Yucca Mountain

[bhunter]

Another blow back from an Obama political play:

This from Chemical & Engineering News:

"The 15-member Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future was established by the White House last year to recommend options for disposing of waste from the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S.. An estimated 65,000 metric tons of spent fuel are now held at power reactor sites in 33 states, and that inventory is increasing at a rate of 2,000 metric tons per year.

In 2009, President Barack Obama canceled plans to build a permanent repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles north of Las Vegas. The Yucca site was strongly opposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other politicians from the state."

That's what Yucca Mountain was all about, but since Obama shut it down, we need to develop another expensive facility with all the attendant delays and fighting over placement. Regardless of Harry Reid, Yucca Mountain is a damn good place to put such a facility.

[merrylander]

Especially as you don't live there, right? Build some new CANDU reactors they burn used fuel from high pressure reactors that require enriched uranium.

[finnbow]

The worst part of it is that the nuclear industry has already payed for the repository through levies placed upon the utilities who use nuclear power. The Fed took the money, dug a big hole in the ground, and left it.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The worst part of it is that the nuclear industry has already payed for the repository through levies placed upon the utilities who use nuclear power. The Fed took the money, dug a big hole in the ground, and left it.

Sounds like Standard Operating Procedure.

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The worst part of it is that the nuclear industry has already payed for the repository through levies placed upon the utilities who use nuclear power. The Fed took the money, dug a big hole in the ground, and left it.

Yup.. You've got it.. Along with the TOTALLY unreasonable specifications for ambient leakage.. ((See article below)) that they decided early on..

And even with different reactor designs, we STILL need a place to dispose of radioactive medical, industrial waste. Better to put it in a properly designed place than to spread it in various convienient places.

To the rescue is Rhode Island founder Roger Williams or, at least, a statue of him located in the U.S. Capitol building. Williams, you see, spews far more radiation than the Environmental Protection Agency deems safe, and that raises some perplexing questions.

Sensing the absurdity of the EPA standards, Dr. Michael Gough and I commissioned radiation experts to measure radiation levels in the U.S.
Capitol building and compare them with the proposed Yucca Mountain
standards. The Capitol contains a great deal of granite and marble building
materials that naturally emit the same type of radiation as spent fuel.

Our experts discovered that radiation dose rates at the Roger Williams
statue, located between the Rotunda and Senate Chamber, are up to 65
times greater than what the EPA plans to allow at Yucca Mountain.

The radiation-dose rate at the Williams statue also is up to 550 percent
higher than the dose rate received at the fenceline of a nuke plant, and about
13,000 times higher than the average annual radiation dose from worldwide
nuclear-energy production.

Though our measurements were undertaken solely to illustrate the silliness
of the EPA's plans for Yucca Mountain, a worried constituent contacted a
member of Congress about our report. The member requested the architect
of the Capitol to investigate.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Yup.. You've got it.. Along with the TOTALLY unreasonable specifications for ambient leakage.. ((See article below)) that they decided early on..

And even with different reactor designs, we STILL need a place to dispose of radioactive medical, industrial waste. Better to put it in a properly designed place than to spread it in various convienient places.

Beyond that, the NRC has to be willing/able to certify that the repository will be safe for 10,000 years after it closes. WTF??? This is what happens when you allow politicians/lawyers to deal with technical matters, much less technical matters involving nuclear policy (RE: Germany's recent decision regarding nuclear power).

I suppose you're aware that we blasted off untold numbers of nukes both above and below ground just spitting distance from Yucca Mountain, eh?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Beyond that, the NRC has to be willing/able to certify that the repository will be safe for 10,000 years after it closes. WTF??? This is what happens when you allow politicians/lawyers to deal with technical matters, much less technical matters involving nuclear policy (RE: Germany's recent decision regarding nuclear power).

I suppose you're aware that we blasted off untold numbers of nukes both above and below ground just spitting distance from Yucca Mountain, eh?

Wonder how much extra you can charge of guaranteeing something for 10,000 years?

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

Wonder how much extra you can charge of guaranteeing something for 10,000 years?

Chas

And how do we hold you responsible if it only lasts 9,999 years?
Seein' as how you'll be dead.

Dave

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

And how do we hold you responsible if it only lasts 9,999 years?
Seein' as how you'll be dead.

Dave

ture, they should have asked to garantee a 100,000 years. This would have made it safer and cost only a bit more..............