Bush Administration to Support Nuclear Recycling

Ironsides writes "The Washington Post is reporting the the Bush Administration is planning to re-enrich spent nuclear fuel so that it can once again be used in nuclear reactors. Included in the plan is a proposal to take spent fuel from other countries and re-enrich it for use as well as domestic spent fuel. This would be a break with a policy set forth by President Carter in an attempt to discourage nuclear proliferation. Currently $250 Million as been proposed for FY 2007 to start developing the technology."

Comments

White House

[lawrenqj]

I still like the idea of burying it under the white house...

Re:White House

[Oldsmobile]

I think they have it worked out already:

1. Start war with foreign country
2. Go to said country
3. Destroy everything with depleted uranium rounds
4. Go to 1.

Re:White House

[Martin Blank]

Term limits aren't always that cool. The California legislature has become an even worse place for actual business to be conducted since we (including my vote in favor) brought term limits to its members. Unfortunately, instead of doing things to stay in power for 20 years, they now do things to set themselves up to make the jump from one house to the other, and then a move into a senior elected or appointed position. It's become a pool of kindergartners -- and like such a pool, there are things in the water you just don't want to touch.

At one time, I was very much in favor of term limits, but now I approach them with a great deal more caution.

stop worrying and learn to love plutonium!

[Thud457]

Just build a proper breeder reactor program, you stupid nancies!

Re:stop worrying and learn to love plutonium!

[argosian]

Exactly!
Our current methods for nuclear generation and the treatment/disposal of spent nuclear fuels is short-sighted, wasteful and environmentally irresponsible. Anti "nook-yoo-ler" sentiment aside, nuclear generation is potentially far safer and far less environmentally devastating than fossil fuel generation. IANANE, but I'm at least moderately conversant for a lay-person and it seems to me that there are numerous options, including various types of 3rd and 4th generation breeder/fast reactors, that will result in greater safety (the Integral Fast Reactor design is virtually melt-down proof), less waste (virtually zero transuranics and actinides ever leave some types), higher output, higher fuel efficiency (from about 1% in current thermal reactor designs up to 95%+ for IFR and some other types) and significantly reduced expense (there is at least one lead-cooled design that is intended to be a turnkey operation for small-grid/developing country type deployments, requiring very little maintenance and with a 15-20 year refueling interval)

There was an interesting article on this subject in the December Scientific American and wikipedia( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor )has numerous articles, if you want a quick rundown on the operation, advantages and disadvantages of various designs.

Large-scale transition to safe, efficient, modern reactors could break the stanglehold that the #@$&ing oil companies and OPEC (Organized Petroleum Extortion Cartel) have on the energy market and, by extension, on much of the world's economy. Further, introducing smaller, inexpensive, self-contained designs could go a long way toward elevating living standards in much of the developing world.

Re:stop worrying and learn to love plutonium!

[dbIII]

Just build a proper breeder reactor program, you stupid nancies!

You mean like Superphoenix? The simple answer gets complex when it hits reality. Handling hazardous materials by remote control was far more expensive than was expected - which has caused the shutdown of a few fast breeder programs (as well as polical pressure from the USA in the case of the Japanese program).

Makes sense

[lilmouse]

This fits in with Bush's disregard for the dangers of Nuclear Power (which are there, however big one thinks they are), and even demonstrates he has a basic understanding that oil won't last forever. Of course, conservation would never cross his mind - we must find a way to consume more :-/ Sorry - too easy to rant here!

It does a lot of things:

1. We have control over all this wonderful nuclear stuff.

2. Encourages more Nuculear power.

3. Reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

4. Hey - we're recyling!

--LWM

Re:Makes sense

[ivan256]

the dangers of Nuclear Power (which are there, however big one thinks they are)

I don't think anybody argues that nuclear power isn't dangerous. Only that modern nuclear power technologies are less dangerous than our current fuel of choice: Coal.

Re:Makes sense

[Acy James Stapp]

Hell Yeah. Coal puts far more radioactives *into the air* than nuclear produces in a compact, easily stored form. Americans living near coal plants are exposed to *more* radiation than those living near nuclear plants. For a good summary, see
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html

Acy

Re:Makes sense

[AKAImBatman]

This fits in with Bush's disregard for the dangers of Nuclear Power (which are there, however big one thinks they are)

This fits with the man-on-the-street's poor understanding of nuclear dangers (of which they are overstated, no matter which way you try to twist it), and even demonstrates that the parent poster has been watching too many movies.

The truth of the matter is simple: Nuclear power is one of the safest options on the planet. Coal (of which America burns a LOT of) spews radioactive nuclear contamination all across our cities and country-side, yet everyone is worried about the tiny amounts of nuclear waste which are (all things considered) quite safe. The problem is that the media has played up the whole "Radiation == EVIL" to such a degree that the populace is scared stiff at the very idea. If they had it their way, nuclear materials wouldn't even be kept on this planet.

Yet these same materials happen to exist in your backyard, your body, your car, your house, and millions of other locations all around you! As long as the spent materials are kept in properly shielded containers, there is no danger. Even if you're standing right next to it.

But what of the waste that will last millions of years? All that's needed there is a bit of common sense. If the material is going to be radioactive for millions of years, then it can't be very radioactive to begin with, can it? If it WAS highly radioactive, then it would convert all its mass to radiation in a very short period of time.

So I personally think Bush is on the right track here. The previous non-proliferation attempts were poorly conceived and implemented. If Bush can change that around, then I salute his attempts.

Re:Makes sense

[ivan256]

Reason? Bush is an asshole.

Seems to me more that he is being practical instead of making emotional decisions. Almost universally, people who oppose nuclear power don't understand the tradeoffs, or refuse to believe the reality.

Surely we need to conserve, but that only gets us so far. Nuclear fission is currently safer and far cleaner than what we use now (coal), plentiful enough to reduce our oil consumption while we figure out practical alternatives, and capable of providing us with enough power to transition to renewable sources without reduced economic output of quality of life.

We have three choices essentially, and the best scientists and engineers in the world are explaining this to the president: We can continue to pollute and rely on foreign sources for energy with increasing competition from Asia. We can cut energy consumption to the point where our GDP is reduced, jobs are lost, and people's lifestyles are altered. Or, we can build nuclear power plants, reducing coal emissions, generating hydrogen to ease off oil consumption, and grow economically. Not only that, but it's stupid to let the highly radioactive waste products of older reactors just sit around. We're not going to build bombs with the output, so why not generate more electricity with it instead of burying it in the desert (which the people who oppose reprocessing oppose as well).

Re:Makes sense

[Savantissimo]

This unilateral abandonment of primarily peaceful use of nuclear reprocessing was never a long-term strategy, and it created loads of radioactive "waste" which, except for a government label could be reprocessed into fuel. Further, if we'll do the reprocessing for other countries, ans sell reactor-grade rather than weapons-grade material, they will have no reason to have such facilities themselves except to make weapons. That should make things clearer in the UN.

Re:Makes sense

[RingDev]

Not quite. The US has coal. we have lots of coal. we have an ubsurdly large amount of coal. we have enough coal to not have to worry about centralized generation supplies, ever.

We even have technology (gasification, scrubbers, etc...) to make coal burning pass Kyoto.

Nuclear on the other hand, has some issue that have been glossed over. First off, spent fuel storage. This program would actually reduce that problem, so I think it's a great idea. Second, corrupt, incompotence, and lack of over sight. Check out the nuclear energy system in France. It's heavily governed, has strict regulation, design requirements, etc... In the US we have reactors that are in use beyond their expected life, storing significantly more spent fuel then designed, cutting corners on down time, bribing inspectors, and of all different designs and natures. Third, existing Nuclear power plants are heavily susidized by the government, which means the power they generate is not as cheap per kW as they claim.

I'm not saying Coal is perfect either, it is still significantly more dirty (even with gasification), it takes huge tracks of land to mine coal, and is getting more expensive as requirements to cut emissions and mercury are being increased.

Me, I like nuclear, but our current system is an accident waiting to happen. We should take after the French [shudder] and design the nuclear infrastructure of our country with safety and security in mind.

-Rick

Re:Makes sense

[AKAImBatman]

Second, corrupt, incompotence, and lack of over sight. Check out the nuclear energy system in France. It's heavily governed, has strict regulation, design requirements, etc... In the US we have reactors that are in use beyond their expected life, storing significantly more spent fuel then designed, cutting corners on down time, bribing inspectors, and of all different designs and natures.

In analyzing this point, it's very important to ask the question, "Why is the system this way?" The answer is quite simple: Almost no nuclear reactors have been built since the 80's. The last one was made operational in 1996, ten years ago. This situation is caused by the politcial football that Nuclear Power has become. Any new nuclear plants must face thousands of regulatory issues, environmentalist protests, impact statements, and political resistance. The resistance is so high to opening new plants, that the cost and time required to open a new plant makes it impossible.

Meanwhile, plant operators struggle to keep their existing plants online well past their expected lifetimes. Nuclear Plants continue to close left and right, and it is only slightly less problematic to replace them with dirty coal fired plants. One way or another energy producers are losing. Demand continues to rise while generating capacity lags behind. Someone has GOT to shove through the cruft and make it profitable again to open power plants. Unless that happens, Americans will not see any new nuclear power, especially not safe nuclear power.

Re:Makes sense

[ivan256]

We even have technology (gasification, scrubbers, etc...) to make coal burning pass Kyoto.

None of that technology would change the fact that half of our carbon gas emissions come from burning coal. Which would you rather get rid of, cars and trucking, making a 20something% dent in our emissions, or coal, getting rid of 50% of our emissions?

Not only that, but it's still unsafe. There have been more deaths by coal mine accident than nuclear power accident by far.

We should take after the French [shudder] and design the nuclear infrastructure of our country with safety and security in mind.

I completely agree. Though South Africa has some interesting technology going too.

Re:Makes sense

[LordVader717]

It's not a problem of putting out radioactive material into the environment so much as the dangers involved with storing and handling the highly-concentrated stuff we get from nucear power.
If you can be sure that the waste will be stored with care at proper facilities with no leakage problems, then there's not much of a problem.
But as long as there are kilograms of waste "disappearing" from these facilities all the time, I'd opt for coal anyday.

Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident would have huge impact and could make huge areas uninhabitable for decades.

Re:Makes sense

[BitGeek]

Conservation is evil. Efficiency is good. You want to make your process more efficient, great.

If you want to say that I can't be allowed to buy the power I need to do what I want, then you are denying me the most basic right in existance.

If someting is rare, then let the market determine its price. Market forces will cause people to find alternatives.

Conservation-- government mandated rationing-- causes people who could even afford the high price (Because the benefit to society is so great) to be denied the opportunity to provide it.

Conservation is bad for society. Energy is the currency and the source of growth, and growth is the ONLY way to improve the standard of living.

Conservation is the path to soviet russia style living.

Re:Makes sense

[sacdelta]

One big problem with radioactivity is that people can't see it. That makes it scary. Coal might be worse for us, but people can see it and the smoke that it produces. Also, coal has been around a lot longer, people are used to it. Most people understand the basic idea of coal. You burn it. Just like wood. It's something they can do themselves. Nuclear power requires people with PhDs. While it may be an evil, it's a familiar evil. People fear change and people fear those things they cannot see or understand.

Plus add the association with nuclear weapons. While is may be safer overall, if something goes wrong it affects a large area. It's similar to airplanes vs. cars. While air travel is statistically safer, people are more scared of it partially because it takes out more people all at once.

Air disasters also get more news coverage than auto accidents. Similarly, the news rarely covers ongoing coal fires but any little thing happens at a nuclear power plant and it goes on for weeks.

Things like this add to the overall attitude against nuclear power.

Re:Makes sense

[johndeerejedi]

Not only that, but if they are using the reprocessing technology I think they are, they will be reducing dangerous nuclear waste in the process. The Dec 2005 issue of Sci Am discussed a fast reactor type similar to what is alluded to in the article linked to the main article. This reactor would "burn" all the Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium, leaving waste that only lasts about 300 years instead of 10s of thousands of years, like trace Plutonium left in today's reactor products. Imagine, disposing of nuclear waste that you don't have to worry about outliving civilization.

Re:Makes sense

[Firethorn]

Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident would have huge impact and could make huge areas uninhabitable for decades.

Like what various purely chemical disasters have done? All of the various superfund sites?

Truth is, nuclear power would need several accidents on that scale to even catch up with coal.

"What if" is generally all I hear out of those who oppose nuclear power. My first thought is generally "Stop being a luddite and examine the evidence".

For example, look at Bush's decision. We're going to spend some money, and rather than mine more radioactive materials, we're going to take it out of the storage pools and recycle it into more fuel, thus reducing the amount of hazardous stuff around. And we get nice clean power out of it!

Re:Makes sense

[Firethorn]

And I replied to your post up above, and I will do so again.

Look at the TWO WORST nuclear power accidents in the world.

Three Mile Island, with no recorded fatalities.

Chernobyl, of which I studied fairly extensivly in high school, was a combination of a number of factors:
1. Dangerous experimental design

• it's RBMK design had a positive void coefficient, and quite a high one. US reactors, other than some small early test reactors are not allowed to have this. In US reactors are designed so that the loss of cooling results in the reactor shutting down. In the RBMK design, the opposite happened.
  
• It was a weapon reactor, power was to be a side benefit

2. Improperly trained people placed in charge. The director came from a coal plant background, not nuclear. The technictians came from the soviet nuclear submarines, which were a much safer design(see void coefficient). They weren't trained on the differences.
3. A test was being done, resulting in the bypass of a number of safety systems.
4. No containment dome. US reactors are housed in concrete containment domes that will limit release of radiation if all else fails. Chernobyl doesn't have it. Instead it has the sarcophagus which was placed after the fact, quickly, in hazardous conditions. It suffers from this.

More at Wikipedia

Basically,Nuclear power has been shown to be extremely safe when handled correctly. For a severe disaster, the flaws would have to start in the very construction of the plant. Modern reactors would be orders of magnitude safer and efficient than our old reactors that still beat coal power in safety and pollution.

Re:Makes sense

[AKAImBatman]

Although it is safe in normal operation, things can always go wrong, and they do. Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident could wipe out populations and make huge areas uninhanitable for decades.

While I agree with the latter part of your argument, the former part is incorrect. The worst nuclear accident in history (Chernobyl) failed to "wipe out" even the population of the local city. A total of 56 people have died to date, with an expected final death rate of 4,000 due to Chernobyl-related illnesses. There were about 1,800 documented cases of Thyroid cancer from the event. FAQ/Findings

Current radiation levels are actually lower than the natural background levels for areas like Norway. However, the higher content of radioisotopes in the soil makes it unwise to live there. Despite this, many residents have moved back into the area.

The Chernobyl event is quite comparable to the 5-day, 1952 London incident where 3,000 people died from coal pollution.

The radiation released by coal is not that significant, and blends into background levels.

It's not the radiation you should be concerned about. It's breathing the radioisotopes into your lungs and blood stream. Once there, the radioisotopes have a chance to do the MOST damage by hitting the soft tissues with direct doses of radiation. Normally your skin provides a great deal of protection, but large internal doses tend to circumvent that protection.

But the way it's handled is what makes nuclear power so dangerous, and that's the reason so many people oppose it.

The way it's handled is what makes coal so dangerous. That's the reason why so many people should be opposed to it.

From the University of Michigan: "Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning."

I think the results are clear. Coal is FAR more dangerous than nuclear.

Re:Makes sense

[LordKazan]

agree with everything you said

here is a good example of an excellent reactor design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Re:Makes sense

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

We have three choices essentially, and the best scientists and engineers in the world are explaining this to the president:

You obviously haven't been paying attention to Bush's appointments to science related positions. Bush has the best lobbyists and old friends explaining it to him.

Re:Makes sense

[drinkypoo]

We're killing the oceans. Even if you don't like seafood you should be concerned, because oceanic algae is the single largest contributor to oxygen levels. The rainforests, all put together, don't even begin to come close, because decomposition takes oxygen and the rainforests grow super fast, then fall down super fast (well, trees and other plants in them do anyway, they have much shorter lifetimes than your average european or north american forest-dwelling plants) and decompose. This enriches the soil, because some of the plants fix valuable nutrients.

And, if you're wondering why we care about them, rainforests act as filters (all that activity means there's more plant respiration per square foot there than in any other land-based environment) and they also help cool the globe. Plus, if you slash and burn, and then grow crops or graze food animals on the land, then you're depleting the topsoil which will eventually blow away after depletion and uncovering (and plowing) and leave us with desert where the rainforest used to be. This happened a whole lot in Egypt...

Re:Makes sense

[WindBourne]

The hallmark of the Carter administration.

Amazing the amount of ignorance that prevades here. Carter was busy pushing nukes back then. He did oppose breeder for power, but was never opposed to further studying of them.

In fact, under Carter, he started our drive towards alternatives AND helped push towards LWR, which he believed were safe options. Considering that Mr. Carter IS a nuclear engineer, I think that he had a better understanding of the technology back in the 60's/70's, then all most poster here have today.

Too be honest, if we had stayed on the course, our economy would be heavily invested into Nukes and alternative energy. The problem is that reagan backed out of support for alternatives and nukes (but not necessarily to oil), bush and clinton did nothing to move our society towards non-oil, and GWB helped push us back to it.

Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[aelbric]

It is about high time countries started giving serious attention to nuclear energy as an option and the research required to make it safe and effective. I have never been a very strong believer in human-caused global warming. I believe something is happening but was skeptical about us being major contributors.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it is January 26 in Detroit and there still hasn't been a single piece of ice in the river. Something is up. Moving from fossil fuels to nuclear may not fix the problem long-term, but it definitely won't make it any worse.

Get us over to a nuclear/renewables/hydrogen economy and another side benefit would be no one giving a crap about how much oil is in the middle-East.

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[AKAImBatman]

Ships already have balast tanks that they fill as they burn fuel or hold less cargo weight to ride lower in the water.

Indeed. But ballast tanks add additional storage room and cannot entirely compensate.

As for putting reactors in ships, US Nuclear carriers are probably a start for anyone attempting to do this.

I can do you one better than that. Meet the good ship NS Savannah, a 595ft long, 22,000 ton merchant ship capable of cruising the oceans full of 8.5 kilotons of cargo at a blistering 21 knots. The ship was part of the Atoms for Peace campaign, and was intended to show off how Nuclear Power could change things forever. Unfortunately, the ship suffered from a few problems:

1) Her streamlined hull (designed more for showcasing purposes than realistic usage) made cargo loading difficult.
2) She needed nuclear facilities all to her own. This added significant expense that could have been marginalized by producing more than one ship.
3) Fuel was extremely cheap when she was constructed. Had the ship remained in service for a few more years, her costs would have been extremely competitive.

If we learn from these experiences, I (and many others) see absolutely no financial or technical reason why nuclear merchant ships cannot again enter service. Especially with the prices of petroleum being as high as they are now. In addition, the Navy's use of nuclear power (as you mentioned) has given us a tremendous amount of experience to draw from.

The only problem is that you need multiple fully trained nuclear technicians to watch the reactors. Hmm... Maybe they can get them from the navy when they retire.

In fact, this has been considered an excellent idea. Most other areas of the service already have this sort of option. For example, Navy pilots often go to work as civilian pilots after they complete their tour. Their experience means that they can command high wages in the civilian market. To date, naval operators are often forced to work as land based nuclear operators if they want the full benefit of their experience, a market that is constantly shrinking. Merchant plants would provide excellent jobs for these operators, as well as reduce the overall costs to merchant fleets.

The multi megawatt electric motors the US Navy is investing in testing/developing would help this a long way. (Electric drive allows for fewer reactors, as you don't need to dedicate one reactor per screw)

Electric drives are actually becoming quite common in the civilian market as well. The Queen Mary 2, for example, went for all-electric propulsors rather than the standard direct drive configuration. This allowed her to mount two directed thrust propulsors in addition to two fixed propulsors.

In any case, multiple screws can provide more maneuverability, but are not an outright requirement. The NS Savannah only had a single screw through which to direct the entirity of her 74MW of power. AFAIK, this was never a major issue. :-)

Everybody say it with me...

[skraps]

Everybody say it with me... NUKE-U-LER

Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[harlequin516]

Meanwhile Iran is forbidden by the USA to even talk about doing similar. I'm tired of the hypocracy. Give every nation control over their own destinies. This administration's policies are just plain ridiculous. I'm not sure why exactly the rest of the world hasn't stepped in to claim that the current administration is as evil as the Nazi Party was during Hitler's reign. I say if Saddam Hussain had just threated to use a nuke we'd not be in this mess. I'm with the NRA on this one... If you arm everyone there would be less crime.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DigitalRaptor]

I agree with you completely on the point of hypocrasy.

Let's see how the U.S. stacks up to the rest of the world with regard to nukes:

1. The U.S. has more nukes than anyone else on the planet. Check.

2. The U.S. is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. Check.

3. Not only that, we used them on an entirely civilian population. Check.

4. As recently at 2 years ago the U.S. was still trying to develop nuclear weapons (nuclear bunker busters). Check.

So, given those points, what gives the U.S. any right to tell the rest of the world what they can and can't do with nuclear weapons?

That's not to say that Iran et al should just have free reign to do whatever they want, but every country on the planet should play by the exact same rules when it comes to nuclear technology. Including the U.S.

The nuclear double standard is a breeding ground for hatred and animosity towards the U.S., and we don't need anymore of that these days...

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[timster]

You forget that the US is a democracy and democracies never start wars, by definition... at least according to the US government.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DurendalMac]

Ugh, the usual bullshit again. Allow me to elaborate:

1. Yep, we do. It comes from being the first to have them and the arms race between the USSR. We don't have as many as we used to, though. The number is dropping.

2 & 3. Try to find anyone that's proud of it. However, in the big picture, the bombs, horrid as they were, stopped the war short of an outright invasion that would have resulted in far, far greater casualties on both sides. Japan was going kamikaze left and right and almost didn't surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

4. Yep, they were talking about it, and that's as far as it went. Modern technology and materials means "safer" mini-nukes, but they never materialized, which is probably a good thing. A lot of stuff gets discussed and dropped when it comes to military weaponry.

You know what the most telling thing is? After WW2 ended, we were the only ones with nukes. We could have held the whole damn world hostage if we'd wanted to. We could have run right into Russia and nuked Moscow, and they wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. But we didn't, and we have never used a nuke since. I think that gives the US a little credit, don't you?

And the US isn't a fundie Islamic state (no crap about Bush, he's a twit, but he's nowhere near as bad as Iran) hellbent on wiping another country off the map. The US has checks and balances to prevent the use of a nuke. Iran could lob one and tell the people that it was the will of Allah. Should Kim Jong Il have nukes as well? You can't measure all countries by the same standard. We have multiple elected branches in the States to balance each other out. Iran and Korea are dictatorships with maniacs at the helm.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DigitalRaptor]

1. So my initial statement was exactly true.

2 & 3. Whether the nukes were needed is a matter of opinion and speculation. Personally I think the evidence says they weren't needed, but that changes nothing and is still just an opionion. There is no reason to discuss these points further. My original statements are still exactly true.

4. The ONLY reason we don't have nuclear bunker busters being used in Iraq right now is because there is still enough collective brain power in congress to keep Bush and his chosen idiots in check. Period. So yes, the checks and balances worked. But that doesn't mean our wanna-be dictator is any less dangerous than Iran's dictator.

However, NONE of what you said explains why the same rules that apply to them shouldn't apply to us. Yes, Iran and North Korea are dangerous now and would be more so with nukes. We are clearly more dangerous with a nuclear aresenal as well.

The fact of that matter is, no country needs nuclear weapons, and almost every country need nuclear power.

It is ludicrous for the U.S. to play Nuclear Police and thumb its nose at the rest of the world when it serves no ones purpose but ours, and in the long run is bad for us, not good.

It would be far better, in every way, for there to be a governing body (yes, it would probably need to run by the U.N., as much as I dislike the U.N.) and for there to be a specific set of guidelines governing the development and use of nuclear energy, and the complete removal from the planet of nuclear weapons.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[MightyYar]

Take a deep breath and read what you typed. Forget the US for a moment - is it in the world's best interest for Iran or North Korea to be nuclear armed? Do you really want Iran to be nuclear armed just so the US does not appear to be "hypocritical"?

Now lets get back to the US... Iran and North Korea are working to build nuclear weapons, while the US is actively reducing the number of weapons it possesses. Will you at least give the US credit for moving in the proper direction? Past actions of a state, unlike an individual, should not make it hypocritical. For instance, the US once had slavery. The people involved with that have been dead for 100 years, and I see nothing hypocritical about the US opposing slavery. Likewise, everyone involved with the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan is dead - it is hard to hold the current US administration responsible for that!

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DigitalRaptor]

I didn't say that Iran and North Korea ~should~ have nuclear weapons. I believe that they shouldn't (and neither should anyone else).

But the same rules that apply to them should apply to everyone.

It's not just nuclear weapons that are affected. We are telling them they can't have anything nuclear in any way, shape, or form.

Policies should be put in place that govern the safe use of nuclear technology in EVERY country. That way we can tell countries "Play by the rules or not at all" instead of "You can't play, period".

I have an idea!

[ivan256]

Let's not have rational debate and instead make fun of somebody's accent!

SciAm Article: Smarter Use for Nuclear Waste

[johndeerejedi]

There was a good Scientific American article in December 2005 about using fast reactors to use waste fuel from other reactors to produce power using pyrometalurgical techniques to process the fuel. I'm sorry but all Scientific American has is a preview of the article, entitled http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D556 0-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000&ref=sciam&chanID=sa00 6 "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste". The gist of the article is that current thermal reactors use only 5% of the enriched nuclear fuel (U235) and the waste includes a lot of Plutonium, U238, and other actinydes that the process in the article would consume. This pyrometalurgical processing also prevents taking out the Plutonium--it takes out the waste products, like Strontium. Since it can consume U238, Thorium, etc. it would be able to "burn" something like 95% of the nuclear fuel and the waste products would be short lived radioactive waste. I hope this is the procedure they are using, and not breeder reactors or conventional reprocessing.

Re:Inspection

[ivan256]

Why do we need inspections? The US isn't hiding anything. We're pretty up front with telling everybody we've got the bomb. Plus it should be fairly obvious, since we actually used a few of them.

Inspections are to make sure that people who say they *don't* have WMDs aren't lying. If a country admits to having the weapons, you don't need any inspections.

IFR

[tsnorri]

According to Wikipedia, research on the Integral Fast Reactor was cancelled due to non-proliferation. Could the work continue now? To me, it seems quite an achievement, that the waste elements produced by the reactor had half lives of only a few decades.

Energy Needs

[jgardn]

I don't think your criticism of Bush's policy of expanding America's energy production are completely valid. President Bush has supported measures to reduce the energy needs of America through conservation and efficiency. He admits that that alone is not enough, however.

As a trained physicist, I learned that there is one universal currency: energy. In fact, it can be said that energy is the only thing of value to us. One of our jobs as a trained physicist is to discover new and better ways of accessing the vast resources of energy available in the universe and provide that to the masses. With energy safely harnessed, the imagination is the boundary of possibilities.

What would you be able to do if you could get gigawatts of electricity for pennies? What would you do if you had access to safe chemicals that had energy outputs similar to rocket fuel? I can barely imagine it. What if we could access this kind of energy safely, in an environmentally friendly way? Would you do it? Of course.

I don't think all the advances of the past century would've been possible without the efficient production and distribution of energy at the scale we had. We couldn't have a cost-effective aluminum industry without tremendous amounts of electricity to power the chemical refinement process. We couldn't build airplanes to travel across the continents without jet fuel and the machines that can turn it into thrust. We wouldn't have a lot of the modern conveniences and even necessities without all the energy we have available to us.

I hope the next century sees America and the rest of the world producing several orders of magnitude more energy and using it efficiently for new things we can barely imagine today. President Bush is right to explore all --- and he is exploring all --- viable sources of energy.

For the record

[lilmouse]

Yet these same materials happen to exist in your backyard...

I hate to break it to ya, but at least one of the byproducts of nuclear power (Plutonium) isn't around in your backyard (or if it is, you're in trouble). It also happens to be one of the most toxic substances we know of (ok, inhaling pure cesium is probably pretty bad as well), and that's before we consider that it's radioactive. Nasty stuff.

Anyway, I have a very hard time swallowing "safest options on the planet."

What happens if the US descends into anarchy as a result of a stock market crash 100 years from now? Still safe? We've still got to deal with the stuff. And keep guards on the storage sites.

What happens if there is a plage in 2300? We're still paying for those guards on the storage sites, right?

We're gonna have the capital on hand to refurbish the storage containers in a thousand years? Have we made provisions for this?

Burning coal can only cause so much cancer before we run out of the stuff to burn. Nuclear waste is still gonna be dangerous tens of thousands of years from now. Over its entire history, I'll say nuclear is probably more dangerous.

Anyway, changing our lifestyle would be good for us.

--LWM

Re:For the record

[AKAImBatman]

I hate to break it to ya, but at least one of the byproducts of nuclear power (Plutonium) isn't around in your backyard

No, but there's plenty of Uranium. Plutonium should be burned up rather than stored as waste.

It also happens to be one of the most toxic substances we know of

Bullshit. It doesn't rate even close. Let me ask you, which would you rather ingest: 20 grams of caffine or 20 grams of plutonium?

If you value your life, you'll go for the plutonium.

What happens if the US descends into anarchy as a result of a stock market crash 100 years from now? Still safe? We've still got to deal with the stuff. And keep guards on the storage sites.

Safe from what? Your overactive imagination about glowing mutant babies? Most of the stuff they (will) stick in Yucca Mountain isn't even dangerous enough to shield against. Most of the stuff is only dangerous for the first month or so. (Which will stay in cooling pools until it cools off anyway.) The only real danger posed by the spent fuel is if it makes its way into the water table. That could cause an increase (not an epidemic, mind you, an increase) in the cancer rates.

If you have a SPECIFIC concern, please share it with us and I'll be happy to refute it. Otherwise stop watching so many bad movies.

Obligatory SNL quote

[The_REAL_DZA]

"You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor."

Re:Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources...

[DigitalRaptor]

9/11 was the excuse to invade Iraq. I believe it was always Bush's intention to do so at some point. I think he felt the need to be a war-time president (since it's clear from all of his other agendas and flops that he has nothing else to offer).

But invading Iraq was sold 100% as part of the war on terror, when in reality it was a major distraction to the war on terror.

If you have 2 neighbors, Dan and Sam, and Sam's dog bites your daughter, do you go and kill Dan's dog, even though it's the one you dislike more and that howl's every night? No, the disconnect there is clear.

That is no different than Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacking on 9/11, and we all but ignore them and invade Iraq instead.

In all reality Iraq posed almost no threat when we invaded. They were so broken down by years of sanctions they couldn't have mounted an effective attack against Kuwait again if they wanted to, let alone the U.S.

Does that mean Sadaam didn't love what Al Qaeda did? No. But if the war in Iraq was really to stop those that were harboring and supporting terrorism, we would have invaded Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or any one of a dozen countries with far stronger and better documented ties to terrorism.

But Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Aside from the fact that it has created and inspired far, far more terrorists than it has killed or hampered.

Re:Wait...

[IvyKing]

Remember, the US is the ONLY country to have a track record of using nuclear weapons against civilian targets in war.

Ask the Chinese about how nicely the Japanese treated civilians in Nanking in 1938.

Ask the POW's who weren't executed by the Japanese how they were treated in captivity.

FWIW, the Japanese were preparing to use bubonic plague infested fleas in 1944 - fortunately for the Japanese the submarine carrying the fleas was sunk - had the Japanese used those fleas as intended the US would likely have retaliated with massive uses of chemical and biological weapons.

One more thing - was being the target of a nuke all that much worse than being a target of a fire-bombing raid (think Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo...)??

Re:Short sighted...

[RingDev]

I am FOR Nuclear power. I was just saying that coal consumption is not a concern. Maybe my phrasing was a bit strong. "...the Energy Information Administration (1995) estimated that the United States has enough coal to last 250 years" as per: http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/nca/nca.html

So yes, there is a finite limit to our coal supply, but if we are still primarily powering our country with coal 250 years from now, we will have other issues.

But as great as nuclear is, I think distributed generation is and true Green power is the way to go. For instance, if properly developed, the state of South Dakota could generate enough electricity from wind alone to power the entire western half of the country. Installing integrated photo voltaic roofing shingles (ie: Solar power) in all new residential buildings could reduce demand growth by 75%. Using bacterial scrubbers on coal plants can not only dramaticly cut emissions but they can also be recycled into low emission bio-diesel.

There are many great solutions, and I think Nuclear is one part of the puzzle, but anyone who immediately discredits a form, or puts all of their hopes on one form is either stupid, or has an agenda.

-Rick