Slashdot Mirror


Volunteer Towns Sought For Nuclear Waste

Hugh Pickens writes "Brian Wingfield writes in Bloomberg that the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future has sent a draft report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu recommending that US communities should be encouraged to vie for becoming a federal nuclear-waste site as a way to end a decades-long dilemma over disposing of spent radioactive fuel and says this 'consent-based' approach will help cut costs and end delays caused when the federal government picks a site over the objections of local residents, 'This means encouraging communities to volunteer (PDF) to be considered to host a new nuclear-waste management facility,' says the commission. Chu named the panelists after Obama canceled plans to build a permanent repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain after the Yucca site was opposed by politicians from the state. 'The United States has traveled nearly 25 years down the current path only to come to a point where continuing to rely on the same approach seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and protracted delay,' says the report. The Blue Ribbon Commission cited as a 'success' the US Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico, which has accepted and disposed of some defense-related nuclear waste for more than a decade demonstrating that that 'nuclear wastes can be transported safely over long distances and placed securely in a deep, mined repository.' With the right incentives, 'there will be a great deal of support' for a waste site near the New Mexico facility, says former Senator Pete Domenici."

279 comments

  1. How About D.C.? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's been quite a toxic environment in Washington D.C. for the last several Presidencies. So why not store this nasty stuff in D.C.?

    1. Re:How About D.C.? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      I might suggest Marshall, Texas. No containment necessary.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:How About D.C.? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      In DC, life expectancy drops by two years for every stop you take along the red line, IIRC. There is a lot of poverty.

      As a city, there is also a high population density. It would be a very stupid place to put nuclear waste.

      Don't we have a site near Yucca Mountain where we have test-exploded about a thousand nuclear bombs? What about doing it there?

      And yes, we felt the need to test nuclear bombs quite frequently, it seems. Sometimes mankind seems quite primitive, even with the most advanced and destructive weapons in the world.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    3. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a city, there is also a high population density. It would be a very stupid place to put nuclear waste.

      Whoosh

    4. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't we have a site near Yucca Mountain where we have test-exploded about a thousand nuclear bombs? What about doing it there?

      We can't store stuff there - it's radioactive!

    5. Re:How About D.C.? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am afraid DC might go super critical already all on its own.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not doing anything illegal. They're defending their legally held patents. End of story.

    7. Re:How About D.C.? by barlevg · · Score: 2

      In DC, life expectancy drops by two years for every stop you take along the red line, IIRC. There is a lot of poverty.

      Is this a joke? Because for anyone actually familiar with the DC area, this makes no sense. The red line actually serves some of the most affluent areas of the DMV. At one end, you have Rockville and Bethesda. In the middle, you have ultra-wealthy Dupont Circle, trendy Chinatown and Union Station. As you head out of the city in the other direction, yes, you have some less affluent neighborhoods, but East Montgomery County is hardly slums, and the only people who think so are people from Bethesda.

    8. Re:How About D.C.? by sjames · · Score: 2

      How about we just put it in the basements of the senate, congress, and the supreme court? No poor person will ever be allowed close enough to any of those to be adversely affected, I assure you.

    9. Re:How About D.C.? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Another teabagger. DC is a majority African-American area, putting a waste dump there would be racist. Why am I not surprised here?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:How About D.C.? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny but like cockroaches I doubt it would hurt those buggers.

      But this shows exactly what is wrong with NIMBY bullshit. Instead of somewhere like Yucca where scientists had studied the problem and come up with a deep, dry, solid hole in the middle of nowhere you are gonna have a bunch of states, probably in the south as our economy is beyond rotten, which is probably THE worst possible place you could put the stuff thanks to all the rain and tornadoes!

      It is time we told the NIMBYs to STFU and let scientists instead of politicians work to solve the problems. Because if we don't do something about the NIMBYs frankly won't a damned thing get built because it will always piss off someone.

      The NIMBYs say " We don't want to store the waste for nuclear (use reprocessing and cut down on the waste is what we should do, but heaven forbid that might be smart) and we don't want solar because its an eyesore, or wind because it is noisy, or coal because it is messy, but you damned well better make sure you give us enough power to blast our ACs all summer!"

      The NIMBYs remind me of those damned teabaggers, who cheer the three wars while at the same time demanding their taxes stay low like it is their God given right to more MONIES! Nom nom nom. Where do they think the money for the three wars they are cheering is gonna come from, Chinese Santa Claus?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:How About D.C.? by elucido · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Another teabagger. DC is a majority African-American area, putting a waste dump there would be racist. Why am I not surprised here?

      That hasn't stopped them before has it? "But it might be racist!"

      Look at the country, and tell me when anything healthy is ever dumped in the ghetto.

    12. Re:How About D.C.? by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

      Oh no please! imagine a successful mutation of these people!

    13. Re:How About D.C.? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I wasn't convinced that DC would be a good spot, but after what you wrote, I'm much more convinced now.

      "trendy chinatown"? Really? There are more Chinese things outside of "chinatown' than in chinatown. I can scarcely tell why it is even called chinatown at all. I live here in the DC area at the moment and I have to say, I have never been among such petty, psychotic, paranoid and suspicious people in my life. The people here all make my skin crawl. I frequently do "nice things" for essentially no particular reason and people respond on awe or extreme skepticism. And arrogant sense of entitlement that I see in the more (so called) "affluent" areas only proves that they actually eat the shit they are shovelling.

      It's all about "government industry" out here and you pretty much need to leave your old fashioned ideals and notions of goodness outside if you want to be "successful" by their measure.

    14. Re:How About D.C.? by erroneus · · Score: 0

      African-Americans are ALWAYS the minority. It doesn't matter if they have the numbers, they are always the victims and deserve more benefits, breaks and special programs, or didn't you get the memo?

      For the record, I firmly believe that "racism" is persisted on the present endorsement of special programs and benefits for people of African decent. It's time to end racism and let everyone compete equally.

    15. Re:How About D.C.? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Oh no please! imagine a successful mutation of these people!

      We will just make sure to keep the area free of spiders.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:How About D.C.? by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the red line does stop at Brookland/CUA and Rhode Island which are pretty bad neighborhood, although certainly not as bad as some of the neighborhoods around Anacostia..

      So, it could be the case that if you start at Silver Spring, life expectancy does drop 2 years at every stop (Takoma Park, Fort Totten, Brookland/CUA, Rhode Island) until you get to downtown proper.

    17. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To dispose of nuclear waste you need to find some hard, stable bedrock lying underneath a soft, compliant governor.

    18. Re:How About D.C.? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Is this a joke? Because for anyone actually familiar with the DC area, this makes no sense. The red line actually serves some of the most affluent areas of the DMV.

      Sure. Get out on the wrong stop on the Green line, though, and your life expectancy drops to zero.

    19. Re:How About D.C.? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      ...and the only people who think so are people from Bethesda.

      I clicked on your link thinking it had something to do with Fallout 3 and a nuclear waste dump in the DC area.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    20. Re:How About D.C.? by barlevg · · Score: 1

      Wow, way to miss the point. I agree that Chinatown DC has nothing to do with China, but my point was that I wouldn't associate the area that includes Verizon Center and pretty much all the most highly rated restaurants in DC with low mortality and poverty.

    21. Re:How About D.C.? by barlevg · · Score: 1

      Sure. Get out on the wrong stop on the Green line, though, and your life expectancy drops to zero.

      I've never been on the Green Line south of L'Enfant, but my wife grew up down there, and she concurs.

    22. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Umm, I think the money did come from Chinese Santa.
       

      You better watch out
      You better not cry
      Better not pout
      I'm telling you why
      Mao Zedong is coming to town
      He's giving out cash
      Not quoting a price;
      Finance a war not once but twice
      Mao Zedong is coming to town
      He watches your transactions
      He knows your balance sheet
      If your economy hits depression
      Your credit is up the creek!
      O! You better watch out!
      Watch your bottom line
      You were a superpower
      But you're running out of time
      Mao Zedong is coming to town
      Mao Zedong is coming to town

    23. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists cannot solve the problem related to human action. They can provide answers to the natural sciences, nothing more. It takes a calculation of the different wants of individuals in society to determine what solution is desirable. So, it is time we let the entrepreneurs and society itself work to solve the problem. The nuclear industry has been put to the test of the market before in england during the 90s. Society firmly declared that this form of energy was not competitive. No one in their right mind was willing to insure a dangerous substance that had a lifetime measured in thousands of years. No one wanted anything to do with it, given that its real costs were exposed and its worth stood on its own without additional influences. The government resumed funding of the industry shortly after.

      Granted, there were some applications for reactors that found buyers but they were not general solutions for mass use. Also, this isn't to say that nuclear energy solutions will never be favored. New reactor technologies are invented all the time so I would never make that claim. Lastly, other energy industries were still given special privilege at the time so the choice to abandon nuclear solutions was not unbiased. My point isn't that nuclear energy is or isn't a feasible and competitive solution. My point is that neither politicians nor scientists(in and of themselves) can determine this.

    24. Re:How About D.C.? by camperslo · · Score: 1

      If the casks are shielded adequately, equip them with heat exchangers and use them to heat government buildings, maybe give the guys recreation areas with hot tubs.

      Perhaps the WSJ (and other Muchdoch properties?) should be required to use them for heat regardless, as thanks for running the pseudo-science article "There is no such thing as nuclear waste". The author, also seen on the BBC, didn't even know what boric acid was, claiming it was sent to Japan to clean out pipes. Perhaps giving ignorance and lies equal time qualifies as "balanced" reporting?
      Disinformation is even worse than coverage lacking depth. I hope those behind deliberate misinformation online and elsewhere realize it to be counterproductive as it just breeds deeper mistrust. Skip the pseudo-experts and bring us the truth, editing only for clarity and focus without distorting intent or context.

      Some press-release style postings and videos claim thorium reactors can run on mostly un-enriched or spent fuel along with the thorium. Tons of material going in would still produce tons coming out, but apparently there'd be less dangerous waste per megawatt/year. For an idea that old to not have caught on yet, there must be some significant difficulties. Proponents should be forthcoming with the issues and present any new developments that address them. The claims of instant shutdown with no risk of overheating or excessive pressure on loss of all power-lines and cooling are hard to believe. Proponents should provide technical data detailing the fission products involved and decay heat generation after a shut-down from sustained full power. It's the decay heat that has been the serious problem when cooling has been lost at otherwise successful shutdowns of existing reactors. It starts at about 7.5% of the full operating thermal energy and decays from there. 7.5% of roughly a gigawatt is a tremendous amount of heat energy to cope with.

        It would be great if the spent fuel that's piled up could be sent somewhere and used. If they could use it, perhaps some other countries would take the waste for free. Just get them to agree that they're stuck with maintaining their own nuclear graveyard for the leftovers.

    25. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about the Dugway Proving Grounds. The so called new area 51 or how about even the old area 51. This are pretty stable places with little residences around them. They already have tight ass security. just dig a hole near by and make use super containers and call it day. I hope. The Army will keep an eye out for problems. Hopefully, no one will bomb them during world war 3. But then again it the military would protect these areas anyway.

    26. Re:How About D.C.? by Dachannien · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure Tea Partiers aren't cheering Obama on in Libya.

    27. Re:How About D.C.? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      "Environmental racism" is a strong contender for "dumbest application of the word 'racism' to something that isn't". People put industrial properties on cheap land, because they take up a lot of space. Neighborhoods spring up around the plant, because the land is cheap (and you can walk to work, FWIW). Poor people move there to take advantage of the jobs. Voila! a ghetto surrounded by industrial parks.

    28. Re:How About D.C.? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Anything with "Verizon" in it is already associated with low morality. Poverty is reserved for Verizon's customers.

    29. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would guess you don't live near Yucca Mountain. So, what you're basically saying is... NIMBY?

    30. Re:How About D.C.? by hitmark · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Senate smash puny civil rights!"

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    31. Re:How About D.C.? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, I completely agree. I think it should be stored inside the Capitol. After all, it's the politicians in the capitol who are to blame for the nuclear waste in the first place, since they stupidly won't allow reprocessing. If they reprocessed the waste, it could be used as fuel and there'd hardly be any waste left over. You don't see the French having a lot of trouble with nuclear waste, and reprocessing is part of it. Their nuclear power is also far more economical because of it.

    32. Re:How About D.C.? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It would be great if the spent fuel that's piled up could be sent somewhere and used.

      It can be. We could send it to France, where they happily reprocess nuclear waste and use it as fuel. But we won't do that, because "terrorists might get it".

      We really have no business with nuclear power in this country. We're too stupid. We should instead hire the French to run our nuclear power industry, because we're just too stupid and paranoid to do it ourselves.

    33. Re:How About D.C.? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The people here all make my skin crawl.

      That's funny, I could say the same thing about the people in my city, Phoenix AZ.

      I can't wait to get the hell out of here. But there's no way in hell I'd move to DC. I'm not sure if it'd be any worse than here, but it certainly wouldn't be any better. I'm betting that Detroit would be worse, however.

    34. Re:How About D.C.? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to volunteer my city, Raleigh NC, for whatever kind of nuclear waste you want to store here. It can't really make it suck much more.

    35. Re:How About D.C.? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How many African-Americans are there in the Capitol? I propose putting it all in there.

    36. Re:How About D.C.? by Blitter · · Score: 1

      yes, as a "teabagger" (and props for using that derogatory term, thanks for tipping your hand -- much appreciated), I can assure you the Tea Party is not a giant fan of the iraq war or the extended afghanistan war, and I'm guessing the Nobel Peace Prize committee is just as thrilled as we are about the Libya war. Thank gods we elected "The One" because if we had McCain in there, man, we might be involved in some third war that made so sense whatsoever.

      --
      I am Jack's writable stack pointer.
    37. Re:How About D.C.? by Xaositecte · · Score: 2

      "Teabgger" is a word members of the Tea Party use to identify themselves. There is no hand tipping going on here.

      We internet folks just think it's hilarious because old people apparently have no idea what their kids are talking about when they're playing Halo. Or, (my pet theory) a tea party marketer is intentionally trolling us.

    38. Re:How About D.C.? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2

      The yanks could call the power stations Freedom Fissons Centers :)

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    39. Re:How About D.C.? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Or supply the Earth Defense Force with plenty of rocket launchers.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    40. Re:How About D.C.? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      There's also plenty of non-legal racism in the minds of people. Utoya was just a recent reminder of that.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    41. Re:How About D.C.? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You don't see the French have trouble with it because that kind of stuff isn't reported in international news.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    42. Re:How About D.C.? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, racism, as we understand it is a part of the animal condition. We like to say things like "human condition" but it goes far deeper than mere humanity. But we have seen numerous examples in human society where an -ism is preserved so long as one group is treated as a lesser or unfortunate group. The more we treat women as "the weaker" and black people as "the less capable" by granting them additional ease and free things, the more everyone on both sides of the issue will believe it is necessary to do so. Personally, I know that women are not "the weaker" and black people are not "the less capable." The only thing truly in their way is belief that they are.

    43. Re:How About D.C.? by ChristofferC · · Score: 0

      Nope, they don't have a single breeder reactor running anymore. They shut down their last one in 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#France

    44. Re:How About D.C.? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Reprocessing doesn't require breeders. There's quite a bit of plutonium and U-235 in regular waste.

    45. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey!
      No way, that's on the planet *I* live on.

    46. Re:How About D.C.? by nukenerd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Campersio wrote :-

      If the casks are shielded adequately, equip them with heat exchangers and use them to heat government buildings, maybe give the guys recreation areas with hot tubs
      ....
      It's the decay heat that has been the serious problem ..... It starts at about 7.5% of the full operating thermal energy and decays from there. 7.5% of roughly a gigawatt is a tremendous amount of heat energy to cope with.


      The 7.5% of heat is only immediately after shutdown. It decays rapidly after that. After discharge from the reactor the fuel spends some time (in the UK that means years) in cooling ponds until it is much safer and easier to transport. By then the heat being produced is trivial - with a spent fuel flask (containing several hundred fuel elements) being despatched from a UK power station you cannot even detect any warmth if you put your hand on it. I have done it, I worked in that industry.

    47. Re:How About D.C.? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      France is a world leader but are not totally clean either. They are burying waste the Meuse/Haute Marne Underground Research Laboratory deep geological repository. They have had a few accidents too.

      We could learn a lot from the way they do things, but ultimately we will still have to bury a lot of nuclear waste. In light of the cost of developing re-processing and eventual disposal, on top of the existing costs of acquiring and refining nuclear fuel in the first place and then cleaning up the site of the plant once decommissioned... Well, economically it makes more sense to go for fuel-free generation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re:How About D.C.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you mean Tea Party by "teabaggers", then you don't really understand much about them.

      They do not want 3 wars. They want us to listen to the founders of the country, who said (among other things) for us to avoid foreign entanglements not in our best interests.


      [Notes that even Jefferson violated his own advice]

    49. Re:How About D.C.? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Back when the UK was installing the National Grid we pretty much did that. People didn't want pylons all over the landscape but we had to have an electric grid. Similarly people didn't want telegraph poles but we simply needed them.

      Personally I quite like wind turbines.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re:How About D.C.? by camperslo · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised the cask was that cool. I read a report from Japan that listed the estimated thermal output of a cask that had been in remote intermediate storage for about 7 years at 10 kW. That is spread over a pretty large surface area though, those things look huge. The report didn't say how much time the fuel had been in a cooling pond before that.

      (page 9 of this presentation)
      http://www.denken.or.jp/result/event/seminar/2010/issf/pdf/6-2_powerpoint.pdf

  2. Good luck with that! by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    Most citizens don't even RTFS, figuratively speaking.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  3. Springfield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Try Springfield, they'll do it and they can use the money!

  4. Why? by Lifyre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not do the smart thing and REUSE all of that "waste"? It's actually decent fuel and if you reuse it it becomes significantly less hazardous...

    --
    I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why not do the smart thing and REUSE all of that "waste"? It's actually decent fuel and if you reuse it it becomes significantly less hazardous...

      Because the terrorist. Why do you hate America?

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The process of re-refining that "waste" is the same that's used to create weapons grade material. Don't get me wrong, I believe they should be reusing it but I can see why people would be worried about allowing it.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    4. Re:Why? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

      The process of re-refining that "waste" is the same that's used to create weapons grade material. Don't get me wrong, I believe they should be reusing it but I can see why people would be worried about allowing it.

      So what? There are enough sane people in the world to manage weapons grade material.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    5. Re:Why? by The+O+Rly+Factor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you know? Terrorists are super smart completely invincible secret agents that can escape any jail and break into any nuclear fuel processing facility in the world and take whatever they want and they can't be stopped by anything known to man. Therefore we can't recycle it otherwise we're putting America's children, or something...at risk. Also because Jesus.

    6. Re:Why? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Give the communities the mineral rights to the spent fuel.

      It's more than a source of nuclear fuel (and I don't necessarily mean plutonium: only a small fraction of the U-235 gets used up in a thermal reactor, and the other transuranics are burnable in a fast-flux reactor). There are billions of dollars worth of rhodium, which is in a stable isotope. Rhodium is more valuable than gold even at today's gold price.
      http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=46164&mesg_id=46304

    7. Re:Why? by causality · · Score: 1

      and they can't be stopped by anything known to man

      Well, yeah, they can be stopped. It would require less effort than our current policies, in fact. But sometimes asking people to not do something they really don't have to do is incredibly difficult.

      All it would take is for the US to stop meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. Particularly since they don't do this openly and honestly, but covertly and deceitfully via intelligence agencies. One example is the 1953 overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government and its replacement with a dictator. That's just one example. There are many.

      That incident happened a long time ago, the people who perpetrated it passed away a long time ago, etc., so it's openly acknowledged that this happened. You'd be a fool to think nothing like that goes on today. You'd also be a fool to think the citizens who have to live under such dictators don't hate us for that. Some of them surely are crazy or desperate, or both. All of them understand they would stand zero chance in conventional warfare against a world superpower. Thus terrorism is bred.

      A bit more plausible than the whole "they hate us for our freedoms" bullshit theater for the masses, to make a gross understatement.

      Anyway, the idea that our leaders would have the wisdom, humility, decency, and self-respect to admit that this is wrong and never do things like this again... well, that's a much bigger (though far less amusing) joke than your tongue-in-cheek post.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:Why? by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Holy fuck no. I mean, I realize you Americans are scared of shit of plutonium thanks to your rabid environmentalists, and carter. But hey, if you want to cut your nuclear fuel supplies in half. Please keep sending your waste to Canada, S.Korea and Japan so we can have cheap, inexpensive fuel. I mean we all really like it.

      Or you can grow a fucking pair and jump all over the environmentalists and nimby's for being fucking idiots.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Why? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Exactly. It's easier to start from natural uranium than to try to refine the mixed isotopes from reprocessing.

    10. Re:Why? by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Holy fuck no. I mean, I realize you Americans are scared of shit of plutonium thanks to your rabid environmentalists, and carter. But hey, if you want to cut your nuclear fuel supplies in half. Please keep sending your waste to Canada, S.Korea and Japan so we can have cheap, inexpensive fuel. I mean we all really like it.

      Or you can grow a fucking pair and jump all over the environmentalists and nimby's for being fucking idiots.

      The purpose of the environmentalism is to enforce a kind of soft tyranny. Cheap, abundant, easily accessible energy means fewer people crying out for government to do something about energy, something that everyone uses and everyone needs. The general concept is that government is never going to voluntarily endorse and encourage something that gives people one less thing to worry about. They enjoy appearing to do so because that appeals to the masses, but they do not wish to actually do it. The larger and less local the government, the more true this is. Thus, the local and state governments are not nearly so bad as the federal government with respect to this tendency.

      This is from Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince":

      Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him.

      Unlike 1984, The Prince actually was intended to be something like a manual.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I tried reading and understanding what you wrote but it was so convoluted it made no sense. I think you are the idiot.

    12. Re:Why? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's funny, that core bits of wisdom can be found in works that are over 400 years old. But you're right. There's probably a good reason why modern environmentalists are called watermelons.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Why? by technoCon · · Score: 1

      +1

      Except there's a small problem, our esteemed President Jimmy Carter made fuel reprocessing illegal, citing non-proliferation concerns. Or maybe fears of giant killer rabbits, idunno. So, whoever got the contract would need to get a waiver. Or secede. And with nukes, they could get away with it. All even sentences of this paragraph are spoken in jest. Or are they?

    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George H. W. Bush signed an executive order making it illegal to reprocess spent uranium rods. Until that order is overturned the spent rods can not be reprocessed in any way.

    15. Re:Why? by lennier · · Score: 2

      Cheap, abundant, easily accessible energy means fewer people crying out for government to do something about energy, something that everyone uses and everyone needs.

      You mean like wind and solar?

      Most environmental arguments I've seen against nuclear power and for renewables make the same point: that renewable energy sources - compared to big expensive and dangerous fission or fusion plants, or even slightly less expensive and dangerous oil and gas plants - are cheap and safe to implement, which means they can be distributed widely around the nation and world, which means big government and big business get out of the energy game, the grid is more resilient, people are more self-reliant and less dependent on the system.

      In other worlds, exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. Interesting, that.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    16. Re:Why? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Wind and solar, alas, don't work 24 hours a day in most places. And while wind is pretty cost-effective, I'm not sure I'd say the same about solar unless you're privy to some very special information.

    17. Re:Why? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Wind and solar are neither cheap nor inexpensive. On average the price per-resell to offset the cost of both are in the 60-90c/kwh range, where the nominal market price is in the 0.04-0.10c/kwh. Nuclear is just fine, it's safe. What isn't safe are reactors that are pushing 20 years past their design lifetime thanks to environmentalists and their anti-nuke agenda. And refusing to upgrade to newer and safer plant designs.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:Why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You mean, Uraninite? (As opposed to Urinade)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a manual on ruling an authocratie. As Machiavelli pointed out in The Prince, you should read another book on how to rule a democracy.

    20. Re:Why? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      You realize that fossil fuel power is only cheap because no one's paying for the massive externalities it brings, and we're basically using up the world's inertial tendency to keep going as it was as a crutch? And there's the whole "using up within a few centuries what took a quarter billion years to make" aspect.

      Or did you really think we can dump a thousand billion tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, 3/4 of which then go to acidifying the oceans, without consequence? Sure, it won't have immediate kick-in-the-crotch consequences, but nor will slowly pouring sand onto the top of a large skyscraper. But boy are you people going to be sad when we tip out of the quasi-stable point we're in. And the scientists who will by then have spent a century trying to stop you will be too busy trying to pick up the pieces to say "Told you."

      And how, pray tell, does your thesis account for the fact that most western governments pay a great fraction of the cost of installing renewable power at a local level, and actively fund renewable energy startups, and are themselves installing renewable power? Is this some sort of "Anything they appear to do that's decent is actually a mask for an even deeper malice and evil" theory?

    21. Re:Why? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Your post is what's called for when someone trivializes an engineering or scientific problem. In your haste, you failed to realize that the physics and engineering behind fuel reprocessing were necessarily solved during the Manhattan Project seventy years ago.

      What we have here is something far more inimical and insidious - a myopic dumbass politicians problem, compounded by an even greater dumbass population problem.

    22. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't seen the environmentalists that oppose wind on the grounds that birds fly into windmills, or hydro-electric dams on the grounds that fishes are endangered.

      At any rate, neither wind nor solar can be distributed over a grid - all that can be done is that they are locally consumed. In case of solar, the way it works (and is good for) is that it provides power to the house it's installed in, and reduces the power that consumed from the main supply. It's particularly good for peak consumption, such as air-conditioning. But one can't use that to power a city, and even now, panels are expensive.

      Windmills are completely weather dependent, and what's worse, people don't like the sight of it even anywhere near their property. Which puts paid to that idea.

    23. Re:Why? by dkf · · Score: 1

      Wind and solar, alas, don't work 24 hours a day in most places.

      It depends on the type of plant you build. By using a suitable storage material (e.g., the Andasol plant in Spain uses a mix of sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate) the average daily generating time can be extended by 7.5 hours or so (i.e., long into the evening, when you really want it). In other parts of the world, it really is windy a very large fraction of the time; the majority of the US is probably a bit too close to the equator for that to hold, but it really makes a huge amount of sense for northern and western Europe. Wave and tidal power also have a lot of potential (tidal in particular locations, wave on any oceanic coast) but they're less proven because of the difficulty of getting the engineering right.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    24. Re:Why? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      There are nutjobs everywhere. Mengele was a scientist but we aren't going to ignore science over that, right?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    25. Re:Why? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It's not the environmentalists who extend the runtimes of reactors beyond what they should be.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    26. Re:Why? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      There are two types of environmentalists :-

      1) Those who want to preserve nature, pandas, wildlife and scenery, and to minimise the effect of man on the world.

      2) Those who obsessed with the idea that "The Authorities" are trying to poison them with chemicals and radiation. They are prepared to destroy any amount of nature to reduce the perceived "poison" by one jot.

      I am an environmentalist of the first kind, and I am a nuclear power station engineer.

      "Environmentalism" started out as the first type, but has degenerated into the second type, becoming a sort of anti-establishment socialism. That would have been about the time that the UK Green Party (or was it the FoE?) abandoned its long term aim of reducing the UK population level.

      In the UK there is already an alarming total area given over to wind generators. This is mostly in hilly and (previously) scenic areas, because that is where there are fewer people's back yards. They only exist because of subsidies which act in a peculiar (some would say corrupt) way. Yet their total contribution to the UK power requirement is miniscule. They are ugly, distracting, and industrialise the countryside. To meet the UK requirement even on a windy day would require vastly more area of windfarms, like covering all the National Parks, the Surrey Hills, the Cotswold Hills, the Mendips, The Downs - just as a start. I don't want what little remains of the English countryside to be ruined.

      Yet even that would not save one conventional or nuclear power station because there are times in the UK, sometimes several days, when there is no wind anywhere - France at the same time, before you suggest they supply it.

      Conventional power stations are also ugly, but give far more power per unit of ugliness however you might measure it.

    27. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Prince was a resume because Machiavelli wanted to get a job once the Medici were back in power. notice most of the examples were about Lorenzo Medici being completely awesome. His full-length work (`manual`) was The Discourses. Machiavelli died before he found out his resume wasn't accepted and we wouldn't get the job he wanted.

    28. Re:Why? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ...the Andasol plant in Spain uses a mix of sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate...

      And when they're done with those all nitrates, they can cure some mighty tasty Chorizo or make black [gun] powder.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    29. Re:Why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Problem is the world is moving away from nuclear power, so by the time you get the re-processing infrastructure in place and start churning it out the demand isn't going to be there. Fair or not investors are unwilling to pump money into that sort of thing because the current system of storage and new green technologies are more likely to give them a good return.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:Why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I support green technologies and I can tell you that your assertions are bullshit. I don't like breathing in pollution, or having to worry about nuclear accidents, being dependent on oil and its high price, or having huge piles of rubbish. Therefore I support lower emissions from cars, less nuclear power generation in favour of fuel-free renewable sources, recycling instead of dumping or burning rubbish etc.

      It has nothing to do with any political philosophy or wanting attention, and certainly not taking us back to the dark ages. I just want my life to get better, to not have to take medication for dust allergies, to have more disposable income thanks to not spending so much on petrol or utility bills. To me it seems like the best way to make that happen is to buy a more efficient car (done), recycle as much as possible (it is a chore, but I'm doing it) and support renewable energy over coal, gas and nuclear. Yes, nuclear too because it's too expensive and the operators have been demonstrating their incompetence for decades, despite repeated attempts to rectify the situation. I'll happily live next door or a wind farm or geothermal plant, but not a nuclear one because of the safety/incompetence issues and not a coal one because of pollution. Unfortunately they build a rubbish burner near my house and I can't afford to move away, but first opportunity I get I will. Since it started I have found I need to clean everything far more often because of all the soot it belches out.

      Anyway, fuck you and your bullshit, my goal is to get cheap and abundant energy for everyone. Yours seems to be to protect a broken business model which has to be heavily subsidised by the government (i.e. me and every other tax payer) and yet tolerates regular cock-ups that no other industry would.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:Why? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      ". But hey, if you want to cut your nuclear fuel supplies in 1/180."

      TFTFY.

      I suppose what you say is probably correct for MOX reprocessing.

      For every unit mass of enriched uranium fuel we create, we set aside about 8 units of "depleted uranium". For each unit mass of enriched uranium fuel, only something on the order of about 5 percent actually gets fissioned.

      In a fast breeder reactor, you could eventually (it takes multiple rounds of reprocessing and fissioning in the reactor) burn up close to 100% of the uranium and plutonium (a fast breeder will transmute the non-fissile U-238 into PU 239, 240, and 241 which can then be fissioned), plus you can take the "depleted uranium", which as I said above, represents about 8 times the mass of the enriched uranium, and transmute all that into PU in the fast breeder reactor as well.

      So, currently, we use 5 percent of 1/9 of the fuel, or

      0.5556 percent of the fuel supply. 1/0.005556 ~= 180

    32. Re:Why? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, a lot of the nuclear waste is actually garbage like reactor core components, tools, gloves, and shields that became radioactive from neutron bombardment. That stuff can't be re-refined or treated to become useful again. In fact, a huge aspect of designing new reactors is to reduce the amount of this kind of waste.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    33. Re:Why? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "Rhodium is more valuable than gold even at today's gold price."

      Yeah, but if we start 'mining' our nuclear waste for Rhodium, we'll glut the market and it will become 'merely' as valuable as oil.

    34. Re:Why? by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      >> Urinade

      Man, since Gatorade went to G* ... they've gotten some really interesting choices.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    35. Re:Why? by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      There's a hundred people pointing out problems with your interpretation of what The Prince INTENDED to be. I thought I would add the funny one from cracked.com

      ------------------------

      If you've ever heard a politician or other powerful person referred to as "Machiavellian," you can guess it's not a compliment. That's thanks to a shifty-looking Italian diplomat named Machiavelli. He was bad enough that we turned his name into a pejorative adjective that means "cruel, amoral tyrant." Napoleon, Stalin and Mussolini were three of his biggest fans, and the Mafia considers Machiavelli the father of the organization.

      In his defense, he cleans up well.

      The reason for this is Machiavelli's The Prince, one of the most notorious political treatises ever written, designed as an instruction manual for the Florentine dictator Lorenzo de' Medici to help him be more of a bastard. Completely disregarding moral concerns in politics, the book serves as a levelheaded discourse on the best way to assert and maintain power, noting that it's better to be feared than loved, and that dishonesty pays off in the long run as long as you lie about how dishonest you are.

      Machiavelli's masterpiece is equal parts brilliant and irresponsible, showing tyrants how best to run a country like a video game.
      [Civ3 shot .. playing as Ruskies]

      What it's really about:

      Actually, Machiavelli was totally just trolling. Far from being the spiritual patriarch of the Gambino crime family, he was a renowned proponent of free republics, as noted in a few obscure texts called everything else he ever wrote. The reason The Prince endured the ages while the rest of his philosophy gathered dust in the back of an old library warehouse is chiefly 1) it's really short, and 2) it angries up the blood. By far the best way to get a book on the best-seller list is to write something that pisses everyone off, but the drawback is that it steamrolls the message of any work that's only meant to be understood in context.

      The context in this case is that the Medici family to whom he dedicated his love letter is the same group who personally broke Machiavelli's arms for being such a staunch advocate for free government. He worked for the Florentine Republic before the Medicis marched in, mowed down the government and mercilessly tortured him, and then he sat down and wrote The Prince from his shack in exile, assumedly with some really bendy handwriting (on account of the arms). When you learn about that, it kind of adds a new layer of meaning to the text -- it suddenly sounds like it's dripping with sarcasm.

      Not everyone was in on the joke.

      For centuries, the consensus on Machiavelli's best-known work has been that he was just trying to brown-nose his way back into the government. But a deeper study of his full body of work reveals that this is a pretty absurd ambition, considering not only did Machiavelli repeatedly say that "popular rule is always better than the rule of princes," but after he wrote The Prince, he went right on back to writing treatises about the awesomeness of republics. Considering also that he was no stranger to the literary art of satire, scholars these days are turning to a more likely scenario -- Machiavelli was the Stephen Colbert of the Renaissance.

      Part of the blame might also be leveled at the shitty job that people have done in trying to translate his work into English. It's from Machiavelli that we get the notorious phrase "the end justifies the means." A much more accurate translation from the original Italian is something more like "one must consider the end," which kind of means something totally different.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    36. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit more plausible than the whole "they hate us for our freedoms" bullshit theater for the masses, to make a gross understatement.

      Well, you have to give them credit. They almost got it right, they just misspelled "meddling".

    37. Re:Why? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. Because environmentalists, nimby's and environmental groups like greenpeace have been against new reactors. Leaving old ones to be running bast their lifetime. The US has a anti-nuke hysteria. This has been fed heaps of ignorance since the 60's, by the environmental groups.

      Pretending otherwise is just being ignorant of the history of environmental groups.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    38. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for the derail, but citation? And intended as a manual by whom? Machiavelli's politics were not necessarily aligned with a direct reading of "The Prince."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#Interpretation_of_The_Prince_as_political_satire

  5. Ridiculous idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, anyone NOT think this group came up with a ridiculous idea? They've apparently been lead to believe that NIMBY means "Nuclear In My Backyard Yes" instead of "Not In My Back Yard". People are supposed to say "we want this here"? How poverty stricken does an area need to be to get local consensus on that? Detroit? Worse? And how many of the folks who later claim they did not agree would be suing because "the nukular caused autism"?

    1. Re:Ridiculous idea by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that nobody in their right mind would agree to this as the Federal Government is already being sued for failure to clean currently used sites. They're way behind schedule on work at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and I have no particular faith that this would change in the future.

      OTOH if we can get a site in a red state perhaps we can at least get some social justice out of this.

    2. Re:Ridiculous idea by carlzum · · Score: 2

      The idea is rational, the only question is if it's practical. I bet lucrative incentives are more cost effective than fighting legal and political opposition. Something like the Alaska Permanent Fund would be very appealing to poor communities. It makes perfect sense to at least explore the idea.

    3. Re:Ridiculous idea by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      This idea first came from an episode of Not ^Necessarily The News in the 1980s. It's amazing how they are now taking it seriously.

      Comedy Central was co-owned by HBO. If only The Daily Show could dip into the N^NTN archives at HBO for this segment and run it. Or someone could get it up on YouTube? (It is still not released on DVD, reaired on HBO Comedy, nor streaming AFAICT; only available as a Best Of VHS tape, and I don't know if this segment (at least two parts) is on that tape.)

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:Ridiculous idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason they ask permission of the communities is obviously that they want to recreate the community founder made of compressed highest grade nuclear waste at the community center. As a bonus, the dwellers get a real hot spot right in the center where the action is. That will surely activate the community and make it more lively.

    5. Re:Ridiculous idea by causality · · Score: 1

      The problem is that nobody in their right mind would agree to this as the Federal Government is already being sued for failure to clean currently used sites. They're way behind schedule on work at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and I have no particular faith that this would change in the future.

      That's the real problem. There is a track record. People who might otherwise be open to this idea can see how poorly it has been handled in the past. Now they're not so open to this idea. If you want cooperation, the trick is to not create these situations in the first place.

      OTOH if we can get a site in a red state perhaps we can at least get some social justice out of this.

      It's very rare I see anyone advocate their notion of "social justice" by any means other than some kind of force or threat of force. That's a shame. Persuasion based on sound reason is a far nobler path. Certainly the things that could go wrong with nuclear waste represent force. Nuclear radiation is not going to have abstract debate with anyone. If that's a joke, well, there are more amusing ones.

      That has to be what you meant, too. Otherwise you could call it "justice" when people knowingly take a risk and it doesn't work out so well for them. They're definitely not victims because they made a conscious, informed decision and reaped the results. And only a very petty and childish mentality would want to separate adults from the consequences of their actions. No victim means no injustice. However, that would apply to all states. Even the "blue" ones.

      Incidentally, the color red has been associated with leftist thought, particularly its more extreme forms such as communism, for about a century. It seems like the "red state = Republicans" is therefore misnamed, or some kind of intentional newspeak. They're definitely assholes, but they are not leftist assholes. Not that it matters much to me. I'd like to see a US federal government that is about 20% the size and power of the one we know today, with any remaining slack being picked up by the states as intended by the whole notion of federalism. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans intend to do that. Compared to that, the issues they squabble over are trivial and useless.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Ridiculous idea by slashqwerty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They've apparently been lead to believe that NIMBY means "Nuclear In My Backyard Yes" instead of "Not In My Back Yard"

      NIMBY shouldn't even be an issue at Yucca Mountain. It is located on one of the biggest military sites in the nation, right next to the place we tested some 900 nuclear weapons. It is as far from anyone's back yard as can be and right next to a radioactive wasteland.

    7. Re:Ridiculous idea by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>It seems like the "red state = Republicans" is therefore misnamed, or some kind of intentional newspeak

      Yeah, that has always bugged me, too. According to Wikipedia, it was Tim Russert who coined it, arbitrarily, but it always seems very counterintuitive to me.

    8. Re:Ridiculous idea by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      IIRC the networks used to alternate blue and red for the parties. Somewhere in the late 90s or early 2000s this became fixed, quite likely as a sort of in-joke (having the Republicans be red).

  6. China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Send it all to China!

    1. Re:China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send it all to China!

      We could recycle it except we signed a treaty barring us from doing so because it is too easy to turn it into nuclear weapons. Sending it out of the country seems like an even worse idea.

    2. Re:China? by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      So send it out to Canada instead. Or France. Or Japan.

    3. Re:China? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Probably makes sense. China recycles anything, no matter how many workers it kills and has its own nuclear weapons production so proliferation isn't a concern, China got all the nukes it wants.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  7. Uh... The Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering the expense of long term (centuries) management of nuclear waste, let's just deal with the solution permanently by contracting out to say, SpaceX, and send it on a one way trip to El Sol.

    1. Re:Uh... The Sun by repapetilto · · Score: 2

      What if the rocket blows up?

    2. Re:Uh... The Sun by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      We don't do that with chemical poisons like mercury and arsenic that will be toxic forever. Why have a double standard for the hazardous materials from nuclear operations?

    3. Re:Uh... The Sun by cratermoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Check the cost of safely putting a kilogram of payload into a sun-diving trajectory. Check the density of uranium and plutonium, and the total volume of waste just sitting there waiting to be dealt with, forgetting for the time being the stuff that's still to come. Get back to to us with your findings and comparison with the cost of other radioactive waste disposal methods. Show your work.

  8. Why not just turn it off? by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about a day, announced a month or so in advance, where all nuclear power plants in the US are simply turned off? For 24 hours.

    How about delivering a 50lb sack of coal ash to every single household in the US the day after, so they can see what the result of coal-fired power plants really is? It would need to include a full-color brochure listing all of the toxic substances that come out of the chimney from a coal plant as well.

    If we did these things there might be less opposition to dealing with nuclear waste. Oh, and how about some PSAs showing a huge mountain of materials saying that nobody could go near this for 10,000 years and then show the small trash can that shows what is left after reprocessing.

    Instead of doing any of these things we are allowing the pseudo-environmental movement to control the discussion to the point where we will be shutting down nuclear plants in the US, we will be shutting down coal plants in the US and we will have a new electrical system whereby there is power during the day and nothing at night. If you are rich and can afford 100KWh of batteries, you might have lights and TV at night. Maybe, until someone passes some regulations saying that it is discriminatory and unfair.

    The US is clearly headed down the path of unreliable electric power with limited capacity. How will this affect future generations? Well, you can bet that computers in the home will not be a big deal in the future - unless they run on batteries that are charged up during the day.

    1. Re:Why not just turn it off? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      10 million dead babies? Caused by nuclear power?

      Source please.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:Why not just turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a day, announced a month or so in advance, where all nuclear power plants in the US are simply turned off?

      Because the last time they did that, California had massive blackouts and billions in debt load.

      Also, because some of us still have responsible utilities running their electric system.

    3. Re:Why not just turn it off? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      "WIthout about 10 million dead babies and misformed born babies in twe lost worldwide due to radioactivity you would be spreading propaganda. And we had enough of that shit. So just turn those damn things off. And leave them off."

      Trolol.

      Sorry, there are no dead babies as a result of nuclear power. None misformed either. There are several million misinformed babies (such as yourself) as a result of the dogmatic opponents of nuclear power, but that's not really what we're talking about.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    4. Re:Why not just turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a day, announced a month or so in advance, where all nuclear power plants in the US are simply turned off? For 24 hours.

      How about delivering a 50lb sack of coal ash to every single household in the US the day after, so they can see what the result of coal-fired power plants really is? It would need to include a full-color brochure listing all of the toxic substances that come out of the chimney from a coal plant as well.

      If we did these things there might be less opposition to dealing with nuclear waste. Oh, and how about some PSAs showing a huge mountain of materials saying that nobody could go near this for 10,000 years and then show the small trash can that shows what is left after reprocessing.

      Instead of doing any of these things we are allowing the pseudo-environmental movement to control the discussion to the point where we will be shutting down nuclear plants in the US, we will be shutting down coal plants in the US and we will have a new electrical system whereby there is power during the day and nothing at night. If you are rich and can afford 100KWh of batteries, you might have lights and TV at night. Maybe, until someone passes some regulations saying that it is discriminatory and unfair.

      The US is clearly headed down the path of unreliable electric power with limited capacity. How will this affect future generations? Well, you can bet that computers in the home will not be a big deal in the future - unless they run on batteries that are charged up during the day.

      Delivering a 50lb coal sack to towns surrounding a coal plant is a fantastic way to raise awareness. Most people probably never think about it like that. If you set up a charity to send 50lb coal bags to people, I will donate...

    5. Re:Why not just turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about delivering a 50lb sack of coal ash [Grandparent Post]

      Delivering a 50lb coal sack[Parent Post]

      These are two different things. Coal ash (aka "fly ash") is almost toxic waste—not something you want in your water supply in great quantities, but not something that's going to harm you if delivered to your doorstep in a sack. It has plenty of industrial uses (like being an ingredient of concrete), but the average consumer might find a sack of coal more immediately useful for his own purposes, like grilling outdoors, whereas sacks of coal ash would most likely get collected by the municipal government for industrial use.

    6. Re:Why not just turn it off? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Coal ash (aka "fly ash") is almost toxic waste—not something you want in your water supply in great quantities,

      Oddly enough it ends up in the ash dam in most modern power plants. Fly ash is the light stuff that gets removed by scrubbers (lots of water) or bag filters. Bottom ash is the heavy stuff that falls out the bottom. Chemically it's all relatively similar to sand, structurally it ranges from big fused lumps of clinker to tiny hollow cenospheres that float on the water of the ash dams.
      The "toxic waste" shit from bad 1970s nuclear PR is getting very old especially since there are far worse things in the monitor and computer in front of you in vastly higher concentrations. If your yard was filled with ash the only thing you would have to worry about is a lack of real topsoil to grow lawn or vegetables. If your house was built from it you would be living in a "cinderblock" house.
      There are a LOT of things wrong with burning coal but you managed to pick one thing that is not on the list.

    7. Re:Why not just turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      we are allowing the pseudo-environmental movement to control the discussion to the point where we will be shutting down nuclear plants in the US

      No, their actions have been worse than this.
      They're not getting old, dilapidated reactors shut down... quite the opposite. They're extending the life on these reactors by preventing safer, more efficient reactors from being built.

      Solar and wind power have killed more people than nuclear power. But nuclear might catch up if we're forced to keep using ~50 year old designs and ~40 year old reactors, while also being given no way to reprocess the waste.

    8. Re:Why not just turn it off? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It's industry-lobbied politicians extending the reactor lifetimes. The industry paid a ton to get those reactors built and now they want to squeeze every penny out of the thing. Japan didn't have much public resistance against nuclear power and yet they had a massively outdated plant blow up. Even with newer reactors built the old ones get extended because of lobby pressure. In Germany we overcame the lobby pressure and our old reactors finally have a shutdown schedule. The conservatives would happily have extended the things like they were Disney copyrights.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:Why not just turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good bury the shit in YOUR backyard.

    10. Re:Why not just turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's industry-lobbied politicians extending the reactor lifetimes.

      No, it's the demand for electricity.

      The scenario is this:
      You've got a city which needs X megawatts of electricity.
      You've got a coal plant, a nuclear plant, and a hydro plant serving it.
      Your nuclear plant is reaching the end of its designed life - but you still need X megawatts.
      You can't get more power from your hydro plant and solar/wind can't provide the power needed without chewing up massive amounts of real estate and costing lots of money.
      The NIMBY crowd won't let you build coal/nuclear/hydro/solar/wind.

      So it's far cheaper and easier (in the short run) to just extend the life of the nuclear plant.

      In Germany we overcame the lobby pressure and our old reactors finally have a shutdown schedule.

      Or, in the case of Germany, just buy from nuclear-powered France.

    11. Re:Why not just turn it off? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "WIthout about 10 million dead babies and misformed born babies in twe lost worldwide"

      If anyone is spreading propaganda, it's you and people like you, who keep spreading these lies. That is absolute B.S. The science does NOT show 10 million dead babies from radiation sickness or cancer, and does not show that nuclear power plants have caused misformed babies.

    12. Re:Why not just turn it off? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy to have some of it. I wouldn't try to put it in a 100,000 year geological repository.

      What we need are interim repositories that can safely store the waste for a few hundred years. Then, we need to start building reactors based on the "Integral Fast Reactor" design, and maybe some Liquid Chloride Fast Reactors - two types of fast reactor which can burn up the long lived waste products in spent nuclear fuel.

      So, we need 'phase 1' interim storage, where we store the spent nuclear fuel for about a hundred years (because it will take us that long to burn all the 'waste' we've already generated), and 'phase 2' where the final waste products are stored for about 300 years. After 300 years, that 'final waste' is essentially non-radioactive, and could safely just be buried or put back in old uranium mines (it would be, if I understand correctly, less radioactive than when it was first dug out of the ground) or some other suitable burial site.

      The thing is, our current nuclear waste represents a resource worth many Billions, probably Trillions of dollars. In addition to more energy you could extract by burning off the wastes, you can also 'mine' the waste for various elements/isotopes which are created as byproducts of the fission reaction and decay chains, and are very valuable for industrial and medical purposes.

  9. Encourage me... by Freddybear · · Score: 1, Funny

    So, Harry Reid, how much "encouragement" will you need to use Yucca Mountain? Another trillion or two do it for you?

    1. Re:Encourage me... by The+Man · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I lived in Las Vegas for 12 years. There was absolutely no way we wanted that stuff stored at Yucca Mountain; it is a geologically active area and every proposed transport route for the waste went through the city. All that would be mere hypocrisy if not for the fact that Nevada has no nuclear power plants and derives virtually none of its electricity from nuclear sources outside the state. This is completely orthogonal to whether nuclear power is a good idea, whether it can be made safe, whether fast reactors are better, whether waste should instead be reprocessed or turned into glass or shot into space, and just how bad coal or hydro or other sources are for us and the rest of earth's inhabitants. It's nothing more complicated than the fact that Yucca Mountain is at best a mediocre site, the local residents don't want it, and the waste is generated elsewhere for the primary benefit of people who do not live in Nevada. That should have been sufficient to make the feds look elsewhere 15 years ago, but for some reason it wasn't. That the state won the fight is cheering; that a fight was even necessary is an appalling violation of states' rights. Finding a geologically suitable site in a state with nuclear power plants and residents who trust the government to transport and store the waste safely in their vicinity is an excellent idea. If they'd done that in the first place, we'd all have billions of dollars back -- and we'd probably have a nuke dump, too. But it certainly wouldn't be at Yucca Mountain; the federal government has abused and betrayed Nevadans from the day the state was admitted to the union, and there is absolutely no way its residents will ever trust it with their lives and property. That they gain little or nothing from nuclear power serves only to reinforce their already compelling case. Let those who like the federal government and think it's full of good, kind, well-meaning and competent public servants take the waste from their own power plants instead. It's the right thing for everyone.

    2. Re:Encourage me... by Freddybear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's face it, nobody wants the stuff near them. That's what NIMBY means.
      Nevadans don't trust the government? Welcome to the club.
      Find another site? Why? The BANANAS will act all butt-hurt no matter where. Let's face it, even if Yucca Mountain isn't the perfect site, it's still a hell of a lot safer than leaving all that crap in pools at reactor sites.

    3. Re:Encourage me... by The+Man · · Score: 2

      I guess my point was that there are particular reasons Nevada was and remains a highly inappropriate choice. NIMBY sounds a lot less compelling when you're living next to a reactor and running your gear on its juice.

    4. Re:Encourage me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yall in Nevada barely get any electricity from Hoover dam, either, so what is your point exactly?

    5. Re:Encourage me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got bad news for you. Nevada already has a nuclear waste dump close to Las Vegas, and it always will. It's called the Nevada National Security Site. It's peppered with craters from underground tests. The existence of that already-contaminated site was a large factor in selecting Yucca Mountain as a waste disposal site within it, because it is very remote and effectively you've already got a waste storage site there and all the infrastructure and personnel related to keeping it monitored and secure. It's kind of like a "two-for-one" deal. That doesn't mean the historical decision to put the test operations there was the right thing to do, but it is (or was) a logical reason to consider the area for additional waste storage now.

      All of the reasons you have described are good reasons for not putting a new site in your backyard, but those reasons are not unique to Nevada (most of them could apply anywhere).

    6. Re:Encourage me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...There was absolutely no way we wanted that stuff stored at Yucca Mountain; it is a geologically active area ....

      Let's face it, nobody wants the stuff near them. That's what NIMBY means.
      Nevadans don't trust the government? Welcome to the club.
      Find another site? Why? The BANANAS will act all butt-hurt no matter where. Let's face it, even if Yucca Mountain isn't the perfect site, it's still a hell of a lot safer than leaving all that crap in pools at reactor sites.

      I think you missed the part about it being a geologically active area. There is no place in the basin and range province that would be a safe place to store nuclear waste. I think at the time it was a choice between Yucca Mountain and Deaf Smith County in Texas, which was a safer choice scientifically. The Nevada site was chosen mostly for political reasons, not the least of which was that George Bush I was running for election and he didn't want to antagonize his home state.

    7. Re:Encourage me... by Xacid · · Score: 2

      1) "and every proposed transport route for the waste went through the city"

      I don't see how that's even an issue. The containers themselves have been proven to withstand the impact of a TRAIN. And likely much more at this stage. If you're worried about some sort of traffic congestion by a hypothetical influx of waste being transported in - then I'm fairly certain the city can pass an ordinance to allow such materials in the town and force them to take alternate routes.

      2) While wikipedia isn't the best source you're welcome to train the citations in regards to the earthquake situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Earthquakes They've already discussed that problem. And again - they'll also be in those containers mentioned above to the best of my knowledge.

      Frankly, I don't see the problem. The only sound argument comes from the comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Cancelation_of_project

      It essentially says that Yucca would work as a good short term (hundreds of years) storage where the fuel would likely be removed later on for uses elsewhere and that better options exist today for permanent storage (non recoverable).

      Personally, I'd like to see our nuclear program continue and see the USA get smart with how it reuses waste fuel.

    8. Re:Encourage me... by Freddybear · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't miss that part. I guess you missed the part about "...safer than sitting in pools at reactor sites".

      There is no place on earth that could meet all the requirements of the BANANAS. If there was, they would change their requirements.

    9. Re:Encourage me... by The+Man · · Score: 1

      The studies you cite were all conducted by the government or by people working under government contracts. Those are the same people who would benefit from selling the casks and waste management services to the government, so they all have an interest in making it look like Yucca Mountain is a safe and effective place to store high-level waste. Maybe it is, but they spent so much time and energy trying to convince us that their credibility is nil. After all, if they're so good at managing the transportation and storage of high-level waste, surely there's no reason they couldn't just fill a few empty warehouses in Detroit or Omaha or Baltimore with the casks, right? Because it's all so safe, right?

      You even hint at another reason for skepticism. At best, Yucca Mountain might have a few hundred years of safe and effective storage before there's an accident in transport, a geological event, a leak, or some other event that we've all been told is simply impossible or has a 0.00001% chance of happening in 10,000 years. By that time, all the people responsible for designing and implementing the storage and transport system will be long gone. So there is zero accountability in the process: the people involved could know the waste will be in the groundwater in 100 years and no one responsible would live long enough to stand trial for it. Similarly, they could provide even wholly independent testing labs with cask "samples" that are engineered and manufactured to far higher standards than the production casks would be. By the time anyone discovers this, they're all dead and there are thousands of tonnes of extremely hazardous toxic waste in transport or underground with containment less than called for in the design. Of course, we're told that the government has ways of detecting and preventing these kinds of things from happening, which is why every few years you read about that same government giving its soldiers and sailors defective weapons and armour made by those same government contractors and tested using those same government protocols.

      Maybe none of these things is true. Maybe Yucca Mountain really is a great choice, and maybe the casks really will last thousands of years and really can survive being smashed by a train or tossed off the Empire State Building by King Kong. It's a stretch, but it's not impossible. But I don't really believe the people who told us all that, I don't trust them, and no one else who would have had to bear the consequences of failure did, either. Hopefully somewhere there is a town full of people who, like you, have more trust in the government and their contractors and would welcome the opportunity to show the world how a skilled labour force can partner with the federal government and its major contracting corporations to deliver a safe and reliable system for transporting waste to their storage facility and keeping it there without leaks for at least 10,000 years (it really needs to be 100,000, but I'll give you credit for a length of time no greater than that of human history to this point). And after 10,000 years of that skilled labour force and those honest government employees -- I should say governmentS employees, since no government has ever lasted longer than a thousand years or so -- and contracting corporations providing a flawless safety record, your town's water supply, genetic health, and agricultural output will all be every bit as good as they are today. Then our descendents can all agree that the people of Nevada way back in the day sure were a bunch of Nervous Nellies who turned away a golden opportunity to employ a few people for no good reason (and that would really be the only benefit, since the state would get no tax revenue from the facility or its construction as it would all be on government land with government labour and contractors domiciled out of state). That's assuming that anyone 10,000 years from now even knows what Nevada or Yucca Mountain or the United States of America were, or for that matter that there's thousands of tonnes

  10. i like drinking pseudo clean water by decora · · Score: 0

    and breathing pseudo air that doesnt cause pseudo cancer and pseudo pulmonary disease.

    the pseudo environmental movement are the only pseudo people who seem to pseudo care if pseudo industry pours pseudo mercury and pseudo lead into the pseudo environment where it is pseudo absorbed by pseudo children.

    1. Re:i like drinking pseudo clean water by Fordiman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, see, chemical issue are /actual/ problems. You know, like coal ash, and carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, nuclear waste, while mildly radioactive, is an easily contained solid, and is produced in tiny quantities when compared to fossil fuel ash. Someone who actually gives a shit about the environment would do their research on nuclear power (and not from Greenpeace's website), learn what the /real/ safety concerns are, and push for solutions to those concerns. They would not, mind, push to eliminate the smallest mining/waste footprint per joule, lowest fatality count per joule, lowest land-use per watt technology we have, renewables included.

      Anti-nuclear environmentalists always worry me: how is it you can be concerned about all the right things and still get such a wrong answer?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    2. Re:i like drinking pseudo clean water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, nuclear waste, while mildly radioactive, is an easily contained solid, and is produced in tiny quantities when compared to fossil fuel ash.

      You're kidding, right?
      The small quantities of highly radioactive waste are extremely difficult to contain. It will eventually eat threw glass and just about everything else that it's put in. As far as the low level waste, I would hardly call the enormous quantities of material, from old - now radioactive concrete walls, to radioactive broken wrenches, to huge quantities of radioactive water, to, well just about anything and everything that is part of, or goes into maintaining a nuclear power plant. The amount of bad stuff is BIG and hard to store safely.

    3. Re:i like drinking pseudo clean water by fru1tcake · · Score: 1

      the smallest mining/waste footprint per joule, lowest fatality count per joule, lowest land-use per watt technology we have, renewables included

      Does this take into account the cancer deaths from Chernobyl (between 30,000 and 985,000, depending on who you talk ask) and ultimately Fukushima, and the land degradation from nuclear fallout in both cases (which might be considered under both waste footprint and land-use-per-watt)? If so, do you have figures to show this (I am genuinely interested)? How do you calculate land-use-per-watt for roof-mounted photovoltaic systems (which effectively don't require developing any more land)?

      For the record, in asking these questions, I am not implying that nuclear is worse than fossil fuels. I think they all have to go, and we already have the technological resources to replace them, at least for electricity production. What fossil fuels we have left should be saved for their more long-term uses such as creating steel, plastics, and (until we can get large-scale sustainable agriculture in place) fertiliser.

      --
      It's not a bug, it's a lepidopter!
    4. Re:i like drinking pseudo clean water by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades.

      Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident.

      Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.

      The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident.

      Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.

      thyroid cancer is generally treatable. With proper treatment, the five-year survival rate of thyroid cancer is 96%, and 92% after 30 years, suggesting there may be up to 500 early deaths from this cause.

      Source

      That's the worst known nuclear accident we have. Compare that to hydro:

      The Banqiao Dam was designed to survive a once-in-1000-years flood (300 mm of rainfall per day). In August 1975, however, a once-in-2000-years flood occurred, and poured more than a year's rainfall in 24 hours (new records were set, at 189.5 mm rainfall per hour and 1060 mm per day, exceeding the average annual precipitation of about 800 mm), which weather forecasts failed to predict ....

      The resulting flood waters caused a large wave, which was 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) wide and 3â"7 meters (9.8â"23 ft) high in Suiping, to rush downwards into the plains below at nearly 50 kilometers per hour (31 mph), almost wiping out an area 55 kilometers (34 mi) long and 15 kilometers (9.3 mi) wide, and creating temporary lakes as large as 12,000 square kilometers (4,600 sq mi). ....

      According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected.

      Source

      At the end of the day, the fact is that by producting large amounts of electricity, we need to handle large amounts of energy. If we fail to handle them properly, Shit Go Crazy(TM). Even with "safe" stuff like water. The trick is in engineering things properly, as mentioned several times before.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  11. ground water contamination? by decora · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if there is one thing deep mines do, it is flood. where does all the water go? oh, "somewhere else"? Great, now its laced with plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind.

    im sure that nuclear waste can be stored safely, somewhere, some how. but the current nuclear industry is so obsessed with lying, disinformation, and corruption, that i wouldn't trust it to clean the dishes at a restaurant let alone run something like the Fukushima plant.

    (which, of course, we were told was 100% safe and not a shitty old design like Chernobyl, and that thered never be another meltdown).

    these folks do not seem to understand the basic difference between right and wrong. if you want people to support you, stop lying to them. this plan seems to be exactly the opposite: a PR stunt to make people accept something they dont want to accept.

    i.e. instead of reorganizing the entire industry to be based on honesty, and education, and transparency, they are instead reorganizing a gigantic PR campaign to make their opponents 'shut the fuck up', some kind of bizarre Rahm Emanuel strategy.

    when the next US disaster happens, it will cause yet another backlash, and we will be back where we were after three mile island. the problem is not about 'nuclear power', it is about incompetent managers and politicians who cannot seem to grasp the concept that they exist to serve the people and to do it honestly, responsibly, and transparently.

    1. Re:ground water contamination? by Lije+Baley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a consensus of scientists is good enough to declare AGW to be a problem, then why can't a consensus of geologists declare that a mine won't leak?

      BTW: It should have been obvious from that start that Yucca Mountain was Too Close to California to succeed.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    2. Re:ground water contamination? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind.

      It has to be absorbed by the body first. Wikipedia has a reference that claims that only .04% of ingested plutonium oxide stays in the organism.

      Multiply the LD50 for injected plutonium by 2500 to get an LD50 from water contamination, and you get some non-alarming numbers for toxicity. The cliche is to compare it to caffeine.

      http://russp.org/BLC-3.html

    3. Re:ground water contamination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if there is one thing deep mines do, it is flood. where does all the water go? oh, "somewhere else"? Great, now its laced with plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind.

      Yeah because they're just going to chuck a bunch of fuel rods down in a cave somewhere AMIRITE?

      Dumbass. GTFO the Internet.

    4. Re:ground water contamination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just a point Fukusima's nuclear disaster was not due to the design of the plan.t it ran flawlessly what went wrong is the diesel powered generators meant to power the plants cooling system while it was shutdown for the tsunami was flooded by said tsunami because stupid plant workers put the generators below see level and they were flooded thus shutting down the cooling system and starting the disaster. not a flaw in the design of the nuclear plant itself just disaster readiness.

      also not all nuclear waste needs contained forever. as long as the uncontained waste stays to the same ratio of radiation as there would be if it had remained in the ground b4 we mined it out. and if it is made into glass and stored in steel lead-lined cylinders it won't matter if the ground water gets to them, glass is insoluble.

    5. Re:ground water contamination? by Blitter · · Score: 1

      OMG, hilarious!

      Let's see... there are no reactors remotely designed like Chernobyl's. Because even back in the 50s we were aware (cf Edward Teller) this design was a disaster waiting to happen.

      Hmm, lets see now... the "next" US disaster... well, the last disaster would be Three Mile Island. Where no one died. But never mind that, pay no attention, because Japan just had a big disaster. Right. Where no one died.

      Yeah, nuclear power plants outside of the Soviet Union have been such a nightmare. I mean, its like people slagging on nuclear power have no concept of right and wrong. But hey, you can't expect them to. But you should hold them accountable when they can't get their facts right.

      --
      I am Jack's writable stack pointer.
    6. Re:ground water contamination? by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 1

      Of course people who invest hundreds of millions of dollars into the research, design, construction, and operation of nuclear reactors have NO CLUE what they're doing! They're just evil greedy morons out to make a buck and make everything around them glow in the dark!

      ...the stupidity of anti-nuke arguments - especially when they bring up Three Mile (where NOTHING HAPPENED, even according to the EPA who couldn't find any measurable increase in radiation - some steam got vented, basically) and Chernobyl (where an amazingly outdated design was put into operation because of cost-cutting measures (Communist thinking at its best) and failed because of a sequence of screw-ups, which is impossible under the current standards of design and operation) - never ceases to amaze me.

      Chernobyl is NOT an argument - it's NOTHING like the current reactors.
      Three Mile Island is NOT an argument - there was no radiation exposure, only coolant steam.

    7. Re:ground water contamination? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      im sure that nuclear waste can be stored safely, somewhere, some how. but the current nuclear industry is so obsessed with lying, disinformation, and corruption, that i wouldn't trust it to clean the dishes at a restaurant let alone run something like the Fukushima plant.

      What does the "nuclear industry" have to do with anything? In the US, it's the DoE that makes the decisions. The DoE happen to have pretty much the world's top experts in the field, thanks to building and maintaining the top nulcear weapon stockpile, and has a few neat toys like periodically aquiring one after another of the world's fastest supercomputers...

      In Japan, TEPCO was widely known to be untrustworthy before the disasterw and NISA was criticized for being in-bed with industry. I have not, however, seen such criticism of the DoE from pretty much any quarter at all. In fact the DoE seems to be about the most trusted and least controvercial of the large government agencies that I can think of.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:ground water contamination? by dkf · · Score: 1

      if there is one thing deep mines do, it is flood.

      It depends on the type of mine. Coal mines tend to be wet, but salt mines tend to be very dry (otherwise the salt wouldn't have stayed accumulated in the first place, duh!). Both can be very deep. Since the first, keystone point of your post is uninformed rubbish, the rest of it wasn't worth reading.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    9. Re:ground water contamination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I dont think Plutonium is that toxic. The most toxic substance for man apparantly is this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin

      from the article:

      It is the most acutely toxic substance known, with a median lethal dose of about 1 ng/kg when introduced intravenously[3] and 3 ng/kg when inhaled.[28] This means that, depending on the method of introduction into the body, a mere 90–270 nanograms of botulinum toxin could be enough to kill an average 90 kg (200 lb) person, and four kilograms of the toxin, if evenly distributed, would be more than enough to kill the entire human population of the world.

    10. Re:ground water contamination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the theory they had in Germany, too. Now they have to get the stuff out again in all haste and it's probably going to cost billions even though it is a very small amount.

    11. Re:ground water contamination? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      One reactor almost melted down when it was shut down as someone forgot (or more likely cut costs) to fuel up the diesel generators. Making plants fool- and capitalist-proof is a pretty impossible task.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    12. Re:ground water contamination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are SALT MINES have geologically stable for millions of years. WHAT leakage are you talking about? Do you have a reference or documentation of any sort that the salt mine leaks, or if it leaks through all those layers, that it would get out beyond the mine?

      WTF are you getting your information too? You honestly believe this shit sitting ABOVE ground in dry casks near population centers (as they sit right next to all the nuclear reactors) are safer sites strewn across the country than a single sealed site hundreds of meters below ground?

      There was nothing wrong with the Fukushima plant. Except it was run to the end of it's life expectancy. And it was where the plant was located, and the drastic circumstances. And _still,_, there are still fewer deaths and resulting loss of life expectancy from Fukushima than contributed YEARLY by wood burning practices in Africa, or coal burning activity in the US.

      btw, I drive by TMI. You know what pisses me off? The bunch of houses near the plant that burn wood for the winter incessantly, fouling the air where you cough inside your car with closed windows as you drive by. Or the incinerator up the road. Of the whatever plant burning crap also up the road. I'll take the electricity from TMI _any_ day over our current crap of burning stuff. If you can move a Soviet ice breaker for tens of thousands of miles on less than 75pounds of uranium, but can only drive a Prius some 700miles on the same in gasoline, and you're advocating the current practice, you're the one with the messed up version of right and wrong.

    13. Re:ground water contamination? by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      (which, of course, we were told was 100% safe and not a shitty old design like Chernobyl, and that thered never be another meltdown).

      Uhhh...it was a shitty old design not quite as bad as Chernobyl, but almost exactly the same as Three Mile Island. And, to stay on topic, do you know where the biggest problems from Fukushima came from? Spent fuel stored on site instead of in a friggin waste storage facility!!! So by all means, let's do everything we can to prevent implementing solutions to known problems.

  12. Ugh by Xenkar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Honestly as time goes on my patience for other humans gets thinner.
    We're not allowed to make safer, more efficient reactors.
    We're not allowed to recycling spent fuel rods.
    We're not allowed to build a secure site to house the waste material.

    My fellow humans don't realize that with their unreasonableness, spent fuel rods are being kept in over sized swimming pools on site.

    Now you might be wondering what the problem is with this set up. Well our outdated nuclear power plants are conveniently right next to rivers that some people get drinking water from.

    I'm not saying something will go wrong, all I'm saying is that if something does go wrong it'll be a lot worse than it would be if we just recycled the fuel rods or had them at a secure holding facility.

    This is the major reason why Japan was such a disaster. Outdated reactor design and spent fuel rods kept on site. It could have all been avoided if we just had the guts to decapitate the BANANA's heads and place them on pikes as a warning to potential BANANAs.

    But let's say we decommission all of our nuclear power plants tomorrow. The rods need to be kept somewhere. The irradiated reactor housing needs to be put in storage. We can't magically make them disappear.

    I know they want us all to go back to living in mud huts but damn it I want electricity in my mud hut.

    1. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not allowed to make safer, more efficient reactors.

      Does the near immediate availability of weaponizable materials to everyone operating such a reactor sound "safe" to you? (On the old technology, it would require a while to pull off AND be hardly an undetectable maneuver). Or do you simply think you'll be able to go to the world and say "yea, only we get to have this"?

      We're not allowed to recycling spent fuel rods.

      Maybe someone in the US has more exact details on how this works out over in Europe... Greenpeace may not be the most credible organization here, but the whole reprocessing story reeks. Somehow at least, all European countries that reprocess still end up with significant amounts of dangerous waste...

      We're not allowed to build a secure site to house the waste material.

      Well, you could allow yourself, it is just questionable what legislative area would welcome this thing. Property values will plummet, transports will have to go through to the site quite often and overland (rather unsafely), and no one will be able to guarantee security and so on past the next five-ten years. Politics don't go that far...

      My fellow humans don't realize that with their unreasonableness, spent fuel rods are being kept in over sized swimming pools on site.

      True, that's dangerous, but what's even more unreasonableis that nuclear power plant operators can work for profit all while not taking care of their trash and insurance (yes, they should be required to have full insurance up to chernobyl style accidents) properly...

    2. Re:Ugh by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm gonna answer your questions in order.

      First, it's not weaponizable. Problem solved.

      Greenpeace isn't the most reliable organization. Problem solved.

      Guaranteeing security for the next five-ten years is trivial. That part of the problem solved. Heck, the transports can handle being abandoned.

      They should have full insurance up to Chernobyl style accidents? Nevermind the fact that a Chernobyl style accident is physically impossible with any US reactor? You're just giving them impossible requirements.

    3. Re:Ugh by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      "Greenpeace may not be the most credible organization here" Give the man a gold star. "but the whole reprocessing story reeks" Jeez; you release a few micrograms of tritium per gallon of water and suddenly it's armageddon. I'll put it this way, dude: I have a keyring. It contains about half a gram of tritium, in a phosphorescent plastic chamber. If I were to burn that tritium into tritated water, then mix it into a liter of regular water, I'd have somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 billion picocuries of tritium per liter water - more than a million times the concentration released from AREVA's operations. And then I'd drink it, secure in the knowledge that tritium is not that damned harmful. It doesn't reek. France set extremely conservative radiological standards, and AREVA exceeded them, then brought their operation back under the limit. Now, mind, there are other waste streams - DUF6 being the largest one. But DUF6 isn't even that big a problem; it's just more expensive to defluoronate and bury (generally back in the uranium mines it came from) than it is to retain on-site. It's less radioactive than /natural/ uranium, for pity's sake.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    4. Re:Ugh by Xenkar · · Score: 1

      Well we have nuclear weapons in the hands of a doomsday cult (the Christian-based United States of America), I don't think it'll get any worse if others are allowed to join the club.

      Talking to Greenpeace about nuclear power is like talking to a diehard creationist about evolution. They don't want nuclear power at all.

      We could always use the "for the children" and "omfg terrorists" effects to make the funding and security for the storage site untouchable. "Soandso wants terrorists to make dirty bombs to kill our children!"

      It is also extremely hard to take care of your trash if you aren't allowed to recycle it or take it to a landfill. I'll be all for your idea of requiring insurance on nuclear power plants so long as other power plants have to start up funds to pay for healthcare for those whose health is negatively affected by said power generation method. Said insurance for nuclear power plants would be extremely cheap if we are allowed to use a failsafe reactor design that won't meltdown if active cooling is lost and spent fuel isn't left in swimming pools.

    5. Re:Ugh by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      while not taking care of their trash

      The agreement was that fees would be paid to the government which would (in theory) be used to build a central repository at which location the US government could choose to store or reprocess the waste. The fees have been (and are being) paid. The repo has not come to pass, however.

      they should be required to have full insurance up to chernobyl style accidents

      Power companies are liable for up to $2B/GW, which is significantly more than was spent cleaning up TMI. The cost of Fukushima, by the way, despite being a natural disaster that's going to cost Japan orders of magnitude more than the clean-up costs of the plant, is being mostly paid for by TEPCO, with the government chipping in about a third.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    6. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how much do they pay for "nuclear energy is healthy and safe" posts these days?

    7. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forget who started saying it but it is now as old as the hills but still needs to be learned. "You don't run from something, you run toward something." People have never really gotten this. By saying lets not build nuclear power plants they where really saying lets build more coal power plants. Remember, when you are running from something you are actually run toward something. Even when you run from a burning building if pick the wrong direction you could run off cliff by only looking at what your running from. Nothing wrong with running away from the bad choices toward goods ones, however. But when you only look at an objectionable choice you and run from it your not looking where your going. An other example is Sex Ed vs Chasity Drives, good Sex Ed lowers pregnancy rates while Chasity Drive usually increase them. But people don't like the idea of young people seeing or talking about sex. Hello, this is how sex was taught since the bible hell homosexuality might decrease if parents and children still slept in the same room.

      Also the spent fuel rods are best kept on site, because they are too radioactively and thermally Hot to move and near the reactor is a safe place. It would be good to build a really large pool that could maintain it's own temp without external power to storage the rods at.

    8. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly as time goes on my patience for other humans gets thinner.

      Yeah! Where does this Other Humans live? I am going to give him a piece of my mind!

    9. Re:Ugh by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Whatever reprocessing can do, it apparently doesn't get rid of the nuclear waste problems Germany is having so either France only recycles local materials or the volume is too low to cover it all.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  13. Why does it have to be a town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you seen the United States from the air? It's mostly not-town.

    1. Re:Why does it have to be a town? by Freddybear · · Score: 1

      It has to be a town so Senators can bring home the bacon. And then after a few billion are spent on studies and preliminary construction, the same Senators can pull a Happy Harry Reid and insist that their site is no good, it's got to be put somewhere else. Rinse and repeat.

  14. The answer is simple by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    Afghanistan. We control it. It's remote. A great place to dump nuclear waste.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:The answer is simple by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      even simpler - vote harry reid out of office and then Yucca can be opened.

    2. Re:The answer is simple by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Yeeeah... Just one drunk ships' captain - actually, much of the waste is in crazy-solid concrete and steel containers already. Would anyone notice if we just started tipping them off into the pacific?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    3. Re:The answer is simple by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      Steven Seagal would notice. And then ...

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
  15. I'd say by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    Put them near the backyard of the CEO/Owners of the Power Station.

    If Nuclear Energy is safe and all that, they won't mind having glow-in-the-dark flowers.

    1. Re:I'd say by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      Glow in the dark flowers? They wouldn't. Radioactivity wouldn't leak from the containers; and even in the case you intentionally made the containers leak, it'd still not make the flowers glow. That would require exponentially more radioactivity - nevermind the fact that that much radioactivity would not only kill anyone in that house, but likely everyone on a very large radius.

      It'd just be an ugly, huge steel container. Reprocessed waste still lasts for 1000 years, so assuming their homes aren't in groundwater or earthquake-prone areas, it'd be a perfectly safe option, for them and others alike. Unreprocessed waste is less dangerous but also lasts longer... and it's a perfectly viable fuel.

    2. Re:I'd say by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Meh. If it were legal, I'd let the industry bury a dry cask in my back yard. Those things are solid ultra-dense concrete and steel. Put it about 20m down below, and the spent fuel is really just not getting out. Hell, they're dens enough and thickly shielded enough that there's nearly no gamma flux, and gamma's damn near impossible to stop fully.

      I'd do it because I'd have no fear whatsoever of any harm as a result. I know what's in there; I know what's protecting the world from it; I know it's sufficient.

      I'd do it; besides the fact that I'd be storing all the nuclear waste needed for my lifetime as well as about 200 other people, I'd do it just to shut up all the NIMBYs and BANANAs.

      NIMBYs are whiny, ignorant fuckers. Do you fear, say, Yucca Mountain? Then I consider you to be a whiny, ignorant fucker. Do you know why? Because you are demonstrably in no danger, and yet you feel you have reason to prevent what is an otherwise necessary action.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    3. Re:I'd say by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Put them near the backyard of the CEO/Owners of the Power Station.

      That's where it's currently stored. Because there's no permanent disposal site, each reactor keeps its waste in cooling pools at the power station. The only reason they're able to keep 30, 40, or 50+ years worth of waste on-site is because so little of it is generated. The total amount of high-level nuclear waste generated by the 104 reactors in the U.S. is about 2000 tons annually. By volume, that would just about fit into a single tractor trailer.

      Per household it's about 0.5 cc per year. An equivalent amount of electricity generated by coal would generate about 2 tons of coal ash and other pollutants. That's about 2.5 cubic meters worth, or 5 million times more than nuclear. IMHO it's crazy to continue using coal when nuclear is available. Yeah it has its problems, but those problems are nowhere near 5 million times worse than the problems that come with coal (global warming, acid rain, mercury in fish, estimated 1 million deaths/yr worldwide from air pollution, smog, etc). And unlike renewables, nuclear could be expanded to replace coal inside 10 years.

      Divide the amount of high level nuclear waste by about 10 if you reprocess.

    4. Re:I'd say by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Until recently I was the safety assessor for several UK nuclear power stations, and I have always said I would be perfectly happy for their high level waste to be stored vertically under my house at the appropriate depth and with the appropriate enclosure.

      However I would want the entrance to be some distance away because I would not like the extra traffic. The nuclear waste traffic itself would be trivial, but I would not like the construction traffic, and the cars of the workers associated with the facility. That is an entirely non-nuclear consideration, same as any other engineering project/supermarket/leisure-centre/theme park.

      The safety risk of the waste itself being there is not even on the radar by any normal standards. Your comment about glowing flowers is just fatuous.

    5. Re:I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would require exponentially more radioactivity

      No, it would require a lot more, you pretentiously innumerate cunt.

  16. Yucca Mtn is the best choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stick it in Yucca Mtn - that is where it belongs! We've spent a great deal of money making it so - and now we just abandon this safe site?

    Idiots!

    1. Re:Yucca Mtn is the best choice by The+Man · · Score: 1

      And where do YOU live, sir? In a state with nuclear power plants? Far away from Nevada? Right. It's just as meaningful for me to say that your basement is the best choice.

    2. Re:Yucca Mtn is the best choice by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      There is already storage there. Plus those hundreds of weapon tests. If we can't store it in an already contaminated area what would you like?

  17. studies show deceptive propaganda causes fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hugh pickens writes; there's nothing to fear about stuff that only matters to the walking dead neogods, as long as we believe.

    others (not paid shills like hugh) write;

    still showing up here there & everywhere

    should it not be considered that the domestic threats to all of us/our
    freedoms be intervened on/removed, so we wouldn't be compelled to hide our
    sentiments, &/or the truth, about ANYTHING, including the origins of the
    hymenology council, & their sacred mission? with nothing left to hide,
    there'd be room for so much more genuine quantifiable progress?

    you call this 'weather'? much of our land masses/planet are going under
    water, or burning up, as we fail to consider anything at all that really
    matters, as we've been instructed that we must maintain our silence (our
    last valid right?), to continue our 'safety' from... mounting terror.

    meanwhile, back at the raunch; there are exceptions? the unmentionable
    sociopath weapons peddlers are thriving in these times of worldwide
    sufferance? the royals? our self appointed murderous neogod rulers? all
    better than ok, thank..... us. their stipends/egos/disguises are secure,
    so we'll all be ok/not killed by mistaken changes in the MANufactured
    'weather', or being one of the unchosen 'too many' of us, etc...?

    truth telling & disarming are the only mathematically & spiritually
    correct options. read the teepeeleaks etchings. see you there?

    diaperleaks group worldwide.

  18. I volunteer Dallas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yessirree, proud Texan here.

    I volunteer Dallas. It's a nice big city in the heart of real America.

    Every Texan would be proud to have this great American tribute to American Americanyness in our backyard.

    1. Re:I volunteer Dallas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate responding to trolls, but the man has a good point... Get it under the water table and it wouldn't be too bad putting it here...

  19. Breeder reactor? by DurendalMac · · Score: 2

    I'm no expert, but my understanding is that a few breeder reactors could solve the problem by running from the waste over and over until whatever is left might make you sneeze. I've wondered about this, but aside from cost (as if permanent storage isn't costly), is there really anything wrong with that idea? I know that breeders can potentially be used to make plutonium, but it's not like the US doesn't have that capability already.

    1. Re:Breeder reactor? by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      What's wrong is that the US is scared shitless and nuclear isn't "cool" anymore. Laws blockade breeders from working efficiently, government would rather help their friends in the coal industry get another premium, and eco-nuts are doing their best to discredit any and all source of power, with nuclear getting a spectacular amount of flak for some reason.

    2. Re:Breeder reactor? by Fordiman · · Score: 2

      If you're curious about the working of nuclear energy - specifically breeder reactors, Wikipedia's actually surprisingly accurate for a topic that can be sometimes controversial.

      • Try the following searches:
      • "Nuclear fission"
      • "Uranium 235"
      • "Light Water Reactor"
      • "Integral Fast Reactor"
      • "Travelling Wave Reactor"
      • Also, if you're interested in thermal spectrum breeders, try:
      • "Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment"

      There's also a relatively new American project working on MSRs, called LFTR, run by FLiBe energy. Google for that if you're interested; they've been putting all their 30,000 foot technology documents online.

      That said.

      Breeders don't burn waste, at least, not until it's been enriched further. Then the tailings can be bred and the HEMO (highly enriched mixed oxide) can be burned; then the tailings must be reprocessed to pull out the bred Pu-239 and put into the fuel stream, rinse and repeat until it's all changed into fission products, which you then sit on for about 300 years.

      This carries a proliferation risk that's been the bane of any fast reactor project - you're making and breaking out the best isotope for making nuclear weapons. Mind, you'll often see refuel/reprocessing cycles tuned to make sure a lot of Pu-240 and Pu-241 are produced (which are very, very bad for weapons making, largely for predetonational reasons), but that's a variable that can be changed without a fundamental change to the design of the plant. And, in my opinion, any safety feature that's held in place through sheer force of bureaucracy is not to be trusted.

      MSRs have a better plan - though none have been built yet. Basically, since the whole system is fluids (i.e., molten salts with dissolved fissiles in), you can, in theory, do your reprocessing continuously deep inside the reactor building via basic lanthanide and actinide chemistry. You're still breeding a weaponable material (in this case, U-233), but it never has a need or opportunity to leave the reactor. Basically, it's trapped in there until it's fission products, at which point it's not weaponable. Proliferation resistance that has physical barrier to back it up. It's a good thing.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    3. Re:Breeder reactor? by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      Beside the proliferation risk everybody's talking about, I think there is also a technological/commercial difficulty that should not be dismissed as negligible. France has tried very hard to build a commercial breeder but gave up eventually, not only or mainly because of protests but because of technical and financial difficulties - it basically was a money drain.

      This is why I resent the smug nuclear apologist crowd on slashdot who seem to believe that commercially viable reprocessing could be available now if only not for that idiot Carter - that's far from a given, the technical difficulties would be huge, possibly on par with nuclear fusion if you see what I mean. And when one mentions solar energy? "The technology is not there yet". Yeah right, talk about rational thinking.

    4. Re:Breeder reactor? by celle · · Score: 1

      Japan has a breeder reactor and yet they still have well filled spent fuel pools.

    5. Re:Breeder reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U-233 is useless for weapons. It suffers from worse spontaneous fission that Pu-240. Additionally, U-233 will occur alongside U-232, a hard gamma emitter.

      This is why thorium was ignored in the first place, 70 years ago. Recently, producing bombs has become much less important, so thorium is being reconsidered.

    6. Re:Breeder reactor? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      There's also a relatively new American project working on MSRs

      As long as that remains a secret the work can continue.

      If the BANANA's find out they'll throw a thermo-nuclear hissy fit until it gets shut down.

      I've said for years Australia should go nuclear, not only is it safer and cleaner then our current coal and oil power plants Australia has enough Uranium for 1000's of years and that's just the stuff we already found. But what are we doing, commissioning new CO2 and heavy metal belching coal power plants and selling the uranium to India.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:Breeder reactor? by jafac · · Score: 1

      You're right. You're no expert. In theory, breeder reactors could solve this. But the problem is FAR from simply political.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    8. Re:Breeder reactor? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Molten Salt Reactors HAVE been built - and operated, and they have a lot of advantages over water or graphite moderated designs. The one in Thousand Oaks had a little accident when a pump-bearing lubricant leaked into the coolant stream, fouling the system, and clogging the outlet, causing the reactor to overheat. I guess there was some kind of explosion or release in this case too - but it was not widely publicized, because it was a classified research reactor. (there was a documentary made of released info, and it's on Youtube).

      The advantage of this type, of course, is that you don't have to rely on water, oxidation of metal parts, generation of hydrogen gas at high temperatures in contact with the zircalloy core cladding, etc.

      However, big disadvantage: the plan to deal with a leak: (and subsequently catches fire, which is pretty much a guarantee when liquid sodium makes contact with air) . . . is to let it burn out. Because there is no way to extinguish such a fire. (sodium burns on contact with water, as well). All of the fuel is then oxidized, and spewed into the atmosphere.

      And of course - they can report on the TV news that the radiation is as bad as having a couple of chest x rays, or the equivalent of eating a couple of bananas a day for 5 years. But this is utterly dishonest, because inhaling these radionuclides, and having them chemically incorporated into cell biology, is often lethal, in the form of higher cancer risk. And these contaminants spread far and wide, with every spill or release, and they remain in the environment for months (iodine) years (strontium) and even centuries (plutonium). Being able to turn lights on is really neat and nifty. Poisoning people over an area of thousands of square miles like this is too high a price to pay for that.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  20. "Consent-based" approach by traindirector · · Score: 1

    I bet lucrative incentives are more cost effective than fighting legal and political opposition.

    Indeed. It's a wonder the federal government isn't using the usual "consent-based" approach to usurp powers that fall to the states, such as setting drinking age and speed limits: threaten to withhold a significant portion of the state's federal funding, which most states are quite reliant on for one service or another.

    Or maybe this is a new strategy meant to avoid offending honorable Senator Leghorn when that old trick is used against his state.

    Just make sure the wealth keeps rising to the top and there'll be an endless supply of impoverished communities around the country lining up to take this "consent-based" salvation.

    1. Re:"Consent-based" approach by causality · · Score: 1

      I bet lucrative incentives are more cost effective than fighting legal and political opposition.

      Indeed. It's a wonder the federal government isn't using the usual "consent-based" approach to usurp powers that fall to the states, such as setting drinking age and speed limits: threaten to withhold a significant portion of the state's federal funding, which most states are quite reliant on for one service or another.

      Or maybe this is a new strategy meant to avoid offending honorable Senator Leghorn when that old trick is used against his state.

      Just make sure the wealth keeps rising to the top and there'll be an endless supply of impoverished communities around the country lining up to take this "consent-based" salvation.

      Like hed p.e. explains... there is a war on the middle class. In many nations, a prosperous middle class and the economic independence that goes with it is what displaced various forms of dictatorship. It works in reverse, too. To convert a "democratic" nation to a dictatorship, you must first make the people poor and needy and desperate. It will be even more effective if you can also make them fat and stupid, for obvious reasons.

      Naturally those who want to form another dictatorship must view the middle class as their enemy.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  21. Send it to Hanford Washington U.S.A. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hanford Washington U.S.A. would love the waste sent
    their way. That would be listed as the State of Washington
    in the article.

    Hanford lost out to Yuca mountain many years ago, lost a lot of jobs
    over night. They were planning on storing nuclear waste at Hanford.

    Even create a religion "OMMMMM do not dig for 100,000 years."
    (Yes it was actually put forth as a plan)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site claims
    two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume
    are located here, so it makes a lot of sense.

    Some place has to be found and fast as reactor storage pools
    are becoming full and a danger in themselves.

    I used to operate a nuclear reactor producing Plutonium for DoD at
    Hanford, so know well of the desire of becoming a nuclear burial site.

    1. Re:Send it to Hanford Washington U.S.A. by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2

      Hanford's near a river. There was significant local opposition to storing high-level waste there. Site management has a large hurdle to overcome in earning public confidence.

    2. Re:Send it to Hanford Washington U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hanford Washington U.S.A. would love the waste sent
      their way. That would be listed as the State of Washington
      in the article.

      Hanford lost out to Yuca mountain many years ago, lost a lot of jobs
      over night. They were planning on storing nuclear waste at Hanford.

      Even create a religion "OMMMMM do not dig for 100,000 years."
      (Yes it was actually put forth as a plan)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site claims
      two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume
      are located here, so it makes a lot of sense.

      Some place has to be found and fast as reactor storage pools
      are becoming full and a danger in themselves.

      I used to operate a nuclear reactor producing Plutonium for DoD at
      Hanford, so know well of the desire of becoming a nuclear burial site.

      Well, sending it to Hanford would be in opposition to the DoE, EPA, and the state cleaning up the nuclear contamination for the last couple of decades.

    3. Re:Send it to Hanford Washington U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMO it would make much more sense to have regional storage facilties. The reactors are near the river yes, but other parts of it are large swaths inland... Until there is a national/regional/whatever depository, waste will be disposed of on site. Again. (At least this time it will be tracked and better secured...)

      http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/CSB

      As for Yucca, it seems like such a waste. However, I can certainly understand locals being rightly pissed that did not get to say "NO!" when this issue first came up in the 70s and that they would be taking ALL the waste across the country. I think it would be much more likely to get them, and anyone else agree to a smaller local facility for several states to use.

    4. Re:Send it to Hanford Washington U.S.A. by jafac · · Score: 1

      "near a river" - lol. Not really. The town of Hanford is near a river. The waste storage is a hundred miles north, up in a very arid grassland. The site is equipped and populated with experts in dealing with contamination and nuclear waste. Hanford is the perfect place. Except for the whole volcanic eruption thing. . . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    5. Re:Send it to Hanford Washington U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most locals would not tolerate becoming a national repository for U.S. waste. A regional repository (Oregon, Idaho, Washington) might be possible. Then again it would be another money pit for the local economy as far as construction goes, all those fitters and electricians making a 100k per year contribute greatly to our local economy. Who needs to attract real companies when you have a DOE cash cow?

  22. Throw it away? Far, far away? by Ambvai · · Score: 1

    I've actually wondered if there was any practical downside, other than problems before getting it up, to the Futurama solution: just stick it in a rocket and blast it off in a random direction. Preferably without a return address.

    1. Re:Throw it away? Far, far away? by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2

      Rockets have something like a 1-2% failure rate, and you'd need quite a lot of them.

    2. Re:Throw it away? Far, far away? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I've actually wondered if there was any practical downside, other than problems before getting it up, to the Futurama solution: just stick it in a rocket and blast it off in a random direction. Preferably without a return address.

      I suppose you could use Viagra for your first issue, the problem with lofting highly radioactive material into space is two fold:

      1. It's expensive. Very expensive.
      2. Although modern rockets are fairly reliable, they occasionally go screwy and get blown to little tiny bits in order for it not to land on people as large, uncomfortable bits. Doing this with a ton or so of highly radioactive material is frowned upon (see "dirty bomb" for more information).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  23. Somalia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprised that "they" are not dumping there already? or are they? don,don dooooon

  24. Lets build a LFTR in Norway! by KreAture · · Score: 1

    We can build it inside a mountain somewhere so even the fanatics feel safe and then we can start burning nuclear waste!
    Then we export the energy as electricity and in just a few years we build up another fund bigger than the oil fund!
    Hmm, does nuclear fund or electricity fund sound best? Or maby just e-fund.

    Sure it will cost a tad to build the plant, but we'd ofcource charge for receiving the nuclear waste we'll partially use as fuel to offset that...

  25. What's good for the goose is good for the gander by skegg · · Score: 2

    With the right incentives, 'there will be a great deal of support' for a waste site near the New Mexico facility, says former Senator Pete Domenici.

    If the volunteering originates with the constituents: then good.
    But if from the politicians: then only as long as the politician suggesting such an arrangement lives just as close to the dump site -- along with their family -- as any other resident in their electorate.

    Does American electoral law require that politicians largely reside in the electorate they represent?

  26. The carlsbad site by doug141 · · Score: 1

    currently stores low level waste at ambient temperature, like contaminated tooling. A special on TV said they are not equipped for the heat given off by nuke plant waste.

  27. The Moon by izomiac · · Score: 2

    With all the NIMBY politics, it seems cheaper to just drop the stuff on the moon. Physical security of the site is guaranteed for the foreseeable future (and it becomes a non-issue when lunar travel becomes trivial). And the fears of exposing our descendants to radiation is also a moot point as you already need radiation protection on the moon. The worst natural disaster would be an asteroid strike, which still presents negligible risk to Earth. The worse human disaster would be a launch failure, but it's still lower than what coal power plants do. Heck, it's also retrievable when we decide that breeder reactors aren't so dangerous, or we could just build one on the moon for a colony.

    Some math: the US produces 3,000 tons of high-level waste per year, and our super heavy lift rockets can generally get 50,000 kg to the moon for $1 billion. $60 billion per year would be an extra ($60 billion / 800 TWh) $0.075 per kilowatt hour. Currently, nuclear energy pays $0.001 per kilowatt hour for waste disposal. So, we'd need to get our launch prices down by one order of magnitude before this is economically feasible, which, with 60 extra launches guaranteed per year, might be doable through economy of scale. As for danger of a rocket failing to launch, that'd release about 50 tons of waste into the atmosphere, compared with Coal's 5 metric tons per gigawatt hour (2,000 TWh * 5 / GWh = 10 million tons per year in the US). (Sorry for mixing metric and imperial tons and other shortcuts, but this is paper-napkin math.)

    Actually, screw that, if we were being rational we could just burn/aerosolize high-level waste and add 0.03% to the impact of coal. OTOH, since we aren't rational, by dropping it on the moon we get to improve our super heavy launch capacity by pandering to the fears of the anti-nuke zealots.

    1. Re:The Moon by xenoc_1 · · Score: 1

      With all the NIMBY politics, it seems cheaper to just drop the stuff on the moon.

      Tried already. Had a nasty unintended consequence. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Space:_1999

  28. Harry Reid Is A Monster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The yucca mountain plan was light years better than any other waste storage plan (especially the highly insecure on-site storage we use today). Anyone in congress who thinks we need to "get a panel of scientists together to brainstorm some ideas" is someone cloaking a political objection in "science". It's a real shame Yucca was aborted, especially since the christing facility has already been built.

    I wonder if things would be different if the current senate majority leader had retired a few years ago. Oh, and if Steven Chu didn't toe the line on stuff like this.

  29. Google Incentive by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 1

    Have Google sweeten the pot with a fiber optic rollout to the town free of charge - you might have tech startups move into the town that could find uses for nuclear wastes and produce something useful with it, with all the added publicity for the town, the site, and the arrival of a highly-touted ISP program.

  30. Carpetbaggers shall descend: by Hartree · · Score: 2

    The problem is not finding a community that wants the site.

    It's that as soon as they say they want it, no matter how well informed they are, interest groups will descend saying "We must save these poor ignorant people who are being used by the nuclear lobby". Or, "We must save these people from being deceived by the anti-nukes"

    I'm sure they'd say that about Los Alamos where large numbers of the people work for a nuclear weapons lab and know more about rad hazards than almost any other community save for perhaps Arzamas-16 (Now called Sarov again.) .

    I've seen this happen before in New Mexico when I lived there. The chief of the Mescalero tribe started making a deal to have a rad waste site on some of their land. Parts of it are some of the most inhospitable you can find in the US.

    All of a sudden, groups showed up saying that the Mescaleros were just too uninformed to understand what they were doing and had to be protected. (It was amazingly patronizing.)

    Now, the problem was taken care of by the tribe itself. They put it to a vote and voted it down. That's fine. That's how democracy works.

    But you can bet that the carpetbaggers on both sides of the issue will turn up like flies around roadkill.

    I'd already suspected something like that would happen with the Mescaleros. My company processed credit cards and such for Ski Apache and Inn of the Mountain Gods, two of the tribal businesses, So, I'd dealt with them a good bit and knew they were no fools regardless of how they decided it.

    1. Re:Carpetbaggers shall descend: by HollowClown · · Score: 1

      Sure, but this argument assumes that most communities are single monolithic voting blocks, which they aren't. Historically, the US has a huge and well-documented correlation between the location of hazardous waste dumps and the locations of low-income minority populations. This could be because people who site hazardous waste dumps tend to pick the least desirable property available (the ghetto), or because placing a hazardous waste dump tends to torpedo property values (thus creating a ghetto). Either way, there's a massive correspondence between the location of hazardous dumps and the numbers of dark-skinned people living in poverty around the dump. The issue here is that poor minorities are already under-represented in politics -- that's almost tautological. In other words, the people most likely to be directly affected by a dump are the ones least likely to have any input into the decision process, and they'll be the ones with the least legal recourse if something goes wrong. Unless this whole 'volunteer' project is far more careful to protect minorities than any other US government project I'm aware of, you'll have rich powerful people volunteering their town as a storage site, then having the storage site placed in with the poor and powerless people who didn't vote for it.

  31. Onkalo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Finns store their waste in a rock 500m deep below and fill it with concrete aftereards.

    The facility will be finished in 2100 and should last 100.000 years.

    They even have plans to communicate with the future beings using symbols in carved rock.

    All can be seen in the documentary "Into eternity".

  32. The Springfield where the Simpones live MR burns by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will take it

  33. The Ghetto. by elucido · · Score: 1

    That is where the nuclear waste will surely be dumped. Bet on that.

  34. The waste will be dumped in the ghetto as usual by elucido · · Score: 1

    As that is the typical pattern when the decision is made where to dump the waste. Whether it be liquor stores, guns, or crack.

    It's only a matter of time. If you live in the ghetto it's time to move.

    1. Re:The waste will be dumped in the ghetto as usual by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      It is not about the waste. Easy solution, you get the power station you get the waste. So only locate nuclear power station where you can deal with the nuclear wastes. One region should not get the economic benefits of a nuclear power station (based upon a new safer generation of power stations) whilst another region gets the economic burden of a nuclear dump.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:The waste will be dumped in the ghetto as usual by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      . So only locate nuclear power station where you can deal with the nuclear wastes.

      So instead of storing waste in stable geological formations in the middle of uninhabited deserts, we put it close to major cities and industrial areas. Makes sense.

      the economic burden of a nuclear dump.

      It's not actually an economic burden, there are major investments and jobs involved. And they can never, ever, shut them down.

    3. Re:The waste will be dumped in the ghetto as usual by foobsr · · Score: 1

      And they can never, ever, shut them down.

      Truly wondering what 'they' will do when they run out of money ...

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    4. Re:The waste will be dumped in the ghetto as usual by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that answered over the weekend?

    5. Re:The waste will be dumped in the ghetto as usual by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      No, there are still people who will lend Washington money. All we know now is that, even when they can see the day coming, politicians will continue to borrow money until no one will lend them any. Of course, the really scary part is that there are voters who think they should be borrowing even more money.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  35. Re:Or NYC. by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Glad I am not the only one who hates New York City. There are people who absolutely love NYC and I have to wonder why it would be. The place is just ugly to be in. And where I live now, many people "aspire" to be like New Yorkers as if they were all more sophisticated and intelligent somehow. I spent a week in New York and that was all I needed to know. It's simply the most frustrating and infuriating place I have ever been and is worse than the Washington DC area if that's even possible.

    The place does need a heavy dose of sanity and if it came in the form of nuclear waste, so be it.

  36. 3 headed fish? by king_grumpy · · Score: 0

    Always wanted to catch me a three headed fish. Where do I sign up?

  37. Trinidad, CO, USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one town in this country I think could be considered more deserving than Washington, DC is of course Trinidad, CO. Its the biggest wasteland of dead end, mindless stupid corrupt people outside of the beltway.

  38. Nuclear Default Swaps!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say we turn to Wall Steet. The banking industry has proven quite adept at dealing with toxic assests. Why not let them create some more exotic and preposterously crafted collateralized debt instruments that would spead the risk of nuclear waste across anyone dumb enough to deal directly with the stuff?

    Oh, that's exactly what's going on here, isn't it.

  39. Its cum to THIS! ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future ... needs to be killed, each individual and at once.

    What BULLSHIT!

    Until these ... Commissionaries are killed and in public view will there be any change in the "machinery" of the USA.

    "Target in Sight" ... [booff] .. "slug away and on target. TARGET DOWN ... repeat ... TARGET DOWN ... KILL CONFIRMED."

    Kill'n buracrats is like popp'n pimples on a hot July day.

    --//++

  40. Economic boom by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    Economic boom gets a completely new meaning.

  41. Caffeine has a far shorter half life by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    If you are capable of consuming 50 eight ounce cups of coffee in less than an hour, you might be able to ingest an LD-50 dose.

    Spread those cups out over five hours and there is no danger to speak of.

    Plutonium doesn't work that way.

  42. Subduction Zones by gculling · · Score: 1

    Would there be any problem with setting it into an area near a subduction zone? In this way the radioactive waste should be pushed under, no more chance of it entering the food chain, taken care of in a fashion that doesn't require 10,000 years of constant supervision. There is even a subduction zone relatively near the coast of US which should make it fairly cheap.

  43. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by burning-toast · · Score: 1

    The politicians I think are supposed to reside within their representative districts (state-level anyways) but since the borders of that district are not concrete they frequently get redrawn into the oddest of shapes to try and trap the most supporters of one group or the other.

  44. Just reprocess it... by asm2750 · · Score: 1

    ... and/or establish a second fuel cycle that will consume most of the waste or close the currently existing cycle. Maybe we can make a few more STEN jobs out of the process to lower our high unemployment.

  45. ask Kerr McGee by decora · · Score: 1

    they took raffinate from the processing of Uranium Hexfluoride and sprayed it on the local cattle fields.
    that way, they could call it fertilizer instead of toxic waste. saved them a bunch of money.

    of course the cows kept dying, but they solved that by mass burial. some "environmental activists", i guess the people you are denigrating, took photos of this and exposed it.

    1. Re:ask Kerr McGee by Fordiman · · Score: 2

      http://www.zianet.com/web/mcgee.htm

      Gimme a link. I couldn't find the photos of which you speak, but I did find an article from "In these times, 1987", in which, in accusatory tones, they describe the denitrating of actinide nitrates, with ammonia and spraying the resultant ammonium nitrate (i.e., sans actinides) on their own farmland. Seems reasonable enough to me, but then, I know some chemistry. To convert your waste from a stream of undisposable nitrates into a solid you can dispose of within the realm of government regulations, you take the nitrate groups off. You then have to do something with the nitrate groups that isn't going to piss people off, despite it's being non-radioactive and fairly valuable fertilizer otherwise. So, spray it on your own lands. Problem solved.

      Best I can tell, the cattle thing is a synthesis. If you can link me the photos, I can probably help track down their source. They could be legit, but the fact is there are lots of sources of photos for mutilated and/or simply dead cattle. Hell, my wife grew up on a farm, and her family's entire herd died of a virus one year, ending their farming lives forever. Of course, I'm biased: I've seen some of the more zealous of environmentalists bald-facedly lie about important things; I would not ever put it past them to tell a whopper, even in picture form.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  46. yes. you are right. by decora · · Score: 1

    they will chuck a bunch of fuel rods down in a cave.
    they will be covered in layers of concrete and metal casings and so forth and so on. there will be monitoring systems. and etc.

    and then some day, someone will want to save some money. they will take short cuts. things will leak. employees will be too afraid of retaliation to say anything about it. PR companies will be hired to lie about it.

    it has happened over, and over, and over, and over again in the nuclear industry, and every other industry.

    the problem with nuclear is that the problem doesnt 'go away' with time. at least time on a human scale.

  47. Meh. Just invade another country by serbianheretic · · Score: 1

    Meh. Just invade another country and dump your nuclear waste there. It is already done with spent uranium in many artillery shells (tank busting especially). Read about Falluja/Kosovo cancers/birth deformities. However, this uranium affects occupying forces as well, not just inteded victims. War side effects, I suppose. OTOH, it won't bother those sitting in Washington.

  48. Re:Or NYC. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    Well, Stefon, for one.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  49. Our town, ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... Topeka, Kansas. There's a nice empty lot just down the road from the Westboro Baptist Church. We'd all be happy to have you.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  50. Dear Goddess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please help us. We are too ignorant to be believed.

    How can any person ignore the fact that these poisonous materials we have dredged up and / or produced cannot come back to haunt us?

    Some of this s*** is deadly for 500,000 years or more. How can we possibly isolate it from the biosphere for that period of time? The oldest man-made structures of which I'm aware are the Great Pyramids in Egypt. Warnings etched on and within them have NOT stopped people from disturbing them.

    One gram of plutonium, dispersed for inhalation, is more than sufficient to induce cancer in every man, woman, and child likely to exist for the next 1000 years.

    Burying "low level" waste only serves to concentrate the various isotopes, due to chromatic action (check out the trenches in Kentucky and Washington State).

    Placing barrels of waste in "dry" salt deposits results in migration of the barrels, due to the heat from the decaying isotopes.

    Does anyone else remember the "grand plan" from the '70s of burying it in the Texas Panhandle? We d**n near destroyed some of the best crop lands in the US.

  51. Antarctica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem solved.

  52. mod parent up by RockMFR · · Score: 1

    Haha. Mod parent up please.

  53. Carlsbad Caverns will glow in the dark now? by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Just kidding. (I hope.)

    The caverns.

    Hmm. Nukewatch has a map. Working Google Maps a little, I located WIPP road.

    That locates it well away from the caverns, but within ten miles of Lindsey Lake.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
    1. Re:Carlsbad Caverns will glow in the dark now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WIPP is in the middle of a 2,000 ft thick salt bed that's been there for more than 100 My. I've toured the place -- it's impressive. The local buy-in to the project has been impressive, too. DoE has poured money into their local community college, training radiation safety and monitoring specialists who run an array of detectors and take daily air, soil, and water samples to verify that nothing is getting out of the repository. Locals get good-paying jobs, their roads are some of the best in the nation (gotta have good, smooth roads to haul nuclear waste... and we might as well do the whole town, too). Basically, the mayor of Carlsbad haggled like a horse trader and got a lot of federal benefits for the region. The DoE got political cover against the forces of NIMBY.

      To be clear: this is how it SHOULD work.

  54. Umatilla, Oregon by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    The Umatilla Chemical Depot is about empty of nerve gas. Maybe they should store nuclear waste.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  55. Re:Or NYC. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    Frustrating and infuriating? Were you standing in the way while people were trying to walk down the sidewalk or something? Or were you stupidly trying to drive in Manhattan?

    I've been there for a couple of trips, and I didn't find it "frustrating and infuriating" at all. Busy, definitely. It's like visiting an ant colony; everyone's in a big hurry to get to where they're going, but they're all moving in unison. As long as you go with the flow, you're fine. But if you're some dolt who wants to block the sidewalk, then people will get mad at you, and for good reason. There's a high density of people there, and that's what it takes for people to get along in that environment. Don't like it? Then stay at home in your small town.

    I never even found anyone rude there. Busy and preoccupied? Definitely. But I had no problems when I asked someone for directions. I just didn't pick someone who obviously was in a hurry to get somewhere, I looked for someone more approachable. And I stayed out of the way of others when I was taking photos or otherwise not walking somewhere.

    Some of the buildings could use a good cleaning, but what do you expect for a city where everything's over 100 years old?

    And if you're an out-of-towner and you attempt to drive there, then you're just an idiot. Take the subway or a taxi.

  56. Nuclear power wants YOU by peppepz · · Score: 1

    I have the impression that people here have, on average, a strong opinion supporting nuclear energy, so I expect a large number of them to show up as volunteers to bring the convenience of nuclear power, in physical form, next to their own residences.

    1. Re:Nuclear power wants YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure why not. id be fine with it in my backyard literally as long as i get get free utility out of it.

    2. Re:Nuclear power wants YOU by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's OK. Really. Vertically under my house at a suitable depth. See my post above.

  57. On behalf of Australia, I volunteer by Eclipse-now · · Score: 1

    Hi, my name is "somewhere in the Outback" and I volunteer to take the entire world's nuclear waste! I do this because I am geologically stable. I do this as a ruse though. The waste will never be buried too deep. Instead we'll just store it in cooling ponds until G.E. finally commercializes the S-PRISM. These reactors burn nuclear waste and could run the world for 500 years just on today's waste! Half a millennium of power is worth about $30 trillion dollars! So Australia could then sell the "waste" which will then be fuel back to the world at a massive profit. So pick me pick me! I'm old and wise and waiting for your nuclear waste! http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/nuclear-posters/

  58. Perfectly good solution going to waste. by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 2

    So there was this perfectly useful facility built specifically for the purpose of nuclear waste storage.
    So the location was selected based on "data collected for nearly ten years" (Wikipedia). YM was picked since it was already located within a former nuclear test site (i.e. development potential for other types of structures or settlements was limited at best).
    The facility was under construction, and proceeding well.
    And then the shit hit the fan, in the form of Harry "Screw You All" Reid.
    "Following the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections, Democratic Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a long time opponent of the repository, became the Senate Majority Leader, putting him in a position to greatly affect the future of the project. Reid has said that he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted as having said: "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen."
    Perhaps the most telling phrase in the entire Wiki article is this: "The US GAO stating that the closure was for policy not technical or safety reasons."

    So, to summarize: we have a perfectly good facility that is DESIGNED for the purpose of nuclear waste storage. It's in an area that is a former nuclear test site, so there's not much we can build there anyway. It's almost complete, after CBO only knows how many millions of dollars spent. Yet because HARRY REID SAID SO, we're just going to throw it the hell out and continue storing nuclear waste "all over the place".

    The political machinations of Reid and Obama vs logic.
    The safety factor of storing nuclear waste in a designated, secure, safe, technologically advanced facility vs storing it in small batches in a multitude of sites.
    The counter-terrorism factor of having one site to protect and monitor vs the need to protect & monitor hundreds of them.
    The cost factor (not that Obama or Reid actually give a shit about taxpayer dollars, but still...)
    ...2012 is coming.

    P.S. No, I didn't just get this info from Wikipedia. This issue has been "on the radar" on several blogs over the course of the last few years. Of course, the mainstream media will never, ever report it, but that doesn't mean that anyone who cares to find out more info can't Google "Yucca Mountain controversy" and go on from there.

    1. Re:Perfectly good solution going to waste. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevada residents have been fighting the waste dump since it was proposed, but for some reason the federal government has ignored the requests of the people living in the state. This isn't Harry Reid and Barack Obama issue. Harry Reid cant get elected being pro-dump, and Obama is the first president that actually listened to the residents of Nevada. Don't try to make this issue into something t

  59. Oh okay, how about YOUR backyard by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Everyone always thinks that NIMBY is bad, until it is THEIR backyard. NIMBY is part of democracy. Either people get a say or they don't but once you give them a say, they are free to say things you don't like. Including, "not in my backyard".

    The real problem is that all politicians are so desperate to get elected (not surprising, it is their job) that none dare to say "alright you don't want X so you don't get Y". No nuclear waste? Then no nuclear power for you. Come up with SOMETHING you do want in your backward to generate power or you won't be having any.

    Electoral suicide. See Japan that totally failed to invest in alternative energy sources and now that nukes are politically sensitive, they are out of options. They got to restart unsafe reactors because they need the power.

    Democracy, letting the monkey's run the zoo by electing the monkey that can fling his poo the best.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Oh okay, how about YOUR backyard by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Actually I can be accused of a lot of things but NIMBY isn't one of them. I live less than an hour from two nuclear reactors and supported them wholeheartedly.

      The only thing with regards to energy I didn't support is all the natural gas wildcatting in the area, and that is because an engineer friend showed me the before and after earthquake charts. Basically this area never had above a 1.2 and those were maybe once every 20 years, now we are having 3.x quakes almost daily, and the wildcatters have a nice little scam where they have a shell corp already made up and waiting so if they get hit with any real bills they sell the assets to the shell corp for a few bucks and then dissolve the company. makes sure they have all the profits, none of the liability.

      But I'd say the problem even more than politicians is the MSM, who look for any kind of horror spin they can put on anything. They're the first to point out what a horrible thing X will be, be it an eyesore, noisy, messy, etc and the "people" and I use that term for some of these reality TV watching knuckle draggers loosely, believe what they are told. Hell look at how even today more than 40% of the American public believe Iraq was over 9/11!

      If the MSM would say "Look, you want AC, right? You want fridges and PS3s and all that over stuff then you HAVE to allow power plants to be built to supply all that power you are using" then you'd see NIMBY dry up and blow away like a fart on the breeze. but protesters make for good TV, even if it fucks the country they don't care as long as they score in the ratings.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Oh okay, how about YOUR backyard by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Everyone always thinks that NIMBY is bad, until it is THEIR backyard.

      Really? I've been supporting the building of a new nuclear plant about an hour from my house, but the odds of it happening in today's climate is rather unlikely.

      The problem with environmentalists is that they believe that it is possible to get energy without any negative consequences at all. Or, putting it another way, they're opposed to energy sources that have even a single element in the "Con" column. It doesn't matter how many "Pros" there are, or how the pros and cons weigh against each other - if there's even a single downside, they're opposed to it.

      What's the right word for people that reject rational decision making? Ah, yeah - morons.

    3. Re:Oh okay, how about YOUR backyard by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Everyone always thinks that NIMBY is bad, until it is THEIR backyard. NIMBY is part of democracy. Either people get a say or they don't but once you give them a say, they are free to say things you don't like. Including, "not in my backyard".

      Put it in mine, then. Along with those nuclear reactors I could see from the top of my oak tree if the leaves were gone.

      As far as I know, I've only lived one (1) year of my life NOT within 50 miles of something nuclear (usually reactors, sometimes bombs).

      And that one year I was probably (I was a kid at the time, sue me for not being sure) within 100 miles of one or more nuclear weapons.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  60. Use the US-Mexico border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dot the entire US-Mexico border w/ nuclear waste dumps, so that illegal immigrants and drug peddlers are the ones most likely to get affected. In particular, use sites near Brownsville, El Paso, Calexico, Nogales and make the hazards of these things clear, so that locals re-locate further north (and Mexicans further south), and warn any potential illegal immigrant or drug pusher that they risk becoming sterile, or that their babies will have birth defects if they come anywhere near the US border. That should end further illegal immigration along the border. Also, if that waste can be re-cycled, a nuclear plant that uses it, built near Calexico, should solve energy shortages in So. CA.

    Also puts a spanner in the works of all those Aztlan advocates on both sides of that border!

  61. Re:Or NYC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eh, I've driven in NYC. It wasn't really all that hard - and I'm from small town Tennessee. A little frustrating trying to find a parking space sometimes, but it's not like another planet, anybody who can drive in any city in this country should be able to handle it.

    And contrary to popular belief, you CAN actually bluff a cab into getting out of your way.

    But yeah, most of the people are really nice, the food is excellent, and it's really easy to get around. You can even walk and actually get somewhere. And most of the buildings are quite nice.

    I wouldn't want to live there, the apartments are WAY too small. But it really is a nice place to visit.

  62. A gift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 'depleted uranium' nuclear waste is actually a vital energy source. If given the legal right to exploit this, any town willing to take this 'waste' could be very welathy in the future when molten-salt reactors come to be popular. Nuclear fuel, when used as a liquid, doesn't trap the nuclear-poison xenon-135 - it's a gas, so it just bubbles to the surface. This is just one of the many benefits of liquid-form nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy has a greater potential than solar, wind, or other competitors to fossil fuels. It is just the question of a country and rich capital to design and built modern reactors. With the international connection of electric grids, any country (Hey..Lithuania!) that would embrace clean, efficient, plentiful nuclear power could reap rich rewards, particularly in comparison to the otherwise wealthy and productive countries (Shame, Germany!), that have let irrational emotion and rhetoric control their energy policy.

  63. Reprocessing is only to get more out of fuel by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Reprocessing only exists to get a bit of extra life from portions of used fuel rods and not this bullshit that PR is dreaming up without any reference to reality.
    Reprocessing actually increases the amount of nuclear waste via contamination of the equipment and materials doing the work (it's a tricky, expensive and messy process), but that waste can of course be dealt with far more easily than intact used fuel rods.
    Use your brains kids instead of just swallowing the PR bullshit that was designed to try to simply sidestep the waste issue and distract the audience. It makes more sense to deal with the waste problem instead of playing just pretend with things that are there to solve completely different problems.
    The bold text is of course there to prevent reactive idiots from missing it and jumping to the wrong conclusion about what is written above.

    1. Re:Reprocessing is only to get more out of fuel by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? 'A bit of extra life'? You do realize that well over 90% of nuclear 'waste' is Uranium-238, right?

    2. Re:Reprocessing is only to get more out of fuel by dbIII · · Score: 1

      OK, a lot of extra life (number seem a bit high even for an old reactor design but I'll assume you didn't just make it up), but you are straying off the point there that it's all about the fuel and not about reducing waste. Also be careful to not use wide generalisations - I know you mean in the fuel rods instead of what you have written but it could be taken as ignorance that there is a lot more radioactive material to deal with than just the depleted fuel. Most waste by volume is low level stuff that has come in contact with the fuel rods during manufacture, transport and handling.

  64. Ouch...I didn't WANT to be right... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    Brian Wingfield writes in Bloomberg that the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future has sent a draft report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu recommending that US communities should be encouraged to vie for becoming a federal nuclear-waste site

    I didn't want to be right when I hypothesized that the reason that Corporate America was intentionally sabotaging the economy of the United States of America was to leave the American people no economic choices other than accepting death on a dish..in the water...on the wind from the Corporations...

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  65. "Restart" the nuclear industry? Yeah, right. by blindseer · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    The Obama administration is committed to "restarting the American nuclear industry," he said.

    Bullshit!

    If there was a commitment to restarting the American nuclear industry there would not be this overwhelming problem of disposing of nuclear waste. Spent fuel from the existing nuclear power plants could be used as fuel in next generation nuclear power plants. There are already applications for building these power plants that are three decades old! Let these people build their power plants and the waste problem would solve itself.

    Oh, there is another source of nuclear waste, the federal ban on reprocessing the existing spent fuel. If this ban was lifted then even current nuclear power plants could burn the reprocessed spent fuel.

    One thing I learned in my research of this nuclear waste "problem" is that if something is radioactive there is a very high probability that the stuff is either a valuable industrial, scientific, commercial, or medical commodity, or it is fuel for a nuclear reactor.

    Sure, there is probably some radioactive stuff out there that just cannot be recycled into something useful. It seems to me that such items are quite rare and will be low level emitters of radiation. If they were highly radioactive then it would fall under the valuable commodity or nuclear fuel umbrellas. This low level radioactive junk will need to be disposed of properly but it should not require some massive salt mine to contain it. For that stuff I suggest bringing it to Detroit, there's nobody left there to complain.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  66. Perfect place by MemoryDragon · · Score: 0

    The store room in the building where Fox News is located.

    1. Re:Perfect place by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 1

      Half-and-half, then, with Media Matters.

  67. Wrong - even wikipedia has it by dbIII · · Score: 1

    And Reagan overturned it. Then daddy Bush apparently put it back in place for a cheap way to make some oil donors happy since nobody was doing reprocessing in the USA anyway. Then somebody after that (or perhaps even the same Bush) overturned it becuase there is a MOX reprocessing plant almost completed at Savannah River. Look at wikipedia under "Nuclear reprocessing" to get a clue at least that it is definitely not illegal now.
    Also Carter didn't make it illegal simply uneconomic - it was about not spending government money on one aspect of commerical nuclear power. There was also plutonium proliferation stuff which was not an outright ban on reprocessing or breeder reactors - just the methods that produced plutonium. Even that has been overturned.

  68. Keeping the Department of Energy out by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    The panel wants to keep politics out of the decision and wants the Department of Energy kept out of the process owing to the damage it has done already to the reputation of the federal government. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/how-to-pick-a-site-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump/

    In my view, it was congress that treated Nevada as a ghetto more that the DoE but there were certainly problems with faking the data under DoE management.

  69. New Mexico no example by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Claiming that experience in New Mexico shows that waste can be transported safely is quite wrong. It the volume of commercial waste that makes a transport accident inevitable.

  70. Actual Depot or Boondoggle? by trout007 · · Score: 1

    If they mean spend $100 Billion over 10 years digging a hole with no intention on using it I'd vote for my town.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  71. Re:Or NYC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Large crowds in contained spaces create their own culture. If I remember correctly, the Japanese have 90 ways to apologise for causing disturbance in such a situations. An outsider who hasn't grown into the culture certainly have difficulties adapting.

  72. why not just.... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    The nevada desert is very big, almost too big, they could easily start building special containers for the waste and send it all there with a warning no traffic zone....
    sort of what they did back then when testing the nuclear weapons, instead this time, they would get rid of the waste.

  73. Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't we pay Mexico to take it? Why bother putting it in the US at all?

  74. I have a few ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hollywood
    washington

    there is already a lot of waste their, no one will notice

  75. Yucca Mountain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that it will mean much, but I am a resident of Las Vegas and I still think Yucca Mountain is one of the best choices available.

  76. Dilemma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it a "dilemma"? What are the two choices?