a potential for explosion of growth. I don't feel the slightest urgency to dive into nuclear energy markets.

 

As for the alternate energies being inefficient with space, take another look at the Dynamic Tower.

 

It is estimated that the building will not only generate all its own energy, but also provide enough surplus energy to power five more skyscrapers of similar size.

And that's in Dubai, which isn't lacking in regular electricity and has plenty oil to go around.

 

The technology is advancing. China is poised to surpass the world for production of alternate energy, and probably become the leading exporter of green technologies.

 

I'm not going to shed a tear for nuclear energy if it were to fade into the pages of history. Maybe someday we can find a use that doesn't impact us, but for now, that isn't the case. Where's the evidence showing it has no effect in the oceans and desert, by the way?

[SkepticLance]

To Bear.

Re oceans and deserts.

Nuclear waste decays slowly, to the point where, after 10,000 years, it may be treated as normal waste and disposed of in municipal land fills. Still slightly radioactive, but not enough to be a health risk. So the problem is simply to keep it safe that long.

 

Not all deserts are suitable. As I said before, there are three main criteria for suitability. Geological stability, since we don't want the waste moved by earthquakes and volcanoes. Aridity, to stop containers corroding and contents carried by water. And lack of population to avoid people problems.

 

I know of only two areas that are suitable. Southern Africa and Australia. Of the two, Australia is more suitable due to vast land area with no people.

 

For ocean disposal, it is simply a matter for maths. The oceans contain E18 tonnes of seawater, making the dilution factor utterly incredible. The oceans already carry 50 million tonnes of radioactive Uranium 235 isotope, which creates the radioactive background. This level of radioactivity is something all life is already adapted to, and is therefore harmless. In fact, life can tolerate background level at least ten times higher. eg. In the mountain towns of Colorado, where the rocks of the mountains are slightly radioactive. This increase in radioactivity seems to be utterly harmless, and the cancer rates in the Colorado towns are lower than towns on the central prairies, where background radioactivity is way lower.

 

If we measure only the radioactive component of nuclear waste - the isotopes themselves, and ignore all the inert materials that are mixed up with it, then the total world production of radioactive isotopes in nuclear waste is between 100 and 200 tonnes per year. Compare that to the 50 million tonnes of radioactive U235 already dissolved in the oceans, and consider whether man made waste would contribute to any meaningful level to background radioactivity in the oceans.

[bascule]

However, there would surely be few enough shipments that they could all be well-guarded, so theft is probably a negligible risk.

 

Theft is the only real risk, because...

 

Actually bombing a train carrying waste, however, could cause one hell of a mess anywhere along the transport route.

 

...isn't a practical risk.

 

If the casks can survive

, I really doubt any terrorist could create a bomb powerful enough to break them open.

 

It certainly sounds like there is potential for slow leaks in casks over time, which is why a permanent disposal solution is needed.

[Pangloss]

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.

 

"Yellow and blue make green!" <zzzzzzzzzzzzzip>

"Yellow and blue make green!" <zzzzzzzzzzzzzip>

"Yellow and blue make green!" <zzzzzzzzzzzzzip>

"Yellow and blue make yellow!" <zzzzzzzzzzzzzip>

"Yellow and blue make green!" <zzzzzzzzzzzzzip>

 

"Er wait...."

 

 

 

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.

 

George Will calls that the "starve the beast" approach to politics. He spoke of it last week on ABC News, saying that traditional conservatives used to favor that approach, hoping that if they cut costs enough that eventually their opponents would see a surplus and agree to cut taxes (yeah right). He went on to say that liberals use the opposite approach, putting as much spending in there as possible under the theory that sooner or later you'll HAVE to raise taxes (raising taxes being a social good).

 

IMO all such reasoning should be taken out back and riddled with very large bullets. It's just not a sane approach to problem-solving, IMO.

[SkepticLance]

Just to throw another spanner in the speculative works...

 

There is a hell of a lot of needless paranoia surrounding fears of radioactivity. While it is absolutely true that high doses of radiation are dreadful, there is no need to fear doses that are sufficiently low. Two points :

 

1. Look at Chernobyl. When the accident first happened, a lot of people died, and a bunch of children developed thyroid cancer. Not nice. However, it is interesting to see what has happened more recently. The government closed an area of 30 kms radius around Chernobyl. It has accidentally become a thriving wildlife reserve. There is a wonderful wilderness developing, with trees, deer, bears, wolves etc thriving within the area. Animals that spend time close to the old reactor will shown higher levels of mutation, but overall, the populations are thriving.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl.html

 

2. Radiation hormesis. Recent (last 20 years) research has shown that the harm from radiation is not linear. There appears to be a threshold below which, radiation becomes, not just harmless, but very likely actually beneficial.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html

 

Final conclusion : Yes, fear high doses of radioactivity, but do not get paranoid about low doses. Nuclear waste that is not locked away properly may cause background radiation in local areas to increase to a minor degree with no harm whatsoever.

[Pangloss]

What are the normal life expectancies of these animals that returned to the Chernobyl area? Because if they're normally only living 20-30 years anyway then there would be an obvious discrepancy in comparing their success with potential for human success.

[iNow]

Lance - Am I correct in interpreting your post to mean that you are suggesting that we can just leave the waste laying around and not worry about it? If not, what exactly is your point, and how is that a contribution to the discussion everyone is having about finding a vialble containment approach for nuclear waste?

[SkepticLance]

iNow

Like everything else on this planet it is a matter of balance. No we do not 'just leave it lying around'. However, I am opposing the blind paranoia some people have - hopefully not too many on this forum - of anything labelled 'radioactive' or 'nuclear'.

 

In other words, we treat the nuclear waste with respect, and take measures to deal with it in the best possible way. However, we do not allow ourselves to be bound into inaction by irrational fears of minor increases in radioactivity. We find the best long term repository, but do not let ourselves refuse to transport it because there may be a minor leak, even as a remote possibility.

 

Small increases in radioactivity do NOT cause disasters. There have been numerous minor nuclear leaks over the decades, and the harm from them is minimal. Only major leaks, or events lead to substantial harm. Chernobyl was the exception. A massive melt down and a massive increase in radioactivity.

 

I remember an occasion perhaps 30 years ago when a Soviet satellite crashed to Earth, landing somewhere in northern Canada, and carrying a small nuclear reactor. There was panic for a time. However, the story just died down, and to my knowledge no significant harm was ever measured.

[iNow]

So, in other words, you're completely off-topic, and you're arguing against an issue nobody has raised.

 

In other words, we treat the nuclear waste with respect, and take measures to deal with it in the best possible way.

And what specific ways might those be? That's the question we've been trying to address for several posts now. If you don't have an answer, I'd prefer you not respond, but I welcome a post that answers the question of either a) how do we make Yucca mountain a viable nuclear waste storage facility, or b) what alternatives do we have to deal with the waste which we know will be created if we generate electricity using nuclear power? Again, it's cool if you don't know, but please don't respond with off-topic arguments against supposed mindsets nobody in this thread has demonstrated.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

It would be nice if you actually read my posts before you make claims like the above.

 

I am not off topic. I am responding to some statements about fears of leaks of nuclear waste. I am also making constructive suggestions. ie. Australia and Africa. These are real practical possibilities, and a damn sight better than Yucca Mountain!

 

It has been suggested in earlier posts that transport of nuclear waste is not possible because of the risk of losing that waste into the ocean. I have been trying to point out that this, in limited amounts, is not a disaster. Because the ocean is so big, and because small increases in background radiation are harmless, the risk of small losses is not sufficient to stop such transport.

[The Bear's Key]

One big failure of nuclear power is that we not only have to monitor the facilities in our nation, but also those in developing nations. The costs increase just by that alone. But other variables create even more disadvantages.

 

The developing nations offer no guarantees of safe waste handling. Their citizens lack our rights, the *science* establishment is closer to being a government arm with little checks and balances in place (rather than an organization of scientific methods and public transparency).

 

Yet even more counterproductive is the reality that as we and the big powers construct more nuclear energy facilities, it looks more hypocritical to say which nations get to use the technology and which don't -- preparing a stage for conflict.

 

But if the developing nations and geopolitically unstable areas were to create and expand into green technologies for clean energy, no one would be able invade for those resources.

 

You can't take solar and wind resource from a nation. Thus a major sustenance of war is eliminated.

 

Plus, no other nations have to be concerned of waste handling. No inspections by U.N. of weaponizing capability of green tech. No percieved hypocricy of nations who can use it dicatating those who can't.

 

It's only a matter of time for green tech's explosion. Less secrecy involved, kids (future industry players) are likely to be exploring such facilities way more than nuclear power ones. And the safety issues of radioactive waste handling is going to sharpen the focus on it, raising the question of why bother keep pursuing nuclear energy if green tech is spreading at ever-increasing rates.

 

IMO all such reasoning should be taken out back and riddled with very large bullets. It's just not a sane approach to problem-solving, IMO.

Agreed.

 

Like everything else on this planet it is a matter of balance.

Certain things inherently require a different concentration of balance. We obviously can't go half-and-half with nuke waste.

 

Not that you were suggesting it

 

Only major leaks, or events lead to substantial harm.

Is there any reliable science to back this up? From trustable sources, of course -- with the usual peer reviews.

 

iNow

I am not off topic. I am responding to some statements about fears of leaks of nuclear waste.

I don't really se your posts as off-topic, for the record. And nuclear waste handling, storage issues, and production are very much linked.

 

Obviously if you produce more, then the unsolved storage problems are magnified. That has to be put under consideration as well.

[Pangloss]

Actually I think Lance has a valid point. You don't leave it lying around, but you don't break the bank dealing with it either. Most concerns about disposal of waste (in general) are overrated anyway -- it's not as if we're running out of space. There are temporary solutions that can be safe and effective while a long-term strategy is worked out involving recycling.

 

For that matter, I still would like to see an actual CBO looking at the cost of shooting it into the sun -- I've never seen actual numbers on that. I realize it would be expensive, but would it really be that much more expensive than long-term storage and maintenance? I don't know, and I'd like to know.

[SkepticLance]

To Bear

In relation to nuclear power in developing nations. There has been a number of excellent suggestions from various government and business agents on this. One of the best is for large organisations within the USA or other western nations to supply the whole bang lot (for lots of $$$). That is, build the plant, supply the fissionable material, and take care of the waste. Since fissionable material for nuclear power can be one tenth the concentration required for nuclear weapons, it is really easy to ensure that the fuel is not used for weapons. This system would take care of the worst fears of nuclear power in third world nations.

 

Reliable sources for the fact that minor leaks cause little harm? Certainly. My earlier post on radio-hormesis covers that. Another example is the detection of a hormesis effect among the Hiroshima survivors.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/bher/2001/00000007/00000004/art00016

While Hiroshima was a terrible event, killing so many people, and while high dose radioactivity among survivors led to lots of death by cancer, there was still a large subset of those affected by minor doses who have shown an actual increase in survival over the general Japanese population. This is but one of a vast literature on the beneficial effects of low dose radiation.

 

Pangloss

Re shooting waste into space. If we could separate out the radio-isotopes completely, it might be possible. There is 100 to 200 tonnes per year produced, and while costly, it might be possible. Sadly, the chances of so completely separating pure isotope is seriously improbable. Most of the isotopes are diluted with other material. Sometimes massively. In fact, when you take into account the weight of the diluents, you are dealing with tens of thousands of tonnes.

 

If you were to shoot it into space, it would actually be energetically more sensible to fire it away from the sun. Space is so vast that it is very unlikely ever to be encountered again. To decelerate it enough to fall into the sun would be energetically close to impossible.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think tossing it on the moon would be easier. And since there's no water there, no safety concerns.

[bascule]

I liked the suggestion of placing the flasks into a subduction zone

[Pangloss]

There is 100 to 200 tonnes per year produced, and while costly, it might be possible. Sadly, the chances of so completely separating pure isotope is seriously improbable. Most of the isotopes are diluted with other material. Sometimes massively. In fact, when you take into account the weight of the diluents, you are dealing with tens of thousands of tonnes.

 

Oh dear. So a couple orders of magnitude in improved lifting efficiency needed, then, and/or a corresponding increase in separation efficiency. Oh well. Thanks for the reply.

 

Maybe there's something to Bascule's subduction zone suggestion. I wonder how much that would cost?

[SkepticLance]

bascule

That idea has been seriously studied by specialists. There was an article covering that in Scientific America, but a long time ago. A 2005 article in New Scientist is found at :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625012.700

and I quote :

 

"In fact, subduction zone insertion is perfectly sound in theory, but there are significant practical problems. The zones are inherently unstable and unpredictable, and the sediment on top of the subducting ocean crust plate tends to get scraped off rather than being carried into the mantle, to form what is known as an accretionary prism. This could lead to the waste being squeezed back to the seabed in the future. Drilling it deep into the basalt of the crust may solve this, but at the depths typically encountered in subduction zones, drilling is all but impossible"