bascule Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/goodbye-yucca-obama-budget-nuclear.php Okay, this is just retarded. We need Yucca Mountain anyway to store existing spent nuclear fuel which has no permanent resting place. I understand Obama isn't a fan of nuclear power, but that doesn't change the fact that we do have nuclear reactors which have been producing waste and right now we have nowhere to permanently store that waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 hold on there... does cut funding means that it has to close? Maybe he's just halting expansion, or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Let's be clear on the issue here. Just because he cut funding for Yucca mountain doesn't mean he's against nuclear power. One issue is about waste handling, the other is about power generation. They are separate. Even many Republicans with a history of arguing in favor of nuclear power agree with the President's decision on this. I was listening to Secretary Chu yesterday getting grilled by Congress about nuclear in general yesterday, and everyone accepted the fact that Yucca is just a bad setup that cannot meet the need (the grilling was about setup of new plants, not the closing of Yucca). The idea is that we need to find a place/approach that works (since Yucca does not), it's not about being "against nuclear power." It's about being against faulty storage options for nuclear waste. Closing Yucca is a good thing. The question that we need to be asking is, "what do we do instead with that waste?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 hold on there... does cut funding means that it has to close? Maybe he's just halting expansion, or something like that. It's not even finished, and its completion has been pushed back due to persistent funding cuts. I was listening to Secretary Chu yesterday getting grilled by Congress about nuclear in general yesterday, and everyone accepted the fact that Yucca is just a bad setup that cannot meet the need (the grilling was about setup of new plants, not the closing of Yucca). The idea is that we need to find a place/approach that works (since Yucca does not) Why doesn't it work, and what place is better than the middle of the Nevada desert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Why doesn't it work, and what place is better than the middle of the Nevada desert? To your first question, besides just the enormous cost and lack of progress (over $10B since it began, a commit date of 1998 that has long since passed, and new projections that it still won't be ready by 2020 and will require billions and billions of dollars more), it seems that recent studies have shown that water flows through the Yucca site much faster than they assumed it did... faster than previously thought. What that means is that there is a pretty sizable chance that nuclear waste could leak into the groundwater supply. I also bet that you'd be surprised to hear that Yucca has never been subject to an independent scientific study on whether or not it's truly viable and meets the need. The only reason it was picked is that it seemed "dry and remote" enough. Those assumptions are now being questioned, and being shown rather untenable. Further, they don't have any plans for what to do once the waste is in there, nor is Yucca large enough to meet our storage needs (think a 1 pint container trying to hold a gallon of product... just ain't gonna happen). I've also read concerns about the proposed rail transportation which would be mandated, and how vulnerable that woud be to attack. Also, as I alluded to above, I found it rather telling that republican congress critters with a reputation for pushing nuclear power were in agreement during the hearing yesterday in DC that stopping Yucca was a good thing. As to your second question, I really don't know. I suppose one solution would be not to use nuclear, but I don't find that very feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Say what you want, iNow, but this is a line in the sand for me. If I don't see one helluva lot of nuclear power plants on the board in 2012, and the reason is lack of initiative from the administration or just plain caving to the whacko tree-huggers, then I will be declaring Obama to be breaking his promise to govern with science instead of ideology, and voting for someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Say what you want, iNow, but this is a line in the sand for me. If I don't see one helluva lot of nuclear power plants on the board in 2012, and the reason is lack of initiative from the administration or just plain caving to the whacko tree-huggers, then I will be declaring Obama to be breaking his promise to govern with science instead of ideology, and voting for someone else. Judging from your reply, I get the very definite impression that you failed to read my first post to this thread. There are two different issues here. One is about nuclear waste disposal, the other is about new energy generation via nuclear technology. While they are related, they are not the same. Obama is not stopping progress on creation of new nuclear plants. He's saying that he's no longer willing to throw money at a waste collection plan that has failed every milestone and won't even meet the identified need. Frankly, there's no need to throw around language like "caving to whacko tree huggers." It makes you look foolish. These are two separate issues. This is about waste handling, not power generation. Power generation via nuclear is still very much on the table. We just need to figure out how to better handle the waste products since Yucca is not up to the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bear's Key Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 It's always possible the "science" has been tainted. With nuke power waste having to be guarded against terrorism use, and with containers having to be rebuilt periodically, its cost efficiency is questionable at best. Plus I can't trust what scientists appointed in the Bush era had to say on the issue, so I'll just wait and see until the new appointments offer some input. However, I'd question any scientist with ties to the relevant industries, especially those operating in secrecy, historically mega-profitable, and with a slice of government in their pockets by long-entrenched lobbyists. In any case, Obama's eyes might be set on another reality. For those who didn't see my post on Greensburg, below are snippets. Obama acknowledged Greensburg in his speech to Congress..... Yet what is happening in the city's rebuilding process may not only re-invent Greensburg but provide a model for "green" building everywhere......... "Kansas is known for being very conservative," And results from the Greensburg project can even be integrated by other green city projects like Dongtan (in China), planned to be built entirely from scratch by Arup (the group who just signed the Demonstration Industrial Park for Energy Saving and Environmental Protection {link} -- a UK/China joint effort). my response continued at a new thread... (so as not to break topic here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Yucca Mountain: because the perfect place to store toxic nuclear waste is over an active volcanic fault system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 To your first question, besides just the enormous cost and lack of progress (over $10B since it began, a commit date of 1998 that has long since passed The lack of progress can be attributed to persistent funding cuts. ...it seems that recent studies have shown that water flows through the Yucca site much faster than they assumed it did... faster than previously thought. What that means is that there is a pretty sizable chance that nuclear waste could leak into the groundwater supply. I also bet that you'd be surprised to hear that Yucca has never been subject to an independent scientific study on whether or not it's truly viable and meets the need. The only reason it was picked is that it seemed "dry and remote" enough. Those assumptions are now being questioned, and being shown rather untenable. I see. That's quite disheartening from a sunk cost perspective. Are these problems really so intractable that it's worth abandoning the existing $10 billion investment and starting over elsewhere? I'm not against abandoning Yucca Mountain per se, but where's the plan for a new permanent storage site for nuclear waste? If Obama wants to stimulate the economy with public infrastructure projects, this is one that's sorely needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I see. That's quite disheartening from a sunk cost perspective. Are these problems really so intractable that it's worth abandoning the existing $10 billion investment and starting over elsewhere? I agree. It downright sucks. We've been throwing money at this for far too long, and the brakes should have been put on long ago. You'll notice at the link I shared above that if we did keep the project going, it would be about $196B just to sustain it for a few decades... That doesn't speak well in its favor, and only adds to the realization problems we're hearing about. I had no idea it would be so costly to maintain, nor did I realize that the project costs are about more than just getting it setup and started, then we're done. Nope... This isn't a "one time investment," it's a recurring cost for decades to come, it's going to take a lot more money to keep it going and maintained, and that has to be factored in... There's also the fact that they really don't know what to do once the nuclear waste gets there... Not to mention the fact that, in addition to the issues with the volume of water found to be flowing through the site, it's been built over a volcanic fault as mentioned by Mokele. Facepalm in triplicate... I'm not against abandoning Yucca Mountain per se, but where's the plan for a new permanent storage site for nuclear waste? And that, my friend, turns out to be the million dollar question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Judging from your reply, I get the very definite impression that you failed to read my first post to this thread. There are two different issues here. One is about nuclear waste disposal, the other is about new energy generation via nuclear technology. While they are related, they are not the same. Obama is not stopping progress on creation of new nuclear plants. He's saying that he's no longer willing to throw money at a waste collection plan that has failed every milestone and won't even meet the identified need. Frankly, there's no need to throw around language like "caving to whacko tree huggers." It makes you look foolish. These are two separate issues. This is about waste handling, not power generation. Power generation via nuclear is still very much on the table. We just need to figure out how to better handle the waste products since Yucca is not up to the task. Not at all, I made a perfectly logical extrapolation and landed an opinion on top of it. Indeed there are two issues here, but in American politics it's not unusual at all for political activity in one area to suggest a change in direction in another area -- that's not foolish, in fact it's graduate-level political analysis. As such I have stated my opinion on that subject. If you don't like that I really am very sorry, but that is my right. Edited March 13, 2009 by Pangloss unnecessary sarcasm removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I do wonder how likely it is that Yucca mountain was a purposefully sabotaged project. Allowing the project to commence, brings money to the state. If it is useless, that may be considered the icing on the cake -- lots of people don't want to actually have to end up with the waste in their state, and of course a politician would be sensitive to that. On the other hand, the state that has the storage facility benefits even more if they can increase maintenance costs. An alternative to permanent storage of waste is to drop or bury it in a subduction zone, which due to tectonic movements will eventually ensure it gets buried all the way to the earth's mantle. Or so some say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 An alternative to permanent storage of waste is to drop or bury it in a subduction zone, which due to tectonic movements will eventually ensure it gets buried all the way to the earth's mantle. Or so some say. Or, in the exact opposite direction, bury it in the Canadian Shield, a vast stretch of stable, ancient rock with no serious instabilities and extremely sparse population. We'd have to pay Canada, but if we're looking for "middle of nowhere"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Yucca Mountain: because the perfect place to store toxic nuclear waste is over an active volcanic fault system. You would think that a "Giant Atomic Reptile" would be all in favor of storing toxic nuclear waste over an active volcanic fault system. Are you afraid it would create too much competition? As bascule points out in his OP we have a significant issue with existing waste. As a person living in eastern Washington State, this issue is of particular interest to me. Hanford will soon be creating nuclear waste vitrified glass blocks from the slop left over from the cold war. With the closure of Yucca Mountain they plan to store this waste above ground in warehouses until a Yucca Mountain replacement can be found. Yea, thats a lot safer then Yucca Mountain. There seem to be some that prefer not to solve this problem. Closing Yucca Mountain in my opinion is simply a political payoff to the Jane Fonda / Robert Kennedy jr. branch of the Democratic Party. Nuclear power is a third rail issue to many Democrats. Why deny this well know fact. By closing Yucca Mountain, increasing electric power generation via new nuclear power plants will be significantly curtailed. Why pretend this is not the goal. Edited March 13, 2009 by waitforufo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The solution requires international cooperation. Australia has regions of desert, utterly arid, which are in a geologically stable location which will unlikely have anything happen geologically for the next 10 million years, and which are 1000 kms from the nearest large town. Pay the Aussi's megabucks to dig a bloody great hole in the ideal location, and there is room for waste for the next 10,000 years, and an income stream that would make Australia the richest nation of Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You would think that a "Giant Atomic Reptile" would be all in favor of storing toxic nuclear waste over an active volcanic fault system. Are you afraid it would create too much competition? You've seen the movies. I just wanna wreck Tokyo, but one stupid earthquake later and it's nothing but battling giant moths and 3-headed dragon-monsters all day long! Nuclear power is a third rail issue to many Democrats. Why deny this well know fact. By closing Yucca Mountain, increasing electric power generation via new nuclear power plants will be significantly curtailed. Why pretend this is not the goal. Why assume it is? Is there any credible evidence that the decision was made to score political points, rather than out of legitimate concerns over the safety and cost of the site? Why assume one way or the other, without evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) You would think that a "Giant Atomic Reptile" would be all in favor of storing toxic nuclear waste over an active volcanic fault system. Are you afraid it would create too much competition? No. Obviously the issue is the volcanic fault line itself, and the unstable ground itself raises the risk of a containment breach beyond acceptable limits. If that ground cracks, and those walls crumble, and that radiactive waste gets into the air, then it only takes a decent wind to push the radiation into larger population centers. Much like you don't want to build a house on land that is shifting, you don't want to build a nuclear storage facility on an active volcanic fault system. I agree we need a solution, and no, I'm not against nuclear power, but I AM against moving forward with a half assed solution about waste containment which is full of problems. Edited March 13, 2009 by iNow spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Pay the Aussi's megabucks to dig a bloody great hole in the ideal location, and there is room for waste for the next 10,000 years, and an income stream that would make Australia the richest nation of Earth. Nice try, I'm sure you would like that very much. But instead of the simple map showing the scary dangerous path the waste will have to travel, we will now need a globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The solution requires international cooperation. Australia has regions of desert, utterly arid, which are in a geologically stable location which will unlikely have anything happen geologically for the next 10 million years, and which are 1000 kms from the nearest large town. One problem with that is transport of the waste over the ocean, and more specifically, what happens in the case of a shipwreck. It would also require moving huge quantities of waste through large port cities on each end (which I'm sure the citizens will be happy about). Finally, who drives the ship? You can't put enough shielding on the ship to protect them without sinking it. I think it'd be a good idea to just keep any waste on the continent it was made on. Aus can use the desert, Europe and Asia can use the vast siberian wastelands, and North America can use the Canadian Shield (AFAIK, there are no nuclear power plants in South America or Africa). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You've seen the movies. I just wanna wreck Tokyo, but one stupid earthquake later and it's nothing but battling giant moths and 3-headed dragon-monsters all day long! Lol! I declare NRMIMBY! No Radioactive Monsters In My Back Yard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Finally, who drives the ship? You can't put enough shielding on the ship to protect them without sinking it. I'm pretty sure that shielding works in an exponential fashion. It doesn't matter how much radioactive stuff you have, a foot of lead is going to block most of it (for gamma, at least -- neutrons need lots of nuclei instead of dense nuclei, so water or hydrocarbons for that). Edit: according to wiki, each 1 cm of lead will block half of the gamma rays. Therefore, 1 foot of lead will block 99.99999993% of it. Edited March 13, 2009 by Mr Skeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'm sure the fact the Harry Reid is up for reelection in 2010 had nothing to do with this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'm sure the fact the Harry Reid is up for reelection in 2010 had nothing to do with this decision. Much like your comment really has nothing to do with Yucca's viability as a storage facility for nuclear waste, or how many billions of dollars it is going to take just to "hope" it becomes one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Closing Yucca Mountain in my opinion is simply a political payoff to the Jane Fonda / Robert Kennedy jr. branch of the Democratic Party. Nuclear power is a third rail issue to many Democrats. Why deny this well know fact. By closing Yucca Mountain, increasing electric power generation via new nuclear power plants will be significantly curtailed. Why pretend this is not the goal. I think this has been the Democrats' goal in continuing to underfund Yucca Mountain. The only real argument against nuclear power is the issue of waste. By underfunding or otherwise preventing the problem from being solved, other solutions like wind and solar look more attractive. However this belies the fact that there's already a substantial amount of waste in dry cask storage and now there's no permanent solution in sight. The government is paying $500 million a year in fines to facilities temporarily storing the waste because they have failed to open the facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now