Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLAS VEGAS - The leading Democratic presidential candidates are united on the government's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage plan: They'd scrap it.
Their vigorous opposition to the project reflects Nevada's importance as one of a handful of states that will lead off voting in January for the Democratic and Republican nominations. Few local issues are as unpopular with Nevadans as the waste dump.
The Democrats have just one problem - their records keep getting in the way. Front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton has created suspicion because she's refused to rule out expansion of nuclear power as a solution to the nation's energy woes and has received campaign contributions from the nuclear industry. Barack Obama, whose home state of Illinois has more nuclear plants than any other, also has received substantial contributions from the industry and wants to leave nuclear power on the table.
John Edwards, when he was a North Carolina senator, voted twice to open the dump and once against it. Bill Richardson once ran the Energy Department, which is building the dump, and voted for it when he was a New Mexico congressman.
The dump, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was supposed to open in 1998, but scientific controversies, lawsuits and money shortages have delayed it. Its opening is now projected for no earlier than 2020 and its cost has climbed to an estimated $77 billion.
The issue has been almost invisible on the Republican side of the race despite GOP plans to hold their presidential caucuses in Nevada on Jan. 19, the same day as Democrats.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has not given a clear answer on his position, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has said he will not rule out continuing work at Yucca Mountain, and Arizona Sen. John McCain has stuck to his support for the dump. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson voted in favor of the project while in Congress, but has not commented recently.
The GOP has generally been more willing than Democrats to increase the nation's share of electricity generated from nuclear power. The lack of a waste disposal site is a key obstacle to expansion.
Here's a look at the top Democrats' records on Yucca Mountain:
Clinton:
The New York senator recently used her seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee to call the first oversight hearing on the dump since Democrats took control of Congress.
Clinton voted against a 2002 attempt to override Nevada's rejection of the facility. She's promised to cut funding for the project if elected president.
At a South Carolina town hall in February, Clinton expressed concerns about waste disposal but noted that "nuclear power has to be a part of our energy solution."
Clinton has accepted thousands in contributions from the nuclear industry, including nearly $80,000 in this election from employees and a PAC of NRG Energy Inc., the first company to file an application for a new nuclear power plant in the United States since before the Three Mile Island accident.
Critics see a contradiction in Clinton's opposition to a facility to store nuclear waste, but not to expansion of nuclear power, which would generate more waste.
Obama:
He has said he's opposed to Yucca Mountain, and has called for the facility's closure.
Illinois' nuclear industry, which has thousands of tons of waste at its facilities awaiting opening of Yucca Mountain, has long backed Obama. Executives and employees of Exelon Corp., the Chicago-based energy giant and nuclear plant operator, have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama campaigns since 2004, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com.
Obama has said he believes nuclear energy should remain on the table.
Obama also raised concerns when he chose Federico Pena, who was energy secretary before Richardson, as his surrogate on the issue. At his departure from the Energy Department, Pena took credit for "meeting milestones" toward opening the site.
Edwards:
The former 2004 vice presidential nominee's has a mixed record on the issue.
After he was selected as Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's running mate, Edwards announced he would defer to Kerry's anti-Yucca position and promised Nevada Sen. Harry Reid he would fight the project.
The former North Carolina senator has said he was trying to protect his constituents, who didn't want to store nuclear waste in their state, when he voted in favor of the project.
Edwards now says faulty science was used to support the Yucca Mountain project, and he doesn't believe nuclear energy is a safe energy source.
Richardson:
Richardson, the New Mexico governor, has the most tangled record on nuclear waste disposal.
As a New Mexico congressman, he voted in favor of the 1987 measure that designated Yucca Mountain as the sole dump site to be studied by the federal government.
Richardson had not raised the issue on the stump or in statements until it was cited in news stories. He now says he's always opposed the project, which he believes would be unsafe.
"Nevada should say no, I've always said no," Richardson told reporters during an early campaign stop in the state.
Richardson explains his House vote as support for other funding items in the bill. He has said he voted against the project "five or six" other times, though his campaign could cite only two.
Richardson's claims of constant opposition also are not supported by his tenure as head of the Department of Energy, although he did lobby against efforts to open a temporary waste storage site in Nevada.
On the Net:
Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste
U.S. Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.gov/ympb/
© 2007 Associated Press
63 Comments so far
Show AllIt's important to keep track of the fact that we do not absolutely need nuclear energy; we can get along without it.
Consider this from CD poster rtdrury:
"Annual energy consumption in the US is 2.93e13 kWh (100 quad BTUs), which could be completely supplied by solar thermal fields covering 7.7 million acres, or 0.4% of US AK) land area."
And this from http://www.texasep.org/html/nrg/nrg_3rnw.html
"Texas has a potential to produce 524,800 MW of electricity from wind--one billion KWh.West Texas landowners are also benefiting from wind farms; many are receiving more royalties from leasing their land to wind-energy companies than from oil and gas leases. And cattle producers in West Texas might consider the $50 net revenue per acre for wind, as compared to a $5.00 profit per acre for West Texas cattle."
There is also geothermal energy which has not been exploited. There is the potential to use human sewage and animal (feedlot) waste to produce methane--while improving water quality at the same time. And there's conservation.
Why would we even consider nuclear?
I thought most of this was high school level science...but that doesn't matter, except to bring up one point: Science is neutral, neither conservative nor progressive. The uses it is put to through technology is, of course, potentially political.
The original issue in the article dealt with the Yucca Mountain repository. Whether this is the place to put high level radioactive waste, I do not know. What I do know is that there are over a hundred commercial nuclear generating plants in operation in the US today, each producing spent fuel. Even if we shut down those plants (which we could do; nuclear power generates about 20% of the electricity we use in this country, so all we need to do is reduce our use by that amount - turn off one in five light bulbs, reduce TV watching by 5 hours a day, etc.) the waste that currently exists still must be dealt with. Contrary to some's non-scientific wishes, we can't feed it to the microbes. Is it safer where it is? (Generally in large pools of water located at nuclear plants, or in dry storage canisters at those plants) Or should it be consolidated for ease of monitoring? Tough questions, but not conservative or progressive. We have a mess to deal with. Yucca Mountain was is one suggestion. Any others, grounded in science and available technology?
I think it's time we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on science classes.
Wow folks.
Wow.
Mr. Glover,
"crash proof cask turns up missing… the material for how many dirty bombs?"
As zimmie correctly points out, the spent fuel rods are highly radioactive after being removed from the reactor. They are cooled in a pool but the strontium and cesium responsible for most of the bequerels of radioactivity have half-lives measured in decades.
The casks are loaded and unloaded remotely and underwater due to the intense field of radiation. As such, they are self-protecting. Assuming they could hijack the semi hauling it - A big "if" considering the schedule is secret and the shipments guarded, and could get the canister open (really difficult without specialized, heavy eqipment), you would be killed very quickly by the material you just gained access to. It's like breaking into the backyard of someone that owns a man-eating dog. You could do it, but you wouldn't want to.
Hiya KEM
I would like to help you out with your understanding of a nuclear reactor.
"An average sized nuclear power plant will produce about 200 pounds of plutonium a day."
Not nearly true. There is only about 200 pounds of enriched uranium in a reactor and the daily production of plutonium can be measured in micrograms.
"With near a 1,000 plants world wide, it adds up after a few years. Since that one poison has to be strictly controlled and safeguarded for thousands of years, or forever, it's a little problem."
True enough in and of itself, but plutonium is also fuel and can be burned/transmuted into stable, non-radioactive isotopes and short half-lived radioactive isotopes in third generation reactors.
"Of course there are many other man made poisons developed at nuclear power plants. Thousands of tons a year to stash underground or secretly dump into the oceans. Out of sight, ___ out of mind. Which is a contradiction of terms."
and your evidence of this is....?
"The tons of depleted fuel rods aren't a problem anymore, we just use those to make depleted uranium bombs and ammunition. DU makes terriffic ammo, ___ nothin else like it. Of course the tragic results of using it do linger for awhile. Oh well, ya gotta make a livin someplace."
You are right it does make terrific ammo and armor as well.
As for the rest, I will be attending a seminar on DU tomorrow morning but so far nothing I have seen, scientifically or epidemiologically speaking, comes any where close to the dangers postulated by the hysterical, anti-nukes.
I hope adding fact to this discussion doesn't brand me as pro-nuke, but much of what is being passed on as fact here is not.
Kem Patrick wrote:
"The tons of depleted fuel rods aren't a problem anymore, we just use those to make depleted uranium bombs and ammunition."
NOT TRUE. DU is what is left over from the front end of the nuclear fuel production cycle, after the desired fissile isotopes have been (mostly) removed. The uranium in spent fuel rods is not "depleted"; there is more fissile material than before the fuel was used. However, it's literally too hot to handle. The radiation level of a recently irradiated fuel bundle would be lethal, which is why they are remotely handled under thirty or more feet of water.
"An average sized nuclear power plant will produce about 200 pounds of plutonium a day."
NOT TRUE. First, what is an "average sized nuclear power plant?" In the US, the operating commercial power reactor vary considerably in power. Commercial reactors are fueled with mostly natural uranium, slightly enriched with fissile uranium. The fission process will create plutonium during the operating cycle. Much of this plutonium is then "burned" during the cycle. What is left over at the end of the fuel cycle is dispersed throughout the fuel rods. It can be removed, at great expense. The exact amount produced in a given reactor could be calculated. I doubt that at the end of a fuel cycle, it would be 200 pounds per day for every day the reactor operated.
"Of course there are many other man made poisons developed at nuclear power plants."
And what are these poisons? Commercial nuclear plants do produce a large amount of so-called "low level" waste - contaminated work clothes, tools, packaging materials, etc. Like any industrial facility, there also are many hazardous chemicals used. To my knowledge, these are not dumped in the ocean, but currently shipped to various low level repositories already in place (such as Barnwell, SC, now scheduled to close.) Each plant does produce some contaminated (i.e., radioactive) water. This is sometimes released to the environment, after significant dilution. Dilution, however, only reduces "specific activity"; the total amount of radioactivity remains the same.
All this being said, nuclear fission is a risky business. Like many other technologies (air travel, for instance) it is intolerant of error. And it is certainly a poster child for "externalizing" costs. For some electricity today, society gets to deal with the detritus of the fission process for generations.
As for radiation eating bacteria: Living organisms have the capacity to perform chemical rearrangement, but not nuclear. Radioactive material remains radioactive until it decays, i.e., until it releases enough energy to revert to a stable isotope. Many radioactive elements do this in a few seconds; others, such as plutonium, require many thousands of years.
this is sad how the media are portraying Dennis K... there was a great editorial in the LA Times about Bush/Cheney, how we should get them to the funny farm asap... war is peace... slavery is freedom... crazy is sane...
http://www.cagle.com/news/CrazyKucinich/main.asp
And Just one crash proof cask turns up missing... the material for how many dirty bombs?
PJD, no such thing as crash proof casks, the casks don't hold water...
In case you hadnt noticed, goner, the last two or three elections were stolen... yahoo naomi wolf's 10 steps... and see where we actually are in our 'democracy.'
for all of you Dennis K fans,
New Constitutional Convention Initiative Town Hall Meeting
This evening (Wednesday, November 14th) at 9pm EST the campaign
will hold a national town hall meeting via our new streaming
media capability on the web. The address is:
www.kucinichtv.com
This town hall meeting will provide an opportunity for the
campaign to introduce the New Constitutional Convention
Initiative to supporters and anyone who is concerned about the
state of affairs in the United States. The New Constitutional
Convention Initiative will include a a series of nationally
broadcast discussions (via www.kucinichtv.com) that seek to
accomplish three outcomes:
1. Outline the ongoing assaults on the Constitution.
2. An educational component / civics lesson to clarify the
intent of the framers and provide a foundation for understanding
the ongoing assaults on the Constitution .
3. Discuss in detail what can be done collectively and
individually to restore crucial constitutional principles.
4. Provide a venue which will lead to a coordinated and
sustained national effort to renew the Constitution and restore
accountability in government.
The New Constitutional Convention Initiative will hold a
national conference call each week for the next 10 weeks -
culminating in a major event at the end of January. A complete
list of dates, panel participants and moderators, and topics /
themes for each week, will be made available in the next week
and distributed to anyone interested in participating.
Either Congressman Kucinich or I will be on the call to
introduce the intiative - depending on the outcome of an
expected important Conressional vote.
Please pass the word and let's get this party (Constitutional
Convention) started.
Best regards,
Mike
Michael Klein
Campaign Manager
Kucinich for President 2008
goner,
Due to the hazardousness of the material involved, high level nuclear materials are transported in crash proof casks.
First off, how kind of the MSM to decide for me who the "top" Democrats are. I was under the mistaken impression that we hold primaries in order to decide that for ourselves. But there are eight candidates (not just four), and that would just be too much information for the public to process if they told us about everyone's voting record so that we could make our voting decision with full knowledge.
As for the nuclear waste: Has a tanker ever been hit by a train at a railroad crossing? (Yes.) Has a bridge (oh, say, like I-35 in Minneapolis) ever collapsed with an 18-wheeler on it? (Yes.) Has a truck hauling any hazardous material ever been involved in a serious accident that involved an evacuation? (Yes.) Has a train ever derailed, releasing hazardous materials and requiring an evacuation? (Yes.) If you're suggesting that we transport nuclear waste by either truck or train, you're just waiting for the first accident (not even touching the terrorist attack scenario)to happen--and it will if we ever attempt anything this stupid.
I LOVE the last few posts... great thoughts ! Gore Vidal and wash dc... hah... the nuke industry and our govt are wanting to build new plants to keep the nuke game going... they know their time is up and they are going to do and take whatever they can before they go is kind of how we sees it...
