HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Another sign that we shou...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:13 AM

 

Another sign that we should move away from nuclear power. Hopefully we listen this time.

"The long-delayed cleanup of the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site became the subject of more bad news Friday, when Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced that a radioactive waste tank there is leaking.

The news raises concerns about the integrity of similar tanks at south-central Washington’s Hanford nuclear reservation and puts added pressure on the federal government to resolve construction problems with the plant being built to alleviate environmental and safety risks from the waste.

The tanks, which are already long past their intended 20-year life span, hold millions of gallons of a highly radioactive stew left from decades of plutonium production for nuclear weapons.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy said liquid levels are decreasing in one of 177 underground tanks at the site. Monitoring wells near the tank have not detected higher radiation levels, but Inslee said the leak could be in the range of 150 gallons to 300 gallons over the course of a year and poses a potential long-term threat to groundwater and rivers."
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2013/02/15/hanford-nuclear-tank-wash-leaking-liquids/lttvnakcRlGsU4PURfT8OL/story.html?rss_id=Most+Popular

There are two huge, unavoidable obstacles to nuclear power use in this country. How to dispose of the nuclear waste in a manner that completely guarantees the safety of the public, and the need to completely eliminate human error from the equation.

These two facts have to airtight because of the simple fact that we're dealing with nuclear issues here. Even the leak of a small amount of nuclear waste will greatly contaminate the Earth and possibly kill lots of people over a long period of time. You have to guarantee no human error because even the smallest of problems can lead to a major accident that would kill tens of thousands and contaminate large areas of the Earth. Worse, as in the case with Fukishima, that human error can show up decades after it was committed.

Since we can't make ironclad guarantees on these two issues, we have got to move completely away from nuclear power. There is no need for it now. Green renewables are cheaper than nuclear power, and more than capable of shouldering the load that nuclear power now carries.

Nuclear power is now a dinosaur whose time has gone. Time to pull the plug on our nuclear power program and remove the threat of nuclear power from our country.

54 replies, 3156 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply Another sign that we should move away from nuclear power. Hopefully we listen this time. (Original post)
MadHound Feb 2013 OP
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #1
MadHound Feb 2013 #4
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #9
MadHound Feb 2013 #13
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #14
MadHound Feb 2013 #44
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #49
marions ghost Feb 2013 #17
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #29
MadHound Feb 2013 #45
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #47
MadHound Feb 2013 #50
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #51
Tikki Feb 2013 #8
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #30
pasto76 Feb 2013 #22
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #33
Tikki Feb 2013 #34
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #35
Tikki Feb 2013 #37
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #38
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #24
quinnox Feb 2013 #2
MadHound Feb 2013 #6
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #39
stonecutter357 Feb 2013 #43
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #48
stonecutter357 Feb 2013 #53
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #46
me b zola Feb 2013 #3
mick063 Feb 2013 #5
MadHound Feb 2013 #10
DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2013 #18
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #25
billyclem Feb 2013 #52
mick063 Feb 2013 #54
OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #7
MadHound Feb 2013 #11
stonecutter357 Feb 2013 #16
snagglepuss Feb 2013 #12
bvar22 Feb 2013 #15
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #31
SHRED Feb 2013 #19
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #28
padruig Feb 2013 #20
dairydog91 Feb 2013 #21
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #26
MadHound Feb 2013 #36
sofa king Feb 2013 #23
randome Feb 2013 #32
bvar22 Feb 2013 #40
Duer 157099 Feb 2013 #27
ThomThom Feb 2013 #41
sallyjojo Feb 2013 #42

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:22 AM

1. Hanford is hardly the norm.

Using it as a benchmark is fairly meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:28 AM

4. Virtually every single nuclear facility that stores nuclear waste has had problems,

 

Hanford is perhaps the most notorious, but look at the history of Indian Head, Oakridge, San Onofre, Callaway, the list goes on and on, and extends to every single nuclear facility.

Furthermore, we simply don't need nuclear power anymore, so why risk such ongoing contamination, why risk that human error leads to a catastrophe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:47 AM

9. Objectively, to want to end nuclear today means increasing Fossil Fuel use dramatically.

If you don't mind stepping up using natural gas far more than it's use is already being increased, and burning even more coal, then you'll agree with most in the industry that we should keep the current nukes running.

Even educated advocates of 100% renewables know this.

I advocate for the eventual end of all fossil fuel and nuclear power for electrical generation and transportation, HVAC, etc., but if you care about the climate you can't say "we don't need it".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:59 AM

13. Well, perhaps you need to recognize that I was speaking figuratively.

 

Yes, if we ended nuclear today, we would have to hike our fossil fuel use. But, if we did a crash program of weaning us off of nuclear(and fossil fuels), putting thin film photovoltaic on every roof, methane digesters in every neighborhood, wind were possible, etc. etc., we could get off of nuclear within a couple of years, and fossil fuels within a decade.

Nuclear only fills approximately seventeen to nineteen percent of our power needs, and that is declining. Putting thin film photovoltaics on every roof in the NYC area would take care of that need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:03 PM

14. Why Thin Film?

The most productive modules are not thin film.

I do think, eventually, we'll see more and more thin film applications, it's light and can go where mono and polycrystalline systems can't, like on roofs that don't have the additional load capacity, but for carports and new construction, conventional modules make the most sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:40 AM

44. I think you're a bit behind in the field,

 

They've got copper-indium thin film photovoltaics that are now above twenty percent efficiency, four percent above conventional models. There are also gallium arsenide thin films that are peaking out at 28.8 percent efficiency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #44)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:38 AM

49. Um, no. I don't think so. Neither example is commercially viable or even on the market.

There are also +/- 43% efficiencies with multijunctions but you won't find them on anyone's roofs just yet.

SunPower single crystal cells have the highest efficiencies among commercially available technologies, and aren't themselves even rated at your 28.8%.

Fortunately, module prices continue to fall. A 500 kW project I developed last year which will have it's one-year true up next month cost the contractor significantly less to build than they'd calculated because of falling module prices. I'm sad that the client allowed Chinese modules to be used, but I'm glad that the construction required prevailing wage.

Here:





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MadHound (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:09 PM

29. .... and not one of these sites was ever designed for long-term disposal of waste.

The problems that arise are a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy: refuse to accept long-term waste disposal options, and then complain that the current approach is inadequate.

Hanford is by far the worst because the old, old waste there from the 1940s was put there in a huge rush. It's now just about too hot to handle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #29)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:44 AM

45. Umm, there are no long term waste disposal options.

 

Yucca Mt. was a disaster waiting to happen, located at the confluence of three seismic areas, caverns that flood regularly, it was simply not going to happen. Likewise, other long term options are not acceptable either, due to various forces of nature.

That is the entire problem with nuclear power, the waste. We haven't solved the waste problem, and probably never will. Thus, it is better to let nuclear die in favor of less toxic, less expensive green renewables.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #45)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:21 AM

47. No. It was a perfectly acceptable solution.

The recalcitrance of "no acceptable solutions" is ridiculous. The current approach of doing NOTHING is already a disaster. Blocking Yucca Mountain was short sighted and ridiculous because we have thousands of tons of dangerous material sitting exposed waiting for a monumental disaster.

I'm with you that no more nukes until we get disposal options. But blocking Yucca Mtn? Unreal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #47)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:43 AM

50. Just one example of the unsuitability of Yucca Mt.

 

The EPA did a dye test on the water that comes up the cracks and floods the Yucca Mt. site. They found that in two weeks, that water was in the Las Vegas water supply system.

And again, at the confluence of three seismic areas.

There are sound reasons for rejecting Yucca Mt. Hell, frankly there is no place on this planet that is suitable for the next ten thousand years, much less the next one hundred thousand.

And again, why bother? Nuclear power is now more expensive than green renewables.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #50)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:48 AM

51. I would really like to see a link for that dye test.

Use a reliable source -- the US EPA website would be fantastic. Otherwise, I'm calling total bullshit.

You're ignoring my question about existing, dangerously non-stored spent fuel. We leave in pools of water totally exposed and uncontained?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:43 AM

8. Well, isn't that nice....people, norm(al) people, live around Hanford and they...

have been and will be in contact with the hot mess for generations.

Let me put this in perspective. My cousin has spent his whole working
career cleaning up the nuclear waste and by-products at Hanford..that is
nearly 30 years moving crap around while contractor after contractor and
scientist after scientist jockey back and forth with very, very expensive
projects on how to maintain the waste materials. It never ends. But it
does leak.


There is no cure and as other nuclear facilities age..

Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tikki (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:10 PM

30. I worked there. I am first-person familiar with the problems.

That's also why I know that comparing Hanford to more modern sites is not meaningful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:37 PM

22. your language is meaningless

there is a thing called a risk matrix. every person with risk assessment and often any type of formal safety training knows what that is.

that a leaking waste tank is so unusual is literally, only half the equation. The other half is just as important. So if you put so much weight on the likelihood, you MUST also weight equally the consequences

what are the consequences of radioactive waste? acute and chronic illness. Death. Contaminated water. Contaminated food. genetic mutations. What is the half life of these contaminants? where is it bioaccumulated? Yeah, nothing serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:12 PM

33. Which scenario has greater risk:

Leaving spent fuel rods in open pools of water for decades on end or putting them in a well-designed facility specifically built for that purpose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:42 PM

34. You know, every well thought out specific plan...

on what to do with the waste at Hanford has turned into a scientist-engineer, contractor cluster fuck.
And the tax payers have paid over and over and over for virtually nothing. It's a racket..someone comes up
with what they say is the terrific way to contain it and then another comes up with a what they say is a better
way and they fight over it.
One contractor gets outbid by another and a whole new set of work starts again.

How anyone can look at today's Hanford and not see that it is a ponzi-scheme is unbelievable. But, I hope there
won't always be those Americans (and others, sadly) who are hot for it just based on patriotism, or it's already here,
nuke feeds my family, the government says it's not really dangerous (my personal favorite ) and it's so
interesting the process by which it works.

Let me know when this well built facility becomes a reality at Hanford...I won't hold my breath.


Tikki...child of the radiant glow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tikki (Reply #34)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:48 PM

35. Ask your family member if he/she would rather have the waste safely contained.

Regardless, Hanford is a mess of epic proportions. The entire world literally does not have the resources to clean up Hanford. That is precisely why Hanford is a very poor example to compare to typical nuke power plants.

I didn't get an answer to the risk analysis question that seemed to be central to your original response to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:01 PM

37. Where and when is this 'Fountain of Youth' for nuclear plants and the waste they generate?

...you are saying it is a well designed and specifically built facility...Where is it, what exactly is it and
who has it in their plans?


Tikki...child of the radiant glow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tikki (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:03 PM

38. My policy is to respond only twice to people who refuse to explain themselves.

I'm done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:59 PM

24. You are correct that Hanford is not the norm. Younger plants have yet to experience

the problems that they have at Hanford. Give them time.

Tell me if I am wrong, but it appears you are arguing on the side of nuclear power?

If you are let me give my side of the argument.

Nuclear plants are very expensive to build.

No insurance company will insure them. They are all insured by the US taxpayers. The corporations take zero risk, we take all the risk.

There is no good way to dispose of the spent fuel and other waste. We have tons and tons of extremely highly radioactive spent fuel stored in "parking lots". In the open. Vulnerable to natural or terrorist disasters.

Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to dispose of and I guarantee you that the corporations that made profits will saddle the US taxpayers with the expense of disposal.

Please give your argument for having nuclear power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:23 AM

2. nuclear has shown itself to be a threat to humanity

 

Which means other technologies should be investigated. You know, its possible there are technologies not yet discovered that are 1000 times better and cleaner than today's energy technology. We humans are so arrogant sometimes, and think we have advanced science and discovered most everything, but maybe in reality we are still infants when it comes to the secrets out there in the universe...Maybe put some of the billions normally put into the bloated defense industry, and divert those resources into research into alternative and undiscovered technologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:32 AM

6. Well, right now, there are viable alternatives,

 

Thin film photovoltaic comes to mind. You can shingle a house with the material, and power your house completely. The trouble is that this decentralizes our energy production, a move that threatens several large corporations who have the money and power to slow or stop such a transformation

We have reached the point that we can transition from fossil fuels and nuclear power to green renewables now. We have the technical capability, it is just now a matter of overcoming the political, economic and social obstacles that are in the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:04 PM

39. Time out. Generation of electricity by nuclear energy is a threat to humanity?

Please elaborate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #43)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:23 AM

48. So, how many people died from this?

This was one of the worst nuclear disasters ever, if not the worst. How exactly did it threaten humanity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:32 PM

53. You have to be shill .

and don't bother responding you are on Full Ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #39)


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:28 AM

3. I completely agree

I've been trying to wrap my head around that this leaking pile of trouble sits on the Columbia River. I'm sick and tired of people trying to defend these nuclear plants, there is no defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:30 AM

5. There is much for the OP to learn

 

One must understand that these tanks have nothing to do with nuclear power and the process used to create this waste has been obsolete for decades.

This is legacy waste from the cold war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mick063 (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:51 AM

10. Gee mick0, please do educate me,

 

It would be interesting to see if an anonymous internet poster can tell somebody who has worked in the nuclear industry for a number of years anything new. Like how nuclear waste is packaged and shipped throughout the country(hint, it is coming to a highway near you, pretty much on a weekly basis if you are on any major highway in this nation). It would be interested to see what you could tell me about how this waste is stored. It would be interesting to hear the hubris of somebody who evidently hasn't worked in the industry.

You see, if had worked in the industry, you would recognize the fact that these model tanks that are being used in Hanford are also in place across the country. Dozens of these tanks dot our country from coast to coast. Outdated and dangerous, these tanks put us all at risk.

So please, educate me This should be good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:23 PM

18. Coming up on 2 hours since he posted

I guess he is writing a real scorcher of a reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:04 PM

25. To me the biggest concern is not the tanks but the tons and tons

of spent fuel that is currently, "temporarily" stored in "parking lots" across the country. Vulnerable to natural or terrorist disasters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 03:19 PM

52. Let me add a bit while we wait

The tanks at Hanford are older than those in use at power plants, some dated back to WW2, and consist of both single and double shell tanks. I think all of the single shell tanks were emptied some years ago and I am not certain of the status of the others since my retirement.

The type of tank has never been the big problem; rather, it has been attempting to characterize what was in each tank, as in most cases no inventory or addition record was kept. The contents of a tank were unknown and in many cases had the consistency of peanut butter, you can imagine the problems obtaining samples from a deep underground tank full of highly radioactive goop.

Besides the tanks there are many contaminated areas on the Hanford site for which there is no record. These areas are located by drilling and other means of searching. As has been mentioned, Hanford is a very dirty place.

Looks like I need to contact one of my old friends in remediation to get the latest info.

This is what the Cold War mentality of Production above all else has left us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:59 PM

54. I know more about this than you could ever know.

 

My title is Nuclear Chemical Operator and I work at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. I have worked in this capacity for fourteen years. I can't reveal a great deal of information because much of it is potentially sensitive. Further, even if it was all public information, the Department of Energy would still frown on any information released outside of their preferred method.


I worked at the "K" Basins Spent Nuclear Fuel Project as well as the K Basins Floor and Pit Sludge Retrieval. I also worked at "T" plant repackaging retrieved drums from a burial site. I worked at Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) in the capactiy of deactivating and decommissioning.

I wear protective suits and breathe supplied air through a hose. I work in airborne radioactive areas, I work in high contamination areas. I work in high radiation areas. I package radioactive waste for shipment. I am well versed in emergency response and would be one of the first people on the scene in the event of a site emergency.

I don't feel compelled to offer any more information to "prove" anything to an internet stranger.

I do, however, stand 100% by what I wrote earlier.

Spent nuclear fuel from power generation remains solid throughout the process including final disposition. . The physical properties are not changed so that they are molten, a liquid, or in solution.

These tanks mentioned by the OP have nothing to do with nuclear power. These tanks are unique to Hanford site. They are not spread across the country.

The only reason I respond is because folks are "pulling the fire alarm" when there is no fire.

The State of Washington has a legal agreement with the Department of Energy called the "Tri Party Agreement". Because of this, billions of dollars are being spent on a vitrification plant to deal with these tank wastes. Wastes unique to the Hanford Site. Liquified wastes stored in unique tanks only found at Hanford.

THESE TANKS DO NOT DOT THE COUNTRYSIDE ACROSS AMERICA.











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:35 AM

7. Nuclear weapons are not civilian nuclear power/energy.

 

The article mentions radioactive waste from nuclear weapons manufacturing. That's weaponry. That's very different from a nuclear civilian energy station.

Granted, they may have similar waste, but nuclear weapons manufacturing is something different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:52 AM

11. Actually, the issue isn't the waste that is in these tanks,

 

It is the tanks being used to store the waste. These tanks were in common use at nuclear power facilities across the country. Dozens still dot the country, still storing waste, despite be outdated and dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:06 PM

16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel

but nuclear weapons manufacturing is something different.No it is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:56 AM

12. to read later

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:06 PM

15. Relax. They're just venting a little steam.

I know science (you don't),
and Nuclear Plants are safe because they have redundant back-up systems.
They are SOOOOOO safe, they can be built on active fault lines and
coastlines in Tsunami Threat Areas.

All you ignorant people are worried about nothing.
Did I mention that I know science and you don't?
Besides, coal is BAD,
so we HAVE to use Nuke Plants!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:11 PM

31. Venting secondary steam I hope. But who are we to know

what is best for us? We should just have faith. Our government wouldnt lead us astray....unless there was a buck in it for someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:30 PM

19. How close is this to the Columbia River?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:07 PM

28. I would guess approx 10 miles. Nothing to worry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:31 PM

20. I live in Washington State


I grew up here and have watched the struggles we've had with Hanford and WPPSS (the Washington Public Power Supply System)

Unfortunately this is not a unique event, if the public knew the total magnitude of risk from nuclear power, I think every plant would be shuttered and decommissioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:34 PM

21. Or it's a reason to move towards modern nuclear power production.

Using something like a LFTR design, which produces less waste (And the waste products it does produce have half lives measured in a few decades, not tens of thousands of years).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:05 PM

26. With nearly 20% of our energy being provided by nuclear....

.... and nuclear having a small carbon footprint, it is frustrating to see this kind of thread.

I am not at all afraid of nuclear energy, but I will not support expansion until a move is taken to provide housing for the waste. And what is the fate of the phenomenal amojnt of waste that already exists and desperately needs containment? So-called "envirnomentalists" block every move taken for its disposal.

So, keep up the good work! Keep blocking disposal of the waste, but keep complaining about leaking tanks and similar problems. It's win-win for the "environmentalists" but a losing proposition in every other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:58 PM

36. You are going to have to come up with a one hundred percent guaranteed way of storing the waste,

 

And a one hundred percent way of guaranteeing no human error.

Until then, nuclear is far too risky. It is simply a matter of time before we have major problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:52 PM

23. Madhound, how do you feel about more modern designs?

I think you are spot on when you say that disposal and human error will forever be problems. But there are a couple of emerging technologies that appear to take both of those problems into account:

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

Toshiba 4S

The first one is a low radioactivity, low pressure, self-regulating system unlike most reactors today. The second is a (supposedly) high-safety, low maintenance scaling down of more conventional reactors.

I'm not trying to bait you or anything, I'd just like to know if you see anything positive in these newer designs, and what problems remain unaddressed or inherent. I can't find the article now, but I read somewhere that there is a pathway to making fissile nuclear material from LFTRs, so it's not as pink a unicorn as it once was!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:11 PM

32. Disposal? Why not ship it to the Moon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:57 PM

40. ..And produce the inevitable Challenger disaster?

Can you imagine if tons of that poison were spread over 1000 miles swaths of North America?
It would leave a vast region uninhabitable for 10,000 years or more.

The Fukushima Lesson:
As long as we use Nuke Plants,
Fukushima (or Chernobyl) or WORSE will happen again,
and again,
and again.

Man has NEVER produce a Fail Safe machine.
The ONLY pertinent question is:
Can you survive the inevitable failures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:06 PM

27. Gee, I thought this was going to be about the meteor

Because really, what if a meteor like the Russian one hits a nuclear plant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:40 PM

41. Do we have a plan to deal with the reactor structures that are aging and nearing

the end of their lives?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:49 PM

42. I read about this

Certainly not comforting news, but considering how many times we almost came to an exchange of nuclear missles with Russia once upon a time, I suppose this should be kept in perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread