President to zero out Yucca Mt. funds, pull license- Will prevent future WH from just reviving it

[bigtree]

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama plans to zero out funding for Yucca Mountain and "take steps" to withdraw the project's pending license application, according to a preview of the 2011 budget that will be announced Monday.

The president's intention to pull the license application -- a promise he made while campaigning in Nevada -- would be one of the most critical moves yet in stopping the proposed nuclear waste dump in Nevada.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been in ongoing talks with Obama over the dump, called the development "great news."

"President Obama is keeping his word to Nevada and I thank him for working with me as we try to find a safer solution for dealing with the nation's nuclear waste," Reid said Sunday.

Reid's office released information from Obama's coming budget that showed: "The Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management will be merged into the Office of Nuclear Energy. As part of the merger, funding for the proposed Yucca Mountain project will be eliminated and the Department will take steps to withdraw the license application in the near future. This reflects the Administration's commitment to pursuing a responsible, long-term strategy through the appointment of a high-level Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.“


read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jan/31/obama-moves-pull-yucca-mountain-license-applicatio/

[polichick]

1. This is an important step imo - forces more problem solving...

...and less pretending.

[ThomWV]

2. What a stupid thing to do

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. So then he wants to build a shit load of new nuclear power plants

...and have no place to put the shit that they produce?

How does that make sense?

[polichick]

4. If I understand his recent moves, he's forcing people to either come up with...

...a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste or forget about this old technology - put up or shut up.

[kristopher]

17. That's interesting...

I read it as a meaningless gesture. The money is in the form of loan guarantees; yet even with loan guarantees private money will not touch proposals for new nuclear plants because the economics absolutely suck. So he can offer this proposal to bait the right while still keeping the real focus on building transmission and renewable generation.

However, I feel strongly that your explanation is also valid. Thanks.

[polichick]

33. Your explanation makes plenty of sense too - either way, proponents are placated...

...while the rest of us move ahead with clean, renewable energy.

[sandnsea]

5. Fuel rod recycling, possibly

Like France & Japan do. I don't support nuclear personally, but I think fuel rod recycling is a better plan than Yucca.

[GoCubsGo]

63. They are building such a facility here in South Carolina

DOE began construction on the Savannah River Site back in 2007. It's supposed to be completed in 2014, and begin operations in 2016.

[greenbird]

7. Yucca Mountain never was a good site

for nuclear waste disposal. It was a political choice, not a sound scientific one.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. There are no good sites for nuclear waste disposal

which is why it makes no sense to make more nuclear waste.

[Confusious]

12. Yes there is

Encase it in glass, drill a hole at a Subduction zone about a mile down, drop it in, top it off.

The earth takes it away from us.

[blogslut]

14. Maybe you know more about this than I do

But that sounds like a temporary solution. What about the half-life of the waste? Won't the waste eventually degrade the glass? At some point, won't that stuff leach out into the earth that encases it?

[Confusious]

16. The radioactive material IS the glass....

Its not a container, the radioactive material is MIXED with glass, making a radioactive glass that does not leach.

Half-life? 1,000 years and the thing is another mile below the surface. 5000 years, and it's floating toward the center of the earth.

[blogslut]

21. So, you're telling me this radioactive glass

...won't eventually break down - break the bond with the glass? I find it hard to believe that if this method of containment were so simple, it hasn't been done already.

[Confusious]

22. The french do it all the time.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste find "glass"

[GoCubsGo]

56. We're doing it, too

Have been for years: http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/solidification/index.htm

[ThomWV]

32. Actually I have a piece of some around here somewhere - I'll take a picture if I can find it

Really, the process is called vitrification and its a very good way to stabilize radioactive waste. I was given a sample piece of it by a contractor (I worked in the cleanup of our weapons complex) once who was trying to sell us on his process. It was just a black shiney chunk of glass, wafer shaped, about an inch in diameter and maybe a quarter inch thick. I'll see if I can find it.

[ThomWV]

34. Self delete - misplaced

[Statistical]

39. Yeah it isn't glass in the sense most people think of.

It is a solid block of black very dense, very hard, very strong glass with nuclear material mixed into the glass.



High Level Nuclear waste (spent fuel rods, etc) is liquified and mixed a very dense molten glass. The motlen mixture is then chemically processed to remove any mosture and poured into stainless steel drums which are sealed and then washed.

The end result is a dense immobile solid surrounded by stainless steel (which in nonreactive metal).

The end result:


Sellafield nuclear waste processing plant.

what the anti-nuclear crowd needs to realize is say we scrap nuclear power. Well we have tons of waste that will need to be stored. Not only that existing plants have 20 to 40 years left in their combined operating license so even if no new nuclear plants are approved and no extensions granted nuclear reactors will operating until 2050 at the earliest. Lastly the rest of the world likely will not give up on nuclear.

For all those reasons coming up with the best long term storage process is vital.

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. Sounds like a disaster in the making

Glass is breakable, ya know. If you're gonna drill deep holes in the earth, do so for the purpose of geothermal energy, not as an excuse to further pollute the planet with nuclear shit.

[Confusious]

18. Yea I know, but the radioactive material IS the glass

The radioactive material is mixed with glass, making a radioactive glass that does not leach. As even if it breaks, it goes near a subduction zone, which draws it farther down into the earth.

"If you're gonna drill deep holes in the earth, do so for the purpose of geothermal energy"

So obviously, you want to do nothing about the problem. Why not just say that? Nuclear waste is to good a thing to let go, because if there was a solution, you would have to agree to nuclear power. But Nuclear power is scientific voodoo, which scares you shitless.

"not as an excuse to further pollute the planet with nuclear shit."

Where do you think this "nuclear shit" comes from in the first place? Scientists have a republican shit nuclear fuel?

The center of the earth isn't a place where unicorns shit skittles and you can use rainbows to wipe your ass.

[juajen]

28. Ah, God, that was rich! You're a very creative writer.

"The center of the earth isn't a place where unicorns shit skittles and you can use rainbows to wipe your ass."

I love it!

[Confusious]

29. In all honesty

I stole unicorns shitting skittles from someone here.

I just couldn't pass it up. :)

[kristopher]

23. It isn't that simple.

Would encasing nuclear waste in concrete and then burying it in a tectonic subduction zone for Earth's mantle to consume be an effective way of disposing of it? If not, why not?

• Subduction zone insertion was - one idea proposed for the disposal of radioactive waste during the early history of atomic energy. Other ideas included a serious proposal to dump canisters of waste on the Antarctic snow and leave them to melt their way to the bottom of the ice sheet.

In fact, subduction zone insertion is perfectly sound in theory, but there are significant practical problems. The zones are inherently unstable and unpredictable, and the sediment on top of the subducting ocean crust plate tends to get scraped off rather than being carried into the mantle, to form what is known as an accretionary prism. This could lead to the waste being squeezed back to the seabed in the future. Drilling it deep into the basalt of the crust may solve this, but at the depths typically encountered in subduction zones, drilling is all but impossible...

In addition to the uncertainties mentioned above, you'd better check that assumption of "about a mile down" - it is more like 40 miles or so IIRC. In addition the hole has to be big enough to accomodate (just for the US) the *glassified* amount now in temporary storage of some 30,000 tons of spent fuel rods and another 380,000 cubic meters of other high level radioactive wastes.

Still sound like the simple picture you painted?

[Confusious]

27. I'd like to known where you got that info

The Wikipedia article on nuclear waste said it was still under consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Geologic_disposal

directs links to highlights from the page ->

http://www.cppa.utah.edu/publications/environment/nuclear_waste_summary.pdf

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252001/1534.pdf

( Pretty current, within the last 5-10 years )

Also if used in conjunction with this new invention ->

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

All you would be accommodating would be low level radioactive waste.

"30,000 tons of spent fuel rods and another 380,000 cubic meters of other high level radioactive wastes."

The spent fuel rods ARE the high level radioactive waste. Atoms split, creating radioactive isotopes. This would all be burned in the invention above.

[kristopher]

58. The "plan" is more pie-in-the-nuclear-sky nonsense.

It is typical "if only" claptrap that the nuclear industry uses to con the teabagger type mentality.

[Confusious]

80. No info, no arguments, no links

Sounds like your setting up a "teabagger type" argument to me.

[greenbird]

36. I agree with you.

I am ardently anti-nuclear . . . it's just that my ex worked on Yucca Mountain as a consulting geologist for years and it was interesting to hear all the pros and cons about the site.

[AnnieBW]

9. Because putting your spent nuclear fuel in one place

within 90 miles of a major American city (and tourist attraction) is a VERY BAD IDEA. I mean, it may seem like it's the middle of nowhere, but if someone could get ahold of a fuel rod and get it to the middle of The Strip on a Saturday night, you would have a major problem.

[spoony]

11. You would?

How? And how does that someone open a sealed cask and move "a fuel rod" without killing themself?

[quaker bill]

30. exactly

[Javaman]

72. Shush, details, details.

lol

[laughingliberal]

42. don't forget: within 90 miles of a major American city...IN AN EARTHQUAKE ZONE...nt

[laughingliberal]

40. A terrible site

The ground water in the area showed contamination within a very few short years of placing test caskets there.

[Confusious]

10. Maybe is they built a few of these plants ->

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

But that would mean building some new nuclear plants to destroy the waste.

Kind of a catch 22 huh?

Build new nuclear plants, which you don't want, you can destroy the waste. But that would support more nuclear plants, which you don't want.

---OR-----

Build no plants and have the waste sitting around for years and years.

Which one do I think nuke activist want?

Boy that's a hard one.

[bigtree]

6. .

[MadHound]

13. Good, that place was a nightmare storage scenario

At the intersection of three faults, with periodic flooding and close to the groundwater source for Las Vegas.

We really should just stop pursuing nuclear, it is a failed energy source for many reasons ecologically, safety and economically.

[laughingliberal]

60. +1 nt

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

19. It is being done to help Reid

Yucca Mountain has been a political hot button in Nevada for ages. Both Democrats and Republicans in the state promise to stop it because it is red meat to voters in both parties, but naturally the Federal government ignores the state of Nevada.

If Reid can claim he personally stopped Yucca Mountain, he might be able to put some life back into his flaccid poll numbers in Nevada. There is no reason at all for the Federal government to start giving a crap now.

[bigtree]

24. so the president made it a campaign pledge

. . . just to help Reid? Doubting that.

[laughingliberal]

50. Reid has done very well working to stop this for a long time

The crap would probably already be here had it not been for the fight he has waged. It would probably help him more if it was still alive. People here have voted for him due to his fighting Yucca mountain. I do not think it is being done to help Reid. I think the President promised us this and he won our state. He may win it again if he kills Yucca mountain.

[Skip Intro]

89. +1

[ddeclue]

20. Another dumb thing they are doing like killing off NASA.

[bigtree]

26. killing the moon project (for now)

isn't 'killing off NASA' . . . not by a longshot.

[laughingliberal]

52. Not dumb to me. I live in Nevada

:bounce: :party: :bounce: :party: :toast: :party: :bounce: :party: :bounce:

Best news I've heard in years! Let's put it in FL!

[newspeak]

74. I'm with you!!!!

Live near Vegas--don't want it. Those who do-maybe they can use your backyard.;) :toast: :party:

[JCMach1]

25. NIMBY

Only they have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars now and we STILL need a place to store the waste.

[laughingliberal]

46. You're damned right NIMBY.

Perhaps they should have reconsidered before they spent all that money. There was never a time when the people here were not fighting this tooth and nail. High time the 'screw Nevada bill' died the death it deserves. Screw Nevada? Huh! Screw you!

[JCMach1]

76. Ummm at the end of the day we still have stick this somewhere...

As long as we are using nuclear power and creating low-level nuclear waste.

I never said screw Nevada. Just wondering where in the hell the waste is going to go.

[Statistical]

77. Likely we may need to consider 3 or 4 regional facilities rather than single national one.

It makes less sense economically but it may be the only thing possible politically.

[JCMach1]

78. I would just make the modest proposal it should be science that decides what

is best for this situation, not politics.

But fat chance that would EVER happen.

[Statistical]

79. I agree but given the grid lock for nearly 20 years on a single repository...

I am not willing to let best be the enemy of good.

3 or 4 regional facilities warehousing all waste in safe manner away from human population centers would likely raise support for nuclear power from a current high of 57% to likely 60%-65%.

Combine that with climate change legsilation that taxes, caps, or trades carbon and the added cost to coal would likely see a large move into nuclear power.

I do agree a single facility based on scientific research would be the best but well.... if history is any guide.

[Statistical]

54. Actuallty utility customers paid for it.

Federal govt put a 0.1 cent per kwh fee on nuclear electrical generation. In last 30 years it has generated $32 billion.

The govt collected the money in return for taking ownership of the waste and paying for its eventually final storage.

Now the utilities are suing to get the $32 billion back because the govt has essentially collected the money and done nothing about the waste. Kinda like paying the trash man each month but they never pick up the trash.

[quaker bill]

31. The Thorium fuel cycle

provides an interesting alternative that consumes some of the most hazardous current waste as fuel. The process needs development, but seems to work well beyond the lab bench.

[Statistical]

41. The only reason for chosing uranium over thorium was bombs.

uranium -> pultonium -> nuclear weapons.

Given we now have more than enough (too many) nuclear weapons there is no reason not to transistion to thorium reactors.

Molten Salt reactor is one interest design that uses Thorium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

It has some major advantages over pressurized liquid cooled reactors

Namely:
* Low pressure vs extreme pressure
* Higher efficiency (currently pressurized light water reactors are about 30% efficient 3GW thermal = 1GW electrical)
* No fuel rods, fuel is mixed into molten salt = lower costs less processing
* Ability to continually filter reprocess fuel (like an oil filter for nuclear reactor) which means less downtime no need to refuel
* Non critical in absence of graphite which provides better safety in an accident.
* High neutron economy so it can "burn" some of the waste from traditional reactors

[ThomWV]

35. What alternative do detractors suggest - continued on-site storage is far worse

Do people think this very nasty stuff is simply going to evaporate into the thin air of nonreality?

[MadHound]

38. I suggest that we abandon nuclear, period.

First of all, there is no solution to the two big problems with nuclear, what to do with the waste and how to eliminate human error. Both of these problems make nuclear power untenable.

Second, nuclear is becoming economically unfeasible as well. Solar, with little help from the government, has become cheaper to produce per watt than nuclear, same with wind. If we actually invest in green energy technologies, they will become much more of a viable replacement for current nuclear, coal, oil infrastructure.

[Statistical]

44. That didn't answer the question.

Assume we abandon nuclear power shouldn't we also still deal with the existing waste.

Also more realistic is the fact that we have over a hundred nuclear reactors with an average of 20 to 40 years left in their combined operating license.

Shutting them down early would be eminent domain and govt (taxpayers) would be obligated to purchase all future electrical revenue from plant operators. We are talking thousands of Terra Watt hours of generation. The cost would be utterly prohibitive.

So in the real world abandoning nuclear means not building any new plants, not allowing any extensions and slowly over next 40 years bringing plants offline. That means even more waste.

So what are you going to do about the waste?

The anti-nuclear crowd can't pretend the waste doesn't exist. It does and it needs to be dealt with. If not at Yucca mountain then somewhere.

[MadHound]

51. Well, as the saying goes, when you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, stop digging

Yet we continue to make more and more nuclear waste, day in, day out and now several forces are trying to expand that amount by orders of magnitude. Not a good idea.

We currently have 104 licensed reactors, and almost all of them are running on extension licenses that can be pulled at any time, and frankly they should be. All of the reactors built in the 50's, '60's and '70's are being run well past their natural life cycle and are simply accidents waiting to happen due to the simple aging process and stress that materials in a reactor are subjected to. The dirty little secret that the nuclear power industry doesn't want you to know is that you should be replacing a nuclear plant every thirty five years due to safety and containment concerns.

We can also shut the nuclear industry down by simply pulling its subsidies. Drop the insurance coverage that we all pay for and the nuclear industry is out of business.

As far as what to do with the waste that is left over, that is a good question, one that hasn't been satisfactorily answered, ever. But I do know that we need to stop producing more of it since we already can't deal with what we've got now. Burying it certainly doesn't work, and there's only so much that we can recycle, so we're left with a real quandary, one that grows every day.

[Statistical]

53. You don't pay a single penny in insurance subsidies.

Price-Anderson bill is publicly available.

Each utility has $300 million in private insurance.
After that there is a combined risk pool of $10 billion (paid for by each utility providing $119 million into the fund).
Only after that Price-Anderson covers any claims in excess of $10.3 billion by federal govt.
To date not a single penny in claims have been paid under Price-Anderson. Every lawsuit, claim, legal defense has been paid for by utilities.

The extension licenses can't be pulled at any time. As long as utilities meet conditions in the license they are allowed to operate until they expire. Most were renewed in 90s for 40 more years so that would put expiration in the 2030s. The utilities spent billions overhauling reactors for restart under Combined Operating License. The govt has no authority to simply undo what it did in the 90s.

Still that doesn't answer the question. The waste exists today. Deep geological storage is better than it sitting in hundreds of facilities all over the United States (many in urban areas) and just pretending it doesn't exist.