Most of the nuke plants are on the east coast... still, I don't think putting the waste in ONE place is a good idea anywhere... there will be and may already be solutions, a lot is hidden... secrecy abounds and the Truth (and Justice) will prevail...
If a depository is to be built, it should be done with the greatest possible guarantee of safety for the residents of the area. That means it must be built under, or as near as possible to, Washington, D.C., for that is the only way to ensure that those ultimately responsible, those in charge of the federal government, are completely committed to creating a safe site.
Just kidding. Well, half-kidding.
"The United States has only one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican."
Gore Vidal
Thanks proaltenergy,
Now i am thinkin again.... with all this money, has any new nuke plants been built in the USA lately?
I can see the military wanting unlimited access to the bomb making material and all the opportunities for war with countries who want Nuke power like Iran.
But this industry seems to have priced itself out of the long range money and USA money is losing its value faster than the growth of the Nuke Power plants except in countries that think they need it for the prestige or future security of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Bill mentioned that the rock (welded tuff) at Yucca Mt, is "acidic". But in geologic usage, "acidic rock" is like a lot of old geologic terms, a misnomer - It just meeans high in silica like a granite or sileceous volcanic rock - and "basic" means low in silica - basalts or traprock. It has nothing to do with the chemists term for "acid - i.e. hydrogen ions in a solution.
Faults are not necessarily a big deal - faults are practically everywhere - they are only a concern if they are actively moving and seismogenic, or if they are conduits for water movement into the waste areas.
But we come back to the big question - what are the alternatives? I know from my travels that too many westerners carry considerable prejudice against easterners - exhibiting a chauvinism that I find rather annoying. They would rather the repository be put under New Jersey or somwwhere. But would that make sense? We can't let provincalism of a tiny minority (My county has a larger population than all of Nevada) dictate these siting decisions.
Big corporate welfare, billions of dollars a year for the last 50 years, the dirty/toxic nuke industry is subsidized by our tax dollars... our govt at work... oh happy days... trillions of dollars are at stake, so the nuke/coal/ and fossil fuel industries got a vested interest... follow the money... always follow the money...
Thanks for all the info folks,
I would like to know who is actually pushing for new Nuke plants these days?
Lots of oil companies are hinting at the future of the alternatives but I don't see them advertizing that nuclear is the future.
The insurance on these plants must be a big expense that is probably not included in the total cost also.
Kem,
With further analysis, the newly found fault lines at Yucca mountain will either be a low enough risk as to be acceptable or they will be a show stopper. I don't know which way it will go. My expectation is that it will be acceptable.
I think your plutonium production rate is high. 200 pounds is more like the content of the fuel after a year or two of reactor operation.
Sunspot,
The Yucca mountain website, www.ocrwm.gov, has an actual breakdown, by state of the used nuclear fuel in storage at the various reactors.
Bill
An average sized nuclear power plant will produce about 200 pounds of plutonium a day. With near a 1,000 plants world wide, it adds up after a few years. Since that one poison has to be strictly controlled and safeguarded for thousands of years, or forever, it's a little problem.
Of course there are many other man made poisons developed at nuclear power plants. Thousands of tons a year to stash underground or secretly dump into the oceans. Out of sight, ___ out of mind. Which is a contradiction of terms.
The tons of depleted fuel rods aren't a problem anymore, we just use those to make depleted uranium bombs and ammunition. DU makes terriffic ammo, ___ nothin else like it. Of course the tragic results of using it do linger for awhile. Oh well, ya gotta make a livin someplace.
"Hubbards peak has been reached. Coal is a non-starter. Conservation would be a good place to start, but the fact is that the future hydogen economy rests on nuclear generation of electricity."
Sorry -- Peak Oil is a total-joke (unfortunately), there will never be a 'hydrogen-economy', and any use/implementation of nuclear-fission (or it's side-effects and risks) is yet-another 'big joke'.
Research into nuclear-fusion, while instituting geothermal, cleaning-Coal, and the many other options that abound for 'safer/cleaner/abundant-Energy' -- all are possible and Practical. It's the Interests involved with (and served-by) inertia/Mythos/profits/existing-investment (and the over-riding if coincidental 'political-conveniences' of the 'SameOldSh*t') that really mires us where we are currently. Granted, this is a 'dangerous-game' -- considering rising-populations and climate-impacts in interim -- but, until those Interests are blunted/negated, we'll have only 'more-of-same'.
Can anyone give me some figures on what quantity (actually a breakdown of volume and weight would be ideal) a plant produces in, say a month or a year? Don't make me do my own homework, please.
Yeah Billy and everything is just rosy in Iraq...
yes, WIPP is what I was talking about... it has NOT been a boon to the local economy... it has been a boon to the nuke industry...
Billy, how does one solve the problem of an earthquake fault line with further analysis?
Do they modify the initial geological findings, or just say it isn't really a problem? You know, like having a government study, where the studiers first ask, "What is it you wish to hear"?
Stop it Billy, I'm begining to like you again.
Just kiddin Billy. You are correct we've sort of lost our Democracy. ___ Sort of?
proaltenergy,
Actually there is a nuclear waste repository operating in New Mexico and it is a boon to the local economy. It is for Government rather than commercially generated waste. For more information, google "WIPPS".
It is a tragedy when our government resorts to tactics that you describe. Democracy is such a good idea; I hope we get to participate in it again someday. Democracy is so much better than facism.
Regards,
Bill
PROALTENERGY, is sounds as if someone is going to make some great big bucks on the deal. Wonder who? Hope for their sake they get it in something other than American dollars. I'm sure they will though.
Dennis Kucinich is brilliant, courageous and for the people of America, that's who...
The nuclear power industry claims that it is better to consolidate the nation's waste at one site, rather than leave it at nuclear reactors across the country, so why at a geologically unstable, earthquake prone, volcanically active area?
The plan encourages the industry to produce more high-level nuclear waste, (Yucca Mountain alone will not contain all of the 109,000 metric tons of waste, so there are other plans to store 40,000 metric tons and ship waste to another Native American reservation in Utah), plus this toxic material will still remain at every operating reactor site and cost American taxpayers $58 billion and counting (more than the combined expenses of the Panama Canal, Hoover Dam and the World Trade Center)...
just for the record...Dennis Kucinich says no to the nuclear solution. No one seems to want to talk about him when it comes to the corporate Dems or the press. He just seems to be right on all the issues, but hey..who's he?
PJD, there are NO economic benefits for Nevadans or any other Americans to store nuclear waste in their backyard, that is another big lie... they did a study, I think in New Mexico, that proved that all the lies the people were told about how the nuke industry would become an economic boom for their economy, more jobs, etc. never happened, in fact, people left the area, and what jobs that happened were given to DOE buddies, ya know the good old energy boys network...
I was at the public hearings, I publicized the hearings, within two weeks after 9-11, Bush / DOE called for 29 meetings in Nevada and didn't want anyone to know about them, so we took up the slack and got thousands of Nevadans to the meetings, the meetings were stacked with the good old energy buddies speaking first so that moms and dads who were coming to a hearing on a school night with their kids, were asked to wait until midnight or later to speak...we were there until 4 in the morning and NOT EVERYONE GOT TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS. these people had been waiting over 25 years to talk about this and tell the government NO... and still they came out in droves because WE publicized the hearings... right before 9-11, there was the first hearing in Las Vegas, and we had street theatre with ALL of the media in Vegas following us for two hours, it was a slow news day... I had a glimpse into how the Bush admin works then before the Iraq war and believe me, it was not pretty. we held a rally at that Vegas meeting, and one TV person who I asked to talk to us, so we could give our side of the story, she was terrified because the DOE people told the media that we were violent, aka terrorists, so I pointed out all of the scary soccer moms, their kids, old people in wheelchairs and she laughed and spoke with us after I calmed her down... she realized that she had been misled... hmmmm... sound familiar, same tactics...
and Mark Abram, DOE/Bush science is NOT REAL science... it is fake... just like their fake news, and their WMD in Iraq, and all of their other lies, we had many notable scientists who proved all of their lies were lies... the casks are NOT safe, the water, the earthquakes, the hauling of the waste, I used to have a list of about 25 reasons Yucca mtn is not the answer... will see if I can find it...
and opposition to Yucca Mountain has MANY SOURCES... SANE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE...
Kem,
Actually, in addition to the disasterous political process, I have some technical concerns with Yucca mountain as a repository.
The seismic issue which you pointed out can probably be resolved with further analysis.
My concern however is that the mountain is essentially acidic rock. Any water that leaches into the repository will be acidic. Uranium and many fission fragments are fairly soluble in acidic water. Basic rock (such as limestone) provides more stability for stored fuel than acidic rock.
Bill
To my knowledge, no other national repositories are to be located in acidic rock.
Billy is also a true blue nuclear power fan. To post such a comment is very commendable and brave of him. It shows that even those who support nuclear power aren't all bad. In fact he's a pretty nice guy. Sorry he isn't fighting for clean energy though, he'd be tough.
Billy_y4,
What your story mostly proves is that Koreans aren't selfish NIMBYists If the people near the facilities understand that the site is the safest place for the nation as a whole, plus it provides a local economic benefit. they will do their part.
The people in such a populous peninsula also can't be Luddites that constantly question scientist's and engineer's assurances of the safety of this or that technology. More Koreans are probably scientists and engineers than in the US, and otherwise have a much better understanding of technology through their better education system.
But, Nevada has certainly been the dumping ground for the US MIC war-machine for too long - although the Republican cowboys there sure support a USA that is armed to the teeth with N-bombs anyway. Nonetheless, there is probably too much ill-will to go any further with Yucca Mt.
proaltenergy says:Barn Burner, do you really want nuclear waste hauled across our nation's highways as well as by trains?
Dear proaltenergy I do not want nuclear energy period, I am just stating what I believer will come to pass. Our Nation has no energy plan, we had a "shot across the bow" during the Carter administration but no political courage to develop alternative energy. No political will to mandate conservation. It will eventually come to pass when the voting public will scream for relief from their energy bill each month and they wont care if radioactive waste is transported cross country or buried in their back yard. To hell with ANWAR just get me some gas for my "rig" and a utility bill I can live with-hey, I might miss the next installment of my favorite TV show man.
This I recall from a few years back:
The breastmilk of native american women living on reservations with nuclear dumps is considered toxic substance due to radiation poisoning
http://www.nativeweb.org/papers/statements/women/secondconf.php
I wonder about wave action against the beach as a source of power. Or what about the use of tidal action? Just think about water wheels on old mills. I've designed all of this in my mind, but it doesn't seem to generate much interest in other locales.
Just about the time that Congress was seriously considering approval of shipments to Yucca Mountain two things occurred. One was an eathquake near the site of over 4 on the Richter Scale. The other was a train fire in an old tunnel carrying heavy shipping traffic beneath the heart of Baltimore City. The upshot of the fire was that tempertures exceeded what had been claimed would never happen when they designed the cars that would carry the spent rods from nuclear power facilities. I believe the threshold was 1500 degrees F. The genie has been out of the bottle for many years. We don't need to open new bottles until we can clean up the dangerous messes already created. Obviously, existing nuclear power plants are providing a great deal of our electric in the US. Shutting down old plants is as problematic as any other scenario. We need to step up the development of clean, renewable energy sources with a vengeance. Innovation at the personal and community levels, our technical schools could be training those who could install and service existing technologies using solar, wind, geo-thermal and more. Every new home should be required to include existing practical design features or technologies such as insulation, solar orientation, etc. If Carter could install operating solar collectors on the White House roof (promptly removed by Reagan in 1981) there is nothing really holding us back except the lack of political will.
The biggest problem with nuclear power is the current fuel cycle. We need to develop third generation plants that burn and transmute the fission byproducts and reprocess the waste so that the overall volume is reduced significantly.
Hubbards peak has been reached. Coal is a non-starter. Conservation would be a good place to start, but the fact is that the future hydogen economy rests on nuclear generation of electricity.
Pick your poison - nukes or life in dark ages.
PS - Read the EIS for Yucca Mountain - If you can't put it there, you can't put it anywhere.
PPS - Harry Reid, D-Nev, Senate Majority Leader has vowed that Yucca will never open. I wrote a letter asking him when (now that he has the power) he is going to zero out the budget line-item for Yucca. Funny thing, no answer. I guess it is okay by him to spend the money in his state so long as it is a complete waste.
The earthquate faults are not a problem unless they actually transect the waste. A deep underground cavity is probably the most stable spot in an earthquake.
Canadian shield rock, say in unpopulated northern Ontario is quite fractured and (mostly inactive) faulted and therefore water bearing - it also contains mineral resources, which increase the chances of unintended human intrusion via exploratory drilling or mining. Then there are also native rights issues ther too. But, there may be site there worth considering. The point is, we need a repository somewhere.
And Mr. Bramsher, NIMBYism is NOT to be confused with democracy, as it invariably involves a tiny (often rich) minority exerting inordinate power over an issues of importance to the entire nation or even the earth as a whole. The rich elites of Cape Cod recently stopping a large wind energy project near there is a classic example.
They have plans to import some of the world's nuclear waste for Yucca Mountain through the port of Coos Bay, Oregon. This project will operate in conjuction with an LNG terminal that is nearing approval there.
Hi AdeletheCzech, it was a few years ago that I worked and found out about the bacteria, here's what I was able to research quickly, the second link has links to follow about fungi who eat radiation... I don't have all the answers, all I know is that hauling waste across this country is NOT the answer/solution...
http://exn.ca/Templates/Story.asp?ID=2000010353
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/05/23/2354213.shtml
Why not put the dump right on the strip? Might improve it. I would pay to see a glow in the dark Wayne Newton die a slow agonizing death. Otherwise I have to time nor taste for LV... the height of American Culture.
I read a newpaper article several years ago, where scientists were attempting to genetically alter bacteria, that would destroy nuclear waste. I understnad by some that is an impossibility.
Well, suppose it isn't and they succeed in their quest? What happens if the bacteria mutate and begin to eat anything they please. Or suppose the ones they are attempting to develop escape, like Africanized bees. A bacteria such as that, one which was being developed to devour and destroy plutonium, whether successful or not, would be indestructable. An interesting thought, wonder where this new germ which is so deadly and immune to medicines originated?
The intractable problems of storing high-level radioactive waste for thousand of years is the best reason to stop building nuclear power plants.
The only places in the U.S. stable enough geologically and without water intrusion are parts of the Canadian Shield (granite that's 2.5 billion years old) that reach down into Michigan's Upper Peninsula and the Adirondacks -- hardly places where politicians might suggest putting nuclear waste dumps!
A question for "proaltenergy": Where did you read about bacteria that eat nuclear waste and transform it? This sounds too good to be true, but I'd like to learn more!
There are seven earthquake faults within 20 miles of the site and one is right there next to it.
Barn Burner, do you really want nuclear waste hauled across our nation's highways as well as by trains? given our failing transportation systems as well as what would happen in the event of just one little tiny accident that would effect MILLIONS of Americans, not to even mention the possibility of real terrorist attacks onto these moving targets ... and Amargosa is not arid, rocky, unpopulated, THAT IS A BIG LIE OF THE DOE, the location for Yucca Mountain is within 40 minutes of Las Vegas and even closer to Pahrump, both are the fastest growing city (Vegas) and town (Pahrump) in the nation.
Amargosa Valley is primarily comprised of large residential parcels. Area industry is mainly agriculture and there are also dairy farms ...
PJD,
You keep bringing up NIMBY.
Democracy would be nothing without nimby. Nimby to torture, nimby to corporate crime, nimby to war. Indeed, not just in my backyard but not on terra firma in general.
The ability to vote is to exert a local, individual, grassroots statement in favor/against a course of action.
Again, what's the alternative to NIMBY? IYBY? A top down decree from on high, by fiat: In YOUR BackYard? Hitler would be proud.
I worked for Citizen Alert in Nevada for two years. I personally spoke with Dennis Kucinich at a meeting when he was campaigning for president last time and he is NOT in favor of Yucca Mtn. John Robbins, author of numerous books including Diet for a New America, was his campaign manager. They are BOTH anti-nukes. There are so many reasons against this project ... imagine how much fun it would be to have nuclear waste transported on trains, trucks and other transportation across our nation's highways... that is one of the best reasons against it... there are actually ORGANIC FARMS within close proximity in Amargosa Valley, about 11 miles away, so gee let's put nuke waste into the water and food we eat, yum... out of respect to the Western Shoshone people, who's dear leader Corbin Harney recently passed, this is their SACRED LAND.. plus, there are solutions to the nuke waste issue... l. dismantle all the nuke plants now 2. end the wars 3. there are bacteria that actually eat nuke waste for breakfast and transform it 4. use only alt. renewable energies (solar, wind, cold fusion, biofuels, etc). 5. vote for Dennis K... if you want REAL CHANGE... seems to be the best person for the job... a real leader... who has courage, vision, and principles.
Yuck-a Mountain of Nuke waste...
The DOE will be holding public hearings on Enviro Impact statements in Nevada (Las Vegas, Reno, Amargosa Valley and even Wash DC, that they won't tell anyone about from Nov. 13 to Dec. 5... If you want to go and speak your mind for five minutes, request a time to speak, and tell them you don't particularly like the idea of hauling nuke waste across the country, call 1-800-225-6972. Dates and times can be found at this website:
www.ymp.gov_library/newsroom/documents/PressRelease_EIS_10-05-07_Final.p...
PJDs question still stands "If not in the most arid and thinly populated region of the US - with favorable rock conditions as well, then where?"
PJD, Yucca Mtn is on a major earthquake faultline. Describing it as having "favorable rock conditions" sounds like the punchline for one of the late night comedians . Yucca Mountain belongs to the Western Shoshone nation, as does the Nevada Test Site. A treaty recognizing such was signed by the United States of Amnesia about 90 years before they ever decided to squat there without permission and to make themselves even less welcome by detonating a thousand nuclear devices. May they reap what the sow.
In the end proliferation of nuclear power plants in the U.S. will depend on what happens in the oil markets. The U.S. consumer will NOT cut back on their energy use unless forced to. If we truly are at peak oil, and no one knows for sure, then oil prices will probably wildly fluctuate but trend up to the point that consumers will demand a quick fix without infringing on their lifestyle-nuclear will not be a "quick" fix but the quickest of the alternatives available. The most sensible fix is conservation but as you all know there are powerful commercial interest that can and will prevent any meaningful conservation.
Whether you like it or hate it, nuclear is probably the wave of the future.
I really can't blame the Democrats for this one - NIMBYism can be a formadable political pitfall. The problem is, a single, secure, permanent repository for existing high level N-waste will be needed somewhere, regardless of who governs. If not in the most arid and thinly populated region of the US - with favorable rock conditions as well, then where?
No Yucky Mt => No Nukes => No DU => No maimed kids :)
The dems said one thing, and did another... what a shock!
This is news?
Learn to vote for WHAT you want, not who is second worst. The politicians all listen to real votes, even if they sometimes lie about not listening.
Especially if your state's vote is locked up one way or another, and/or your state doesn't count for anything, and/or the national election is locked up, vote for what or who you really want.
NO NUKES all involved will go down
and of course Dennis is the only one
small sub size nuke plants for small business areas or neighbourhoods, work OK
but bestis other alternatives
wake up 'sheeple'
Viva El Frente/Verde {SG}*
Opposition to Yucca Mountain has two sources: 1) No Nukes [Go Coal], and 2) NIMBY.
Unfortunately for the No Nukes [Go Coal] crowd, stopping Yucca Mountain won't stop nuclear power, because spent fuel can be stored in dry casks above ground at reactor sites or other sites. It would be safer to put it in the mountain, but that doesn't need to happen for decades.
The science says Yucca Mountain is a good permanent repository. It will not cause native american women to secrete radioactive breastmilk, or any other colorful, emotive horror scenario.
The high-level radwaste can be securely stored and moved in very well shielded and armored containers.
There are no bacteria or fungi that can degrade radioactive material. Some are able to live in high-radiation environments and may be able to consume food that is radioactive. But they don't live on the radiation and they can't be used to destroy radioisotopes. Some kinds of natural or engineered organisms might be useful to concentrate radioactive elements from the soil, and collect them for transfer to a repository like Yucca Mountain.
John F. Butterfield, the Associated Press has a lapse of memory when it comes to Dennis Kucinich. Most Americans have no idea who he is. And that's how the corporate media want it. Not to mention some of the big name Democrats running for president. They aren't interested in democracy, they are interested in themselves.
As for their stances being complicated by the record, that applies to far more than Yucca Mountain. They make me think of a line from Thomas Campion:
Her when we court and kisse,
She cries, Forsooth, let go:
But when we come where comfort is
She never will say, No
Ralph Nader said the Democratic Party needs a cold bath. All those believers intending to vote for the Democrats will get the cold bath. But amazingly, like Phoenix, they get up and do it again.
Bottom line: If you don't want nuclear plants, nuclear waste, nuclear weapons, handouts to the M.I.C. or dependence on uranium mine owners (not as universally distributed as water/wind/hydrogen/geothermal), then you should probably vote Green or (maybe) Kucinich. I'm not that familiar with his record there.
But even if you like the idea of nuclear, there's reason not to vote for Clinton or Obama. If they misrepresent themselves on this issue, how many other issues are likewise gross departures of their genuine sentiment?
How has Dennis Kucinich voted?
Did Kathleen have a laps of memory?
Dennis Kucinich did vote against this bill. See the Roll Call vote at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll133.xml How come the others get the press when Dennis Kucinich is the one that *really* represents the people?
We got a "misleader" once before in our presidential elections and it's about time we demand a *real* leader who represents us!
The Yucca mountain site is a prime example of how not to run a government program. The poisoned relationship between the federal government and the state government may require this site to be abandoned regardless of its technical merits. The legislation that designated Yucca mountain as the national repository was, during congressional debate, known as the "F**k Nevada Bill".
South Korea recently made a tentative decision on the location of its waste repository. The process was a model of democracy:
1. The national government identified about half a dozen potential sites.
2. It notified the regional governments and stated that, if they were selected as the location of the repository, they would receive a substantial fee (I can't remember the exact amount) in compensation. It provided an estimate of the economic benefit for operating the repository (i.e. jobs).
3. The national government stated that they would not use a site without the approval of the local populace. Each of the nominated locations put the question on a ballot for the local population. Most of the nominated locations voted to accept the repository. The selected site received an 80% approval of the populace.
4. The Korean national government is now doing the detailed in depth studies to verify that the selected site is technically acceptable.