Posted by Tom P on March 23, 2011, 3:13 pm
On 03/21/2011 09:43 PM, Curbie wrote:
As of to date, there is no facility anywhere in the world capable of
permanent storage of nuclear waste. By permanent, I mean designed for
the irretrievable and inaccessible storage of nuclear waste for the next
millenia. Finland has plans for one. The European Union has mandated
that all member states develop plans.
If my understanding is correct, most countries have legislation that
relieves nuclear power utilities of the costs and responsibility for the
ultimate disposal of nuclear waste, and additionally, the utilities are
relieved of the legal liability for the consequences of a nuclear
catastrophe - the reason being that it would be impossible to finance
the necessary insurance, even assuming that any such insurance could
ever be contracted.
In other words, society has burdened itself with all the risks and the
costs, this being the reason why nuclear energy is so "cheap".
Such legislation, with the intention of encouraging development of
nuclear energy, may have made sense a half a century ago, does it still
make sense in the 21st century?
Posted by sno on March 23, 2011, 4:22 pm
On 3/23/2011 10:13 AM, Tom P wrote:
What I have heard suggests that what we now call nuclear waste may
become the nuclear fuel for the future....as in one of the japanese
plants plutonium is being mixed with the uranium fuel rods to increase
the output power....this plutonium is being transmuted to other elements
that are not as long term dangerous....
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
Posted by Curbie on March 23, 2011, 5:56 pm
Thanks for the link, if I understand the material properly, it still
commits 1000's of years of future citizens to pay for the care and
protection of spent nuclear, just less much of it (which is good), but
it seems we will still need a nuclear waste repository and we don't
I would like to see a well vetted plan for the
storage/disposal/reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and waste, the
plan doesn't have to be in place, but I think a viable plan should be
on the boards. We're starting to get a handle on some (not all) the
damage caused by emission of CO2 from fossil fuels and the real
question "if NOT one particular plan, than what"?
Posted by vaughn on March 23, 2011, 7:51 pm
This issue is totally beside the point to the current thread, but nevertheless
is total bullshit. I don't know about other countries, but the USA lacks
permanent nuclear waste storage because the anti-nukes simply won't allow it to
politically exist. Then, having won in the political arena to the great expense
of the taxpayers, they use circular logic to tell us we shouldn't be using
nuclear energy because there is no permanent storage.
Where is the permanent storage for the waste from our coal plants?
Posted by Curbie on March 24, 2011, 1:56 am
With respect, I'm not anti-nuke or using circular logic to hurt the
nuclear option, and I'm not suggesting a barrier be placed on the
nuclear option (permanent waste storage) that isn't currently on other
I am suggesting that the use of fossil fuels at current consumption
rates are obviously not sustainable for a variety of reasons, and in
order for the nuclear option to considered sustainable, a well vetted
plan for the life cycle of nuclear fuel seems pretty reasonable.
Again, I not saying the plan needs to be in place (although I
supported Yucca Mountain), but current temporary nuclear storage is
reported to be nearing capacity, and it seems reasonable to expect we
find a plan to solve our current problem, before we increase nuclear
capacity and kick yet another of OUR problems down the road for future
Nobody has "won" in the political arena, there is no such thing as a
political "done deal", "Prohibition" was a constitutional amendment,
about as done a deal, as political "done deals" get, and yet it got
undone with time and changing attitudes. In my view the future cost of
fossil fuels will open attitudes to change, my question still is, will
to nuclear option advocates have a sustainable solution?
And as always, if not a nuclear option, then what, but the nuclear
waste problem is REAL, and can't be blown off because current fossil
fuels plans produce waste, isn't the waste that current fossil fuels
plans produce a problem?
It seems to me that both pros and cons need to be considered, and just
considering the pros of fossil fuels got us into this mess in the