[MadHound]

57. Total subsidies for nuclear industry is right around 100 billion and climbing

We the tax payer are paying approximately 237 million annually as just the direct insurance subsidy inherent in Price Anderson.

Without Price Anderson, no, absolutely no nuclear plant could get private insurance.

The extension licenses actually could be pulled at any time, because the dirty little secret about our nuclear plants is that virtually every one of them is out of code in some way or another. Leaking radioactive waste, containment vessel dangerously thin, aging support infrastructure that collapse when put under pressure. I watched the geyser explode up through the street when a routine emergency shutdown drill happened. Apparently the water main that was in the emergency loop was so old and degraded it couldn't take the pressure. Things like this are happening all the time in the nuclear industry and the public simply isn't informed. Our current fleet of reactors should have been shut down ages ago, and frankly could be shut down now, since virtually everyone of them has major problems.

And again, burying the waste is not a good scenario. In fact there is no good scenario, so why should we continue making more and more nuclear waste that we can't safely store anywhere on the face of this planet?

[Statistical]

59. It is your opinion that leaving waste scatters in over 150 sites nationwide

is better than single deep geological depository?

Nobody said a good solution (as in rainbows, and free candies) but the better solution.

You have a problem "x". There is always a best solution.

If you had to choice between shooting one person or shooting hundred people both solutions suck but one solution is the better solution.

Right now we have nuclear waste. The current method is to store that in a variety of different methods scattered across hundreds of sites some with inadequate security and all exposed to the elements and near water supplies.

In your mind somehow that is better than a single well guarded underground facility protected from the elements in which the waste is well cataloged, sorted and stored in uniform manner?

This is why the anit-nukers have no credibility. The waste exists. The grownups are trying to figure out the "best" solution while the antis just want to pretend it isn't there.

[closeupready]

61. Why are you in such a big hurry?

This shit has stayed where it is just fine for many years; it can just stay there until we have an effective solution that doesn't further threaten the environment, groundwater and the health of Americans.

[Statistical]

62. I never said it was a hurry.

Never said Yucca was the answer either.

I simply said that final storage needs to happen eventually and underground, secure, protected from the elements makes more sense than scattered all over the country.

The utilities were lied to in the early 80s. They began paying about $1 billion dollars a year for the govt to build a central repository. It was suppose to open in 1998 so as cooling ponds began to fill they developed TEMPORARY solutions to store the waste (like on-site dry casks).

They didn't design permanent solutions because the plan was for govt to take ownership of the waste (in return for $32 billion collected to date) within a few years.

That never happened so today we have lots of waste in containers and locations never engineered to last decades or centuries. Some of the first dry casks were emplaced in 1986 and designed to last at least 2 decades which was more than enough time for final storage. Well 2 decades ran out in 2006.

So there isn't a hurry like we need to jump and do something tomorrow but we should have a plan to do something eventually.

Even a central above ground dry cask facility as a 30-40 year temporary solution would be preferable to keeping the waste scattered around the country.

The waste could be recasked, inspected, sorted, cataloged and stored in a single facility above ground with a temporary lease (say 30 years) while final solution is designed.

[Confusious]

85. The bigger question is why are you not?

I figure it's like this. If a solution is found to the waste, such as this ->

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

You would go apeshit, because then it would mean more reactors, and you don't want that.

So better to leave it where it is, so you can use it as an excuse not to build more reactors.

[MadHound]

64. Please, stop putting words in my mouth

I am not stating, anywhere in this post, that on site storage is the option that we should take. In fact in post after post, in this thread and the one that you started, I have argued against on site storage.

I am also stating that burying the waste is also fraught with too many safety problems to make it a viable option.

Thus we need to come up with something different. The problem is what that solution will be. Sadly, the government and the nuclear industry seem to be stuck on stupid, ie burying the waste. We need new thinking and new research in order to solve this problem.

Meanwhile I am also stating that we shouldn't continue to add to this problem by the continued production of nuclear waste. As I said earlier, when you find yourself in a deep hole, stop digging. Sadly, it looks like too many people in positions of power want to accelerate the rate at which we're digging that hole. Stupidity, just plain rank stupidity.

As far as your "grownups" crack, let me ask you this. I've worked for years in the nuclear industry, in HP and other positions. I know whereof I speak. What are your credentials, other than being a keyboard blowhard? Pardon me if I stick with the real life empirical evidence that I have, gained through actual hands-on knowledge than the clueless rantings of some keyboard commando.

