Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Yucca Mountain Still Alive Under GOP Nuke Plan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:56 AM
Original message
Yucca Mountain Still Alive Under GOP Nuke Plan
Edited on Tue Mar-15-11 11:56 AM by jpak
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/13/110282/yucca-mountain-still-alive-under.html

Yucca Mountain is still breathing.

It's been 24 long years since Congress first designated the desert locale in southern Nevada as the best place to store the nation's nuclear waste.

While opponents have gained the upper hand in trying to block the project in recent years — in 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that "Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table" — a group of House Republicans is fighting back. They want to revive the site as part of a broader plan that calls for building 200 new nuclear plants by 2030.

Under that plan, the nation would begin building nuclear plants on an unprecedented scale: Currently, the nation gets 20 percent of its electricity from 104 nuclear reactors.


<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. We can always leave spent fuel in the holding ponds
Although that would appear to come with its own risks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yeah, but only the risk of leaving high level radioactivity uncontained in a puddle of water.
What could go wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Magus Donating Member (443 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Or we could reproce it for more energy.
But since the French do that, obviously Republicans think it's a bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. We could...
Based on current events, I'm anticipating we get another generation of coal and NG development.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Magus Donating Member (443 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Because, of course, the media loves scaring people about nuclear power, but...
...will never mention that, even ignoring environmental damage, coal should be considered much scarier. More people die every year in coal mines than were killed by the Chernobyl disaster (and that's including the 1-4 thousand cancer deaths years after the fact).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. The media are scaring people?

I got a funny feeling the events in Japan are the source of the discomfort.

Perhaps I'm just imagining that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. false dichotimy is nuclear industry lie pressed into the public mind by active grass roots PR
Sorry you fell for it but there are alternative RIGHT NOW that will deliver all the power needed for a modern culture.

Now, don't you feel silly for being so gullible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. hate to tell you but that is another lie pomoted by the nuclear industry.
Edited on Tue Mar-15-11 04:05 PM by kristopher
Unfortunately you've been hoodwinked by a lie from an industry intent on trying to convince a gullible public that their product is needed and safe. They have an active web-based disinformation campaign at work to promote false claims such as you've repeated.

Would you trust claims like that from BP?

REPORT: UNSUCCESSFUL “FAST BREEDER” IS NO SOLUTION FOR LONG- TERM REACTOR WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES
After Over $50 Billion Spent by US, Japan, Russia, UK, India and France, No Commercial Model Found; High Cost, Unreliability, Major Safety Problems and Proliferation Risks All Seen as Major Barriers to Use.
PRINCETON, N.J. – February 17, 2010 – Hopes that the “fast breeder”– a plutonium‐fueled nuclear reactor designed to produce more fuel than it consumed -- might serve as a major part of the long-term nuclear waste disposal solution are not merited by the dismal track record to date of such sodium-cooled reactors in France, India, Japan, the Soviet Union/Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, according to a major new study from the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM).

Titled “Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status,” the IPFM report concludes: “The problems (with fast breeder reactors) ... make it hard to dispute Admiral Hyman Rickover’s summation in 1956, based on his experience with a sodium-cooled reactor developed to power an early U.S. nuclear submarine, that such reactors are ‘expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair.’”

Plagued by high costs, often multi-year downtime for repairs (including a 15-year reactor restart delay in Japan), multiple safety problems (among them often catastrophic sodium fires triggered simply by contact with oxygen), and unresolved proliferation risks, “fast breeder” reactors already have been the focus of more than $50 billion in development spending, including more than $10 billion each by the U.S., Japan and Russia. As the IPFM report notes: “Yet none of these efforts has produced a reactor that is anywhere near economically competitive with light-water reactors ... After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled and efforts to commercialize them have been steadily cut back in most countries.”


The new IPFM report is a timely and important addition to the understanding about reactor technology. Today, with increased attention being paid both to so-called “Generation IV” reactors, some of which are based on the fast reactor technology, and a new Obama Administration panel focusing on reprocessing and other waste issues, interest in some quarters has shifted back to fast reactors as a possible means by which to bypass concerns about the long- term storage of nuclear waste....


You can download the full report here:
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/pages_us_en/nuclearenergy/nuclearenergy/nuclearenergy.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsrobert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. They what Harry Reid to come and beg to them
that is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea....
200 new targets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Magus Donating Member (443 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Targets for what?
Leave the terrorism fearmongering to the wingnuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. The threat of terrorist sabotage of a nuclear plant is real - stop spinning for the industry.
There is NO reputable agency responsible for security of nuclear plants that denies the reality and extent of the threat so in effect what you are engaged in is disinformation on behalf of an industry with deception issues that make entities like big Pharma look like saints.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Thank you. I, too, thought it was a given! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. No, I truly think nuclear reactors are targets. Funny how we never hear
about them...much anyway. I do agree there's a lot of terrorism fearmongering just for the sake of creating a larger atmosphere of fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC