Posted on 04/09/2002 11:11:28 AM PDT by cogitator
Jimmy Carter got us into this mess, so I guess an alternative would be to put it on his peanut farm.
Breeder reactors are the way to go.
Actually, I have been following the process very closely. In fact, I have worked on it as part of my professional career. I have authored some parts of those studies. Everything we did at Battelle and elsewhere indicated that the strata at depth at Yucca Mountain is eminently suitable for this process.
There are any number of reasons why the site is suitable from a technical viewpoint. Along with that, there are as many or perhaps more non-technical reasons why DOE would want to use land they already control to implement a project they have been tasked to. Not the least of which is minimizing political hassles in obtaining new land, getting permits, going above and beyond all the other requirements they normally undertake even with territory they already control. Let me put it this way: if you wanted to build a new house, and could do so in the manner you wanted on land you already own, would you be better off doing that, or going out on the open market and getting a new parcel?
As far as building in additional engineering safeguards in the form of more durable containers, if you can do so with minimal cost and effort (which is the case), why not? Do you know anything about the engineering principles involved, things such as reasonable assurance, adequate margins of safety, defense in depth, multple barriers of containment, risk-informed engineering and regulation, or probabilistic risk assessment? If you do, then you will see that there is no reason to criticize or read any sinister intent into that decision. It just makes good scientific sense to do it that way.
Yes, as I noted in an earlier post, you could probably devise a way wherein the material could be stored anywhere. But, would that be the best way to do it, taking all relevant factors into account? Clearly, the answer is no. Yucca Mountain is the best we can do right now, and those knowledgeable about the technical issues involved will see that. Those who really don't want to solve the problem and address in a meaningful way the issue of managing these materials will always find fault with any proposed solution because, in essence, they don't want a constructive solution to be implemented that is beneficial to the industry.
To be honest, I'd rather not be throwing the stuff away. There is a lot of value to that material, and as events in the Middle East over the years have shown, I'd rather have access to home-grown energy resources. Reprocessing is the absolute, unquestionable best way to go, but a Rat killed that option a long time ago.
And in fact, part of the earth's heat comes from nuclear reactions. At Oklo, there was a natural nuclear reactor that burned for thousands of years in a water-soaked rock seam in the earth's crust, and the waste products never migrated more than a few meters from the core of the reaction over the ages. It was discovered during mining operations which uncovered the byproducts of its nuclear reactions.
One serious alternative is to reprocess the "waste" and recycle it as fuel.
Nevertheless, these Nevada politicians are an national embarassment and a disgrace.
Nevada Power is teetering on bankruptcy despite unacceptable rate increases, and the dam*ed idiots are hellbent on obstructing utilization of nuclear power.
Furthermore, alternatives such as solar are not economicly feasible despited the natural advantage of Nevada being one of the sunniest states in the Union.
These posturing bozos will not get my vote based specificly on this issue.
Because it es extremely valuable; it can easily be reprocessed into usable nuclear fuel. Why don't we do so, instead of whining that we have no place to put it? Because:
Jimmy Carter outlawed reprocessing over bogus proliferation concerns and to kowtow to the wacko environmentalists and the stupid sheeple who want to blame the industry.
Like so many other things, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the Evil Party, abetted by the idiots in the Stupid Party.
AB
The Nuclear Waste Fund is a special fund under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy. It was established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, enacted January 7, 1983. It finances the activities of the nuclear waste disposal program, which consists of the development, acquisition, and operation of facilities for the disposal of nuclear waste. The act requires that reactor operators pay (1) fees for electricity generated by a civilian nuclear power reactor and (2) a one-time fee for spent nuclear fuel for power generated prior to the act. These fees are credited to the fund. The act said that, in return for these fees, the Secretary of Energy, beginning not later than January 31, 1998, would provide for the disposal of the high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel accumulated at nuclear power plants. The Secretary was authorized to make expenditures from the fund for purposes of authorized radioactive waste disposal activities, subject to appropriations that would remain available until expended. Balances in the fund may be invested in Treasury securities.Deficit Control Act category: Discretionary
Budget subfunction: Energy Supply (271)
Fiscal year 1999 fund data:
(Dollars in millions)
Income $ 768
Source of funds:
Taxes (governmental receipts)
Proprietary receipts : $662
Fees for Services $662
General fund transfers (intragovernmental transfers) 106
Interest 106
Appropriations
Other
Offsetting collections
Outlays $ 188
Balance at end of year $7,927
Investments: The fund is invested in U.S. Treasury securities, which are classified as “available-for-sale” and are reported at market value.
Current issues: The goal of accepting radioactive waste into a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in 1998 was not achieved. The goal now is to open the facility in 2010 at the earliest. The lack of a disposal site has been a contentious issue over the years. Nuclear utilities, which have paid for the waste disposal program for years through the fee on nuclear power, have become concerned over the delays and the need to store spent nuclear fuel. Some delays have been blamed on poor program management, while the Department of Energy contends that tight funding has been a major barrier. Congressional approval is required to spend the fees collected, and only about half of the fees collected have been appropriated to the program. Some surplus in the fund may be needed to pay future costs after nuclear plants have ceased operation.
In the 106th Congress, bills to modify the civilian waste program were considered in both houses. The House Commerce Committee approved H.R. 45, which would have moved the Nuclear Waste Fund off-budget and exempted it from DCA controls. Although appropriations would still be required for all expenditures from the fund, the appropriations would not be subject to budget caps. This proposal raised considerable concern from the House Budget Committee. The Senate bill (S. 1287) would leave the current funding mechanism in place but would authorize waste shipments to the repository site if it receives a Nuclear Regulatory Commission construction permit. S. 1287 passed both houses of Congress but the President vetoed the legislation on April 25, 2000. A Senate override attempt on May 2, 2000, was unsuccessful.
