Slashdot Mirror
New Mexico Nuclear Accident Ranks Among the Costliest In US History (latimes.com)
mdsolar quotes a report from Los Angeles Times: When a drum containing radioactive waste blew up in an underground nuclear dump in New Mexico two years ago, the Energy Department rushed to quell concerns in the Carlsbad desert community and quickly reported progress on resuming operations. The early federal statements gave no hint that the blast had caused massive long-term damage to the dump, a facility crucial to the nuclear weapons cleanup program that spans the nation, or that it would jeopardize the Energy Department's credibility in dealing with the tricky problem of radioactive waste. But the explosion ranks among the costliest nuclear accidents in U.S. history, according to a Times analysis. The long-term cost of the mishap could top $2 billion, an amount roughly in the range of the cleanup after the 1979 partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. The Feb. 14, 2014, accident is also complicating cleanup programs at about a dozen current and former nuclear weapons sites across the U.S. Thousands of tons of radioactive waste that were headed for the dump are backed up in Idaho, Washington, New Mexico and elsewhere, state officials said in interviews. "The direct cost of the cleanup is now $640 million, based on a contract modification made last month with Nuclear Waste Partnership that increased the cost from $1.3 billion to nearly $2 billion," reports Los Angeles Times. "The cost-plus contract leaves open the possibility of even higher costs as repairs continue. And it does not include the complete replacement of the contaminated ventilation system or any future costs of operating the mine longer than originally planned."
Maybe they should just let these go to town on the cleanup?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140909093659.htm
Just when I thought we might be done with mdsolar spam, this article shows up. He's a biased and intellectually dishonest submitter who will do anything to try to make nuclear energy appear awful. Can we ban mdsolar from submitting more stories and spamming the queue?
Because someone has to pay for the mishap. And that is in this case the feds.
So, essentially a $2 billion subvention for nuclear technology.
From the link "The problem was traced to material — actual kitty litter — used to blot up liquids in sealed drums. Lab officials had decided to substitute an organic material for a mineral one." Tim S.
Nuclear energy is the crazy hot girlfriend of energy. She may be nice, kind, and wonderful for days, months, or years - maybe decades. But someday, somehow, she's going to go berserk on you. 100% chance. And cleaning up the mess at that point will leave you with a very long term scar.
It's a damn good thing that Harry Reid and Obama was able to stop an investment in containing things like this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - or so I am told.
Me? I think it was stupid to stop it.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
It should be noted that the waste was from nuclear weapons production not nuclear power. It is disingenuous to compare them because they are not the same.
To be fair it looks like we are going to subsidize any type of energy production though; by allowing climate change we are collectively giving a much bigger hand out to the fossil fuel industry. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying let people off the hook for actually causing problems like this or trying to be dismissive of the actual problems, but realistically, since it looks like we're already dealing with the externalities of energy, $2 billion dollars is still less than we will be paying for fossil fuels over the long run. It still sucks, but before anyone jumps on the inevitable anti-nuclear soapbox, don't forget that we're all subsidizing energy in one way or another.
This has nothing to do with energy, this is waste from nuclear weapons production.
Enigma
It contained the leak, yes, and the public is in no danger, but for workers in that facility it's a real problem, hence the cleanup expense
The amount of radioactivity released was estimated at 2 to 10 plutonium-equivalent Curies - not a small amount. While you could walk through the room and receive an insignificant dose from a meter away, if even a tiny fraction of that got into your body (e.g. via the contaminated ventilation system), that's an entirely different matter - close-range exposure for days or months is far more serious.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
well it seems to work for me
But you wouldn't like him when he's angry...
Blank until
Three Mile Island has been operating since 1974 generating on average 6645 GWh of electricity each year (yes it's still operating). At the U.S. average of 11.5 cents/kWh, that's $764.2 million/yr worth of electricity. Over it's 42 year history, that would be $32.1 billion worth of electricity generated by the plant.
So the $2 billion to clean up the partial meltdown of TMI reactor #2 amounted to an extra 11.5 * 2 / 32.1 = 0.72 cents per kWh.
Now consider that TMI was the only major commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history, and nuclear power in the U.S. has generated 24,196,167 GWh between 1971-2015. Then the $2 billion cost to clean up TMI works out to just 0.0083 cents per kWh.
Now consider that mdsolar's favored solar receives a subsidy of 96.8 cents per kWh. Or in other words, per unit of energy generated, the subsidy for solar is 11,711x more expensive than cleaning up TMI was.
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
Since uranium runs out, the subsidies for nuclear never tend to zero the way the do for solar which can produce energy without bound long after subsidies end.
Uranium doesn't "run out" if you use breeder reactors. They effectively have fuel indefinitely.
Solar panels are good for about 20 years. That's what the three major Solar sales companies in the Bay Area said, when they visited my house, and we talked about it. Sadly, on the lease program, Solar City was not willing to install updated panels when better panels became available: I was stuck with them for the "full lifetime of 20 years". Also on the lease programs, all three companies owned the panels on my roof, which means that they, not I, got the tax subsidy for them.
Basically: none of them produced quite enough power for both my house and my cottage tenant, they all wanted me to use PG&E as a battery, but admitted that the Nevada PUC decision to disallow net metering was probably going to happen soon in my area as well, since the electric companies really dislike net metering, and they agreed, that because the Smart Meters(tm) required to have Solar in the first place allowed differential rates of payment at different times of day, that I would likely get paid less during the day when my panels were generating electricity, and have to pay more in the mornings and evenings (when I was actually home from work, duh!).
Their suggestion was to put all my appliances on timers so that they ran while I was at work; I asked for their advice on where to buy a robot to move clothes from my washer to my dryer, so that I didn't have to run the dryer at night, either. They had no answer.
With the nuclear waste problem, subsidies for nuclear likely increase without bound. You've misunderstood the situation.
What nuclear waste situation? Oh. You mean the one Jimmy Carter created on April 7, 1977, when he ordered support cut for the Barnwell reprocessing plant or the construction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.
The one we could make "go away" pretty easily by reversing his executive order.
That nuclear waste problem, right?
This.
Just reprocessing fuel from ordinary reactors and putting the unburnt plutonium and U235 back into new fuel rods greatly increases the years of proven reserves we have of uranium. Breeders ups it another order of magnitude. Beyond that, ion exchange processes have demonstrated extraction of uranium from sea water. This was demonstrated by the Japanese back in 1970something, at a cost of a few hundred dollars per pound. Not economical now, but at some point it would be.
Not to mention thorium. My CRC Handbook says that the available energy in the earth's crust from thorium is greater than uranium and all fossil fuels put together; thorium is about as common as lead.
This is not from nuclear energy. This waste is from our nuclear weapons program, so bill it against the DOD.
He never left. If you follow the submissions you would see him on a regular basis. Almost all of his are quickly voted down, but once in a while the editors let one through to stir the pot..
We don't get idiocy like this with oil storage anymore due to multiple levels of containment built to handle the maximum amount stored in an area.
We still have idiocy like this in oil pipelines and rail transport, though. Oil pipelines are single-walled.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What's another paltry couple of billion dollars when they can't account for that they did with 6 Trillion dollars
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Sure. And it's being stored away in casks, rather than being reprocessed.because of silly laws by people who think that somebody's going to make bombs out of it.
Also, it's being stored away in casks, rather than being used in reactor types that could cook it down into a form of waste that's far less long-lived.
Also, it's being stored away in casks, rather than the byproducts being dumped into the environment at large the way fossil fuel power production does.
So how cheap would fossil fuel-based power be if you had to treat the waste the way you do nuclear waste?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Uhm, Actually, one of the byproducts in a Thorium LFTR design is P-238 (which is used in "nuclear batteries").
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Good catch. Thorium can't be used to produce weaponizable plutonium. My recollection is:
P-239 is weapons-grade plutonium.
U-238 is weapons-grade uranium.
P-238 is an alpha emitter, degrading to U-234(5?) (i.e. it skips U-238).
Thorium produces P-238 (and not P-239/U-238), so it is not useful for nuclear fission weapons.
In any case, I recall back in the debate about uranium or thorium reactors, DoD refused to produce Thorium precisely because they cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons.