Nuclear Power Needs To Go
 

All four of these crises are ongoing and he result of negligence and corruption. Nuclear power is unsustainable and should be phased out globally.

http://www.newsweek.com/hanford-nucl...e-waste-454808

http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/05/01/...34_134674.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/bu...rgy-areva.html

https://www.rt.com/usa/338410-indian...ernie-sanders/

Rob used to champion the CANDU power plants in Canada. Does anyone have any info on how they operate?

The current lower price of natural gas will probably have more to do with nuclear energy's demise than anything in the OP's links. BTW, the Hanford Site's leaking tanks have nothing to do with commercial nuclear power.

To anyone interested, I recommend the documentary "Pandora's Promise," - clears away a lot of the hyperbole and provides a well done overview of nuclear energy options with some of the leading nuclear and environmental scientists/engineers.

A distinction without a difference, IMO. In any event, some of the waste stored at Hanford is waste from commercial reactors that was destined for Yucca Mtn.

While this may be true, it's certainly news to me, having been to Hanford bunches of times. Only the N Reactor was dual use (military/civilian), but I doubt that a small portion of the mixed waste in the underground tanks has been specifically deemed Yucca Mountain waste. Perhaps the spent fuel is, but the spent fuel has absolutely nothing to do with the leaky tanks.

In any event, using Hanford to make an argument against the use of modern nuclear reactor designs is silly. The use of single walls underground tanks to accommodate 100 million gallons of mixed waste was due to war time exigencies (beating Hitler to the bomb and keeping ahead of the Russians). These exigencies don't exist in the civilian nuclear power industry. If anything kills nuclear, it will be the price of natural gas lowered by virtue of fracking.

It is true. That's what happens when you retire. And pointing to the permanent risks associated with nuclear waste storage, however it was generated, is not "silly". Or do you maintain that this is a soluble problem?

And there are indications that there are now some double wall tanks, those not built under wartime exigencies, that are leaking. Tanks that are 400 yards from the second largest river in the US.

Not all "nuclear waste storage" is the same. When one normally speaks of nuclear waste storage in the civilian nuclear industry, they're talking of spent fuel. The contents of Hanford's tanks isn't spent fuel. Conflating the two in making an argument against civilian nuclear reactors shows a lack of understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and the nature of the mess at Hanford.

That said, cheap natural gas and existing regulatory burdens have pretty much killed the civilian nuclear industry. AFAIK, the V.C. Summer plant expansion in South Carolina is pretty much the only ongoing civilian reactor project and I'm sure its owner, SCE&G, would in retrospect much preferred to have built a natural gas plant considering costs that have skyrocketed to $12 billion.

http://www.thestate.com/news/busines...e41740257.html

The handwriting is pretty much on the wall already. The NRC, which was going great guns 20 years ago with the promise of a resurgent civilian nuclear industry, is downsizing dramatically in recognition of the dynamics noted above.

Yes, there's vitrification but the vitrified waste is still hot and the process results in an increased volume of waste, making storage even more problematic. And the risks associated with nuclear waste, however it was generated are both extreme and seemingly insoluble.

Part of this "Ask this old house" episode is on how Germany is moving toward energy independence. They also talk about how Germany has committed to move away from Nuclear, which they were once among the world's leaders in.

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365590403/