Nuclear Power Needs To Go

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The current lower price of natural gas will probably have more to do with nuclear energy's demise than anything in the OP's links. BTW, the Hanford Site's leaking tanks have nothing to do with commercial nuclear power.

A distinction without a difference, IMO. In any event, some of the waste stored at Hanford is waste from commercial reactors that was destined for Yucca Mtn.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

A distinction without a difference, IMO. In any event, some of the waste stored at Hanford is waste from commercial reactors that was destined for Yucca Mtn.

While this may be true, it's certainly news to me, having been to Hanford bunches of times. Only the N Reactor was dual use (military/civilian), but I doubt that a small portion of the mixed waste in the underground tanks has been specifically deemed Yucca Mountain waste. Perhaps the spent fuel is, but the spent fuel has absolutely nothing to do with the leaky tanks.

In any event, using Hanford to make an argument against the use of modern nuclear reactor designs is silly. The use of single walls underground tanks to accommodate 100 million gallons of mixed waste was due to war time exigencies (beating Hitler to the bomb and keeping ahead of the Russians). These exigencies don't exist in the civilian nuclear power industry. If anything kills nuclear, it will be the price of natural gas lowered by virtue of fracking.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

While this may be true, it's certainly news to me, having been to Hanford bunches of times. Only the N Reactor was dual use (military/civilian), but I doubt that a small portion of the mixed waste in the underground tanks has been specifically deemed Yucca Mountain waste. Perhaps the spent fuel is, but the spent fuel has absolutely nothing to do with the leaky tanks.

In any event, using Hanford to make an argument against the use of modern nuclear reactor designs is silly. The use of single walls underground tanks to accommodate 100 million gallons of mixed waste was due to war time exigencies (beating Hitler to the bomb and keeping ahead of the Russians). These exigencies don't exist in the civilian nuclear power industry. If anything kills nuclear, it will be the price of natural gas lowered by virtue of fracking.

It is true. That's what happens when you retire. And pointing to the permanent risks associated with nuclear waste storage, however it was generated, is not "silly". Or do you maintain that this is a soluble problem?

And there are indications that there are now some double wall tanks, those not built under wartime exigencies, that are leaking. Tanks that are 400 yards from the second largest river in the US.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It is true. That's what happens when you retire. And pointing to the permanent risks associated with nuclear waste storage, however it was generated, is not "silly". Or do you maintain that this is a soluble problem?

And there are indications that there are now some double wall tanks, those not built under wartime exigencies, that are leaking. Tanks that are 400 yards from the second largest river in the US.

Not all "nuclear waste storage" is the same. When one normally speaks of nuclear waste storage in the civilian nuclear industry, they're talking of spent fuel. The contents of Hanford's tanks isn't spent fuel. Conflating the two in making an argument against civilian nuclear reactors shows a lack of understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and the nature of the mess at Hanford.

That said, cheap natural gas and existing regulatory burdens have pretty much killed the civilian nuclear industry. AFAIK, the V.C. Summer plant expansion in South Carolina is pretty much the only ongoing civilian reactor project and I'm sure its owner, SCE&G, would in retrospect much preferred to have built a natural gas plant considering costs that have skyrocketed to $12 billion.

http://www.thestate.com/news/busines...e41740257.html

The handwriting is pretty much on the wall already. The NRC, which was going great guns 20 years ago with the promise of a resurgent civilian nuclear industry, is downsizing dramatically in recognition of the dynamics noted above.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Not all "nuclear waste storage" is the same. When one normally speaks of nuclear waste storage in the civilian nuclear industry, they're talking of spent fuel. The contents of Hanford's tanks isn't spent fuel. Conflating the two in making an argument against civilian nuclear reactors shows a lack of understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and the nature of the mess at Hanford.

That said, cheap natural gas and existing regulatory burdens have pretty much killed the civilian nuclear industry. AFAIK, the V.C. Summer plant expansion in South Carolina is pretty much the only ongoing civilian reactor project and I'm sure its owner, SCE&G, would in retrospect much preferred to have built a natural gas plant considering costs that have skyrocketed to $12 billion.

http://www.thestate.com/news/busines...e41740257.html

The handwriting is pretty much on the wall already. The NRC, which was going great guns 20 years ago with the promise of a resurgent civilian nuclear industry, is downsizing dramatically in recognition of the dynamics noted above.

Yes, there's vitrification but the vitrified waste is still hot and the process results in an increased volume of waste, making storage even more problematic. And the risks associated with nuclear waste, however it was generated are both extreme and seemingly insoluble.

[Tom Joad]

Part of this "Ask this old house" episode is on how Germany is moving toward energy independence. They also talk about how Germany has committed to move away from Nuclear, which they were once among the world's leaders in.

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365590403/

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Yes, there's vitrification but the vitrified waste is still hot and the process results in an increased volume of waste, making storage even more problematic. And the risks associated with nuclear waste, however it was generated are both extreme and seemingly insoluble.

Vitrification at Hanford and grout stabilization at Savannah River are effectively both prototype efforts to stabilize mostly uncharacterized mixed (with process chemicals) liquid nuclear waste. Its treatment and storage really isn't comparable to (solid) fuel cycle waste. Grout stabilization and vitrification are both performed to convert the liquid waste to solid waste to preclude seepage into ground water, a process unnecessary for (solid) fuel cycle waste.

That said, Harry Reid's efforts to close Yucca Mountain have certainly set back our ability to safely store spent fuel. Because we have chosen not to reprocess spent fuel (as done in numerous other countries, including France) due to non-proliferation concerns, we are stuck with needing a large nuclear waste repository (which the civilian nuclear industry has already payed for, BTW). Now that Yucca Mountain is on mothballs, so to speak, we are stuck storing spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants across the nation, not an ideal long term solution, to be sure, not to mention a screw-job for the civilian nuclear industry.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Vitrification at Hanford and grout stabilization at Savannah River are effectively both prototype efforts to stabilize mostly uncharacterized mixed (with process chemicals) liquid nuclear waste. Its treatment and storage really isn't comparable to (solid) fuel cycle waste. Grout stabilization and vitrification are both performed to convert the liquid waste to solid waste to preclude seepage into ground water, a process unnecessary for (solid) fuel cycle waste.

That said, Harry Reid's efforts to close Yucca Mountain have certainly set back our ability to safely store spent fuel. Because we have chosen not to reprocess spent fuel (as done in numerous other countries, including France) due to non-proliferation concerns, we are stuck with needing a large nuclear waste repository (which the civilian nuclear industry has already payed for, BTW). Now that Yucca Mountain is on mothballs, so to speak, we are stuck storing spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants across the nation, not an ideal long term solution, to be sure, not to mention a screw-job for the civilian nuclear industry.

I know what vitrification is and I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for the civilian nuclear industry.

One way or the other we're "stuck" with every atom of nuclear waste ever generated.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Vitrification at Hanford and grout stabilization at Savannah River are effectively both prototype efforts to stabilize mostly uncharacterized mixed (with process chemicals) liquid nuclear waste. Its treatment and storage really isn't comparable to (solid) fuel cycle waste. Grout stabilization and vitrification are both performed to convert the liquid waste to solid waste to preclude seepage into ground water, a process unnecessary for (solid) fuel cycle waste.

That said, Harry Reid's efforts to close Yucca Mountain have certainly set back our ability to safely store spent fuel. Because we have chosen not to reprocess spent fuel (as done in numerous other countries, including France) due to non-proliferation concerns, we are stuck with needing a large nuclear waste repository (which the civilian nuclear industry has already payed for, BTW). Now that Yucca Mountain is on mothballs, so to speak, we are stuck storing spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants across the nation, not an ideal long term solution, to be sure, not to mention a screw-job for the civilian nuclear industry.

So its extreme waste problems make it very undesirable: Aiding and abetting
the OP statement.

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by Boreas

A distinction without a difference, IMO. In any event, some of the waste stored at Hanford is waste from commercial reactors that was destined for Yucca Mtn.

Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge and others are a complete consequence of the Weapons Programs. They are the most serious overlooked enviro disaster in this country for the past 40 years. They continue to BURY bulldozers in place because after a few months of service -- they are too radioactive to operate.

And if you actually READ that link to the NewYork nuclear plant -- their "major problems" were birds shitting on the powerlines and transformers busting OUTSIDE the reactors. The tritium leak was a one time incident and tritium has a very short half-life. Much shorter than the INFINTITE half-life of the pollutants that came spilling out of those busted transformers.

There is no other reliable 24/7/365 power source that is CO2 free, and can power your home for a year with only 0.7 ounces of waste. That's an amount that we ought to be able to handle. About equiv to a AA battery. Especially if you are a fan of putting 400 lbs of limited life batteries on wheels without a real plan for end of life recycling.

Nuclear is the RIGHT NOW solution for those suffering from GWarming hysteria. Even top Ecologists now are speaking out to use more of it. And for gosh sakes to rebuild the 40 or so seriously aged plants that are still percolating out there supplying over 20% of our electricity..