[laughingliberal]

65. +1 nt

[Statistical]

66. lol.

So you are against onsite storage and against deep geological repository.

Well that is convenient. Maybe we can just magic it away?

The waste isn't going away so given that it needs to be stored somewhere. The onsite storage was designed to be temporary until final waste storage facility opened. They were never designed as a permanent solution.

There is nothing to indicate storing it above ground is somehow less dangerous than storing it below ground or storing it in a distributed manner is somehow better than a central location. No matter what happens (even an unbelievably stupid and expensive idea like shutting down all nuclear tomorrow) the waste needs to be dealt with.

[MadHound]

67. I agree, the waste needs to be dealt with

However the two options that you offer are simply unacceptable. I've shown that we're suffering from a major leakage problem from on site storage, so that's out. As far as storing it below ground, gee have you ever seen a piece of steel, even stainless, that remains intact and viable for a hundred years, much less the thousands required for nuclear waste storage. It simply doesn't happen. Once that outer shell goes, we're screwed as the still hot waste gets into the groundwater. All that burying the waste does is pass the problem along to future generations.

I'm not looking for magic, I'm looking for new research, new thinking, not just knee jerk solutions like yours.

Oh, and again, what are your credentials in this area? Have you worked in the nuclear industry, do you know what goes on? Since you refuse to answer this question one is left to assume that your experience is zero, just another keyboard commando getting your information from Wiki:eyes:

Again, thanks but no thanks, I'll stick with my own, much more in depth knowledge base.

[Statistical]

68. vitrification?

"Once that outer shell goes, we're screwed as the still hot waste gets into the groundwater."

Mix waste with molten glass to form solid non-mobile substance. Lots of research on this.
Then place molten glass/waste mixture into stainless steel drums.

Plus there is nothing to prevent remote monitoring of the waste.

We currently do that with our existing below ground facility the WIPP.

I wouldn't consider "burying" as it dumps some dirt on top of it but rather network of tunnels for orderly storage below ground with remote sensors, cameras, gamma detectors, and maybe even robotics.

Plus above ground warning markers and onsite security.

[MadHound]

70. Better, but even glass is a problem since it is a liquid and flows with time

Such flows could expose radioactive material which could be potentially disasterous, especially if ground water (which does get into the facilities you talk about, it is a problem at Yucca Mt.) floods the facility and starts eating into the steel.

One big thing however is that you can't simply drop these into a steel drum and seal them up. You first have to drop them into a DU container in order to properly shield them, otherwise they are simply unworkable. DU is fine and great in its solid form, you can take it home and cuddle with it all night long without ill effects. But again, water is a problem and once you have water carrying off DU particles it could potentially get inside humans and wreak havoc.

This proposal could be a decent stop gap measure, but that's all. We simply cannot use it as an excuse to continue to produce more and more waste. Nuclear risks are unacceptably high and economically it makes no sense whatsoever except for those with vested monetary interest in the nuclear industry.

But hey, I'm still interested in knowing what your credentials are. Care to share?

[Statistical]

75. I do data analysis work. Computer modeling of complex events.

Building models to allow server farms to crunch the massive amount of data to simulate events.

With my previous employer we did a lot of work for DOE and DOD primarily in nuclear weapons modeling. Not effectiveness but rather safety/reliability over time, safety in accident, safety in a fire, etc. However one of our multi-year contracts was doing modeling for radioactive decay under a variety of scenarios.

As I am sure you know this based on your background but most people are totally unaware nuclear waste isn't a single entity but rather a combination of dozens of fission products. Some are very long lived but many are not. Also with a variety of decay energies and decay methods.

That creates some "interesting" scenarios.

Is it safer to store waste temporarily for a decade to let fast fission products burn off? Does the risk of exposure to gamma radiation during early casking outweigh the risk of environmental contamination in those first few years.

Is it "worth it" to separate out hard gamma emitters from Actinides & beta emitters in terms of cost/danger in separation vs. cost improvement in segregating waste for storage.

Modeling of cost of transmutation based on a vairety of disposal pricing methods. At what point is it more economical to look into transmutation of Tc-99 and I-129 using existing technologies. If new sources of high neutron economies were developed under what conditions would they be viable.

A lot of it wasn't what is a "good outcome" but rather given this huge challenge that already exists what is the least bad problem. There is a lot of research in reducing moisture contamination of underground stored waste. Separating out gamma and high decay energy emitters is one factor. Heat will pull in moisture which increases risk of contamination. There is also research into forcing cool dry air through the storage chamber to pull out any moisture (like an air conditioner does to relative humidity in your house).

I am not a physicist but worked with them to convert physics information into models the computer understand, decay, and costs based on empirical data and projected cost. That was some years ago though.

[closeupready]

71. +1 - I think your informed views outshine anyone else here.

(Hint, hint, Mr. Twain.)

[Confusious]

82. You have to see the problem through their eyes

If you have a solution to nuclear waste, then you can build more plants, which they don't want.

So, they would rather it just sit there then actually do anything about it.

[Confusious]

81. You don't keep up with things do you?

Not surprising

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

99% of high-level waste is destroyed.

[MadHound]

84. You don't know much about the nuclear industry do you?

Not surprising, another keyboard commando who thinks that they know more than those like myself, who actually worked in the industry.

Let me spell this out really clearly for you; the greatest amount of waste, by volume, is not the fuel. It is the ancillary products, which range from paper swipes to hot aluminum cans, and everything in between. Stuff that is damn near as deadly as uranium, with varying half lives, and it can't be recycled or otherwise used in the fuel process.

So, what are you going to do about that? Oh, yeah, that's right, you don't have a clue. Nor do you have a clue about how to eliminate human error in the nuclear industry, which is the number one cause of incidents and accidents.

Here is a clue for you. Why stick with an energy source, nuclear, which we the people have to subsidize when things like wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear watt for watt?

Please stop thinking you're an expert, you're not and you didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

[laughingliberal]

43. I don't give a crap what they do with it as long as they don't send it here

The site was never safe for these purposes. It was an old feud between 2 Senators which led to the 'screw Nevada bill.' Well, screw the people who want to send it to us.

Anyone who hasn't seen people take to the streets in large numbers can hide and watch if they try to shove the Yucca mountain project through.

The groundwater in the area showed contamination within a few years of putting the test caskets in. We have more than enough radiation to deal with already, thank you very much.

[laughingliberal]

48. I suggest you find a nice location where you live to store it. WV? nt

[we can do it]

37. He Needs To Stop Mountain Top Removal NOW As Well

[DemoTex]

45. Could the timing of this announcement have anything to do with Harry Reid's re-election campaign?

Of course.

[laughingliberal]

47. Perhaps but Harry has been effectively fighting this for years and it is one of the reasons he has

been kept in office. The other side of that is if it's now dead he might have less chance of winning. My guess? It is not about Reid's campaign. Threatening to keep Yucca alive would probably help him more.

[laughingliberal]

49. Nevadan Here :)

:bounce: :party: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :toast: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :party: :bounce:

on edit: could also help Obama carry Nevada in 2012. He carried it in '08 but is not popular here right now.

[closeupready]

55. Amen to this. States should deal with their own shit.

Not ship it out West where it could potentially contaminate groundwater and land for millions of Americans.

[Zoeisright]

73. Well, if fall out from a nuclear accident stayed within state boundaries,

this would have some merit. Since it doesn't, this needs to be solved on a federal level.

[mike_c]

69. excellent news! Rec'd!

eom

[PacerLJ35]

83. Having done a study on this site while in college, I think this is a mistake

The temporary storage facilities won't last forever....Yucca Mountain was studied to find a geologically stable site. No area is perfect, but this site was determined to have many positive qualities. The waste has to go somewhere, and that's just a fact. I've heard all kinds of alternative suggestions but nearly all of them have some kind of fatal flaw. Yucca has a few unknowns and a few minor issues, but overall it's the best answer we have to long-term storage of waste.

[laughingliberal]

86. The temporary caskets were showing signs of wear after 90 days in the ground

May be the best answer for people who don't live here in Nevada but they can bite me. The 'screw Nevada' bill is dead and may it stay dead.

[PacerLJ35]

87. I guess it's better to leave the waste in temporary facilities that aren't designed for long-term

[laughingliberal]

88. Better for Nevada, that's for sure

The groundwater in the area surrounding Yucca showed contamination from the test caskets in less than 1 year. Screw Nevada is dead at long last.

My husband is already a downwind survivor of Nevada's above ground nuclear testing. We don't want anymore crap here.