You're engaging in logical fallacies (appeal to emotion, prejudicial language). Just what is "horrible" about the material? Is it dangerous? Yes, under certain circumstances, but, then again, so are you. Oops, we should therefore ban you. You cannot be shipped anywhere. Sorry. Are you "an accident waiating to happen, as they say"? Yes? Could you kill someone? Yes. A lot of people? Under the right circumstances, yes. Sorry dude, you're banned.
See how prejudicial language works? You can get just about anything banned, including your fellow FReepers. So, what is the point here? It is this. It doesn't matter so much that what you are shipping has harmful potential under certain circumstances. That happens everythime you get in your car. It can blow up and kill a lot of people, if you're not careful. Point is, you take reasonable precautions to assure that the risks to others and yourself are minimized to the maximum extent practical.
It might surprise you to know that nuclear materials have been shipped for decades in this country. For example, as we speak, there is transuranic waste being shipped and stored at the WIPP facility in New Mexico. I have been involved in spent fuel shipments to the Savannah River Plant back when it was accepting such shipments (the pols have since shut this down to appease the wackos). Now, for radiological incidents, here are the numbers for you:
Number of Fatalities to Workers: 0
Number of Fatalities to the General Public: 0
Number of Injuries to Workers: 0
Number of Injuries to the General Public: 0
Now, before you go off on some tangent about "an accident will contaminate billions of square miles and kill trillions of people" or similar nonsense, let me tell you that if you apply reasonable methods of PRA to the credible accident scenarios using available (and planned) shipment methodology and technology, you get accident scenarios that involve, at most, local efforts for containment and cleanup, and no immediate or long-term fatalities or injuries to workers or the public.
Best among the options that were investigated, maybe. The list of options included how many other istes? None.
Reprocessing is the absolute, unquestionable best way to go, but a Rat killed that option a long time ago.
I agree with you. Is there any reason why a new law cannot overturn the old law? Nope.
As I understand it, at least most of the federal lands in Nevada were not "taken from" the state of Nevada. The state of Nevada never owned them. Nevada began life as a territory of the United States -- the whole territory was owned by the federal government. The United States admitted Nevada to statehood on the understanding that large lands in Nevada would continue to be federal property.
Admission of a territory to statehood means that the Federal government yields land which it already owns to be the territory of a new political community within the United States, a new state. The United States is under no obligation to admit any territory to statehood, or to give any territory any more federal land than it wishes to give. The United States admitted Nevada to the Union without yielding to the new state certain lands within its borders which were and are owned by the United States.
Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..."
Yucca Mountain is property belonging to the United States. The state of Nevada has no jurisdiction over Yucca Mountain. The President has made this decision according to "rules and regulations" established by Congress. It is entirely constitutional. Nevada will simply embarrass itself if it tries to make this a states' rights issue.
(reposted from "Bush Endorses Yucca Mountain")
ALL Thanks to the traitorous Jim Jeffords,who,for public vanity,a "little bit " of power,and plenty of TV Face time for 30 days,(I smiled w/ glee when I read how few books he sold after switching)This appears to be an 'unrealistic impossibility'.Dems., need to have a 'WIN' (AKA anything against # 43)don't they? Do DemocRATS betray their own parties also?Or is this just a RINO type of thing?
Well, when I was at Battelle there was quite a bit of early work done to categorize sites in Texas. But politics killed those, and other considerations, like realizing that funds were limited and maybe there wasn't technical or economic justification for more than one site. If the nuclear industry were to expand in a big way, that could change, because capacity at Yucca Mountain would be challenged.
Hey, I think we have to be realistic and recognize the political factor at work here. Congress, as the duly elected representatives of the people, made the decision, right or wrong, that it was in our national interest to develop civilian uses of nuclear energy. Hence the Atomic Energy Act. They recognized that there was a national interest in dealing with spent fuel, hence the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Its within the political realm. Science can do its best to provide the best information we can, but ultimately it will come down to a vote. I understand why that rankles the folks in NV. I still think they're wrong, irrationally so, to fear Yucca Mountain, because the risks are very low, much lower than those associated with other commonly-accepted activities of a modern society.
We agree that reprocessing is the best alternative. And I for one use every opportunity to point that out to whomever will listen (political leaders included). I have testified at the state and federal levels at hearings on this very subject. Sometimes thoughtful, intelligent political figures and their staff (there are a few out there), listen and are reasonable. Other times, seemingly more often, emotion, or the desire to gather more votes than your opponent, rather than doing the right thing, carries the day. All I can do is try, and land on my feet as best I can when the votes go against me...
If Congress doesn't override, then they will have to explain what it did with all the money that they took from the nuclear industry and how they plan to meet their already overdue obligation to provide a storage site. A simple majority vote is likely to override the governor.
Work done at the site is investigatory in nature only. The actual repository is quite a ways off. There are any number of hurdles to clear, any one of which can derail the whole process. That's why there is a lot a skepticism in the business about the process. It seems to have been designed to maximize the possibility of failure (of the process, not the engineering).
No legal reason why the issue of reprocessing couldn't be revisited, but I don't like the chances. Once Congress does away with something like this, its hard to bring it back. In fact, except for taxes (which they always want to bring back, or keep in place, or add to), there is a tremendous undertow against reconsidering anything, especially this kind of nuclear industry initiative. The wackos are really entrenched on this one. Just mention either the words "nuclear", or "plutonium", and you'll have the gutless ones running for the hills.
Thank you, thank you for pointing that out- I've been trying to tell people about that for years! The French Super Phoenix system recycles the stuff routinely- end of problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.