With no way to process it, US will bury 70,000 tons of nuclear waste
#1
I always kind of like to divide figures like 70,000 tons down into dump truck loads, since I drove a 10 yard dump truck for awhile when I was young. We're talking roughly 7000 dump truck loads here of toxic waste that will remain toxic and cause people cancers for thousands of years: http://rt.com/usa/news/us-bolloxed-nuke-waste-209/

[Image: 10-yard-dump-truck.jpg]
7000 of this size dump truck loads worth of toxic waste

Excerpt: "With two decades to go before it can reprocess spent nuclear fuel, the US will have to bury nearly 70,000 tons of it, a research lab reports. It comes after Congress and the Obama administration defunded a planned nuclear waste repository in 2011.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a facility that does research for the Department of Energy (DOE), said that "about 68,450 [metric tons] or about 98 percent of the total current inventory by mass, can proceed to permanent disposal without the need to ensure retrievability for reuse or research purposes" in its report, published near the end of 2012. The rest of the waste, the report said, could be kept available for research on fuel reprocessing and storage.

The report was fairly obscure until being cited in a DOE document that showed plans to find a new permanent waste dump after Congress and the Obama administration cut funding for the Yucca Mountain repository in 2011.

Reprocessing has little support in Washington due to concerns that spent fuel could fall into the wrong hands. Nevertheless the DOE started looking into reprocessing methods in 2005.

But following the March 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, US officials became wary of recycling radioactive waste. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, co-chaired by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, said that “no currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technology developments — including advances in reprocessing and recycling technologies — have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenges the nation confronts over at least the next several decades, if not longer” in a report.

Reprocessing was not taken off the table following the report, though, with American officials saying it was “premature for the United States to commit, as a matter of policy, to ‘closing’ the nuclear fuel cycle given the large uncertainties that exist about the merits and commercial viability of different fuel cycle and technology options."

The method is seen as a dangerous cash grab by anti-nuclear activists.

“Recycling is a euphemism for reprocessing which is one of the worst polluters of the atmosphere and the ocean, and is a direct conduit to proliferation,” Mali Martha Lightfoot, executive director of the Helen Caldicott Foundation, told Forbes. “It is not really a solution to anything except how can the industry get more of our money. It also ups the ante for reactor accident danger, as in the case of Fukushima, because MOX fuel has plutonium in it.”

So-called MOX fuel, short for mixed-oxide, is used in nuclear warheads and usually consists of a mix of plutonium and uranium.

The stock of used nuclear fuel currently held at 79 temporary locations in 34 US states “is massive, diverse, dispersed, and increasing,” according to the Oak Ridge report."
Reply
#2
There probably isn't a better place than Yucca Mountain to put that stuff.
Reply
#3
How many traffic accidents happen during that 7000 truckloads? How many opportunities for hijacking, whatever nefarious purposes someone might have in mind (dirty bombs, anyone?). How about ransom possibilities? I can see this being great fun for all. Meanwhile, they just keep making more of it...
Reply
#4
They could burn it up in a thorium reactor.
Reply
#5
(02-07-2013, 12:30 AM)PonderThis Wrote: How many traffic accidents happen during that 7000 truckloads? How many opportunities for hijacking, whatever nefarious purposes someone might have in mind (dirty bombs, anyone?). How about ransom possibilities? I can see this being great fun for all. Meanwhile, they just keep making more of it...

It is already being shipped there. Haven't heard of any accidents yet have you? The original route used to go by our development in the wee hours of the morning when the roads were empty. Then when that area became populated to the point of being out of compliance for travel they switched to the new roads put in that were part of the master plan for the transportation of the waste. There's roads all across the country, mainly in low to no populated areas, that have been designated travel routes to Yucca Mountain. Besides, what better place to store it than an over 70 yr old nuclear test site?

Most people that moved to Las Vegas and the surrounding area don't even know that they live next to the original nuclear test site they watch films about. That's how Dingy Harry and the rest of the libs convinced people to oppose Yucca Mountain in the first place. Most still don't know, and still don't know that waste goes right through Vegas to that place now.
Reply
#6
(02-07-2013, 08:38 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 12:30 AM)PonderThis Wrote: How many traffic accidents happen during that 7000 truckloads? How many opportunities for hijacking, whatever nefarious purposes someone might have in mind (dirty bombs, anyone?). How about ransom possibilities? I can see this being great fun for all. Meanwhile, they just keep making more of it...

It is already being shipped there. Haven't heard of any accidents yet have you? The original route used to go by our development in the wee hours of the morning when the roads were empty. Then when that area became populated to the point of being out of compliance for travel they switched to the new roads put in that were part of the master plan for the transportation of the waste. There's roads all across the country, mainly in low to no populated areas, that have been designated travel routes to Yucca Mountain. Besides, what better place to store it than an over 70 yr old nuclear test site?

Most people that moved to Las Vegas and the surrounding area don't even know that they live next to the original nuclear test site they watch films about. That's how Dingy Harry and the rest of the libs convinced people to oppose Yucca Mountain in the first place. Most still don't know, and still don't know that waste goes right through Vegas to that place now.

In other words, this isn't "news"? Where is Wonky? Why isn't he on this?
Reply
#7
(02-07-2013, 08:55 AM)Larry Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 08:38 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 12:30 AM)PonderThis Wrote: How many traffic accidents happen during that 7000 truckloads? How many opportunities for hijacking, whatever nefarious purposes someone might have in mind (dirty bombs, anyone?). How about ransom possibilities? I can see this being great fun for all. Meanwhile, they just keep making more of it...

It is already being shipped there. Haven't heard of any accidents yet have you? The original route used to go by our development in the wee hours of the morning when the roads were empty. Then when that area became populated to the point of being out of compliance for travel they switched to the new roads put in that were part of the master plan for the transportation of the waste. There's roads all across the country, mainly in low to no populated areas, that have been designated travel routes to Yucca Mountain. Besides, what better place to store it than an over 70 yr old nuclear test site?

Most people that moved to Las Vegas and the surrounding area don't even know that they live next to the original nuclear test site they watch films about. That's how Dingy Harry and the rest of the libs convinced people to oppose Yucca Mountain in the first place. Most still don't know, and still don't know that waste goes right through Vegas to that place now.

In other words, this isn't "news"? Where is Wonky? Why isn't he on this?

Low information voters/ Americans. It is even worse when I bring up the down winders fund. Even less know what that is.
Reply
#8
This is flat out bullshit. I have a longtime friend (I've known him for nearly 30 years, he is soon to be my brother-in-law) that has developed a process to safely extract radiation from virtually any surface without removing the soil, metal, plants, etc. He is currently cleaning up the mess at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. He has had several meetings with the US Government about his technology, and has partnered with another firm that removes the radiation from the water used in his process. His process is proven, and in many instances, leaves the contaminated surfaces with lower radiation levels than what occurs naturally. There is still waste, but not nearly the volume.

Reply
#9
We should live in tents and burn wood. To some people there is no other solution whatsoever.
The anti everything crowd. Except when it comes to their OWN trucks and heavy equipment etc.
Reply
#10
(02-07-2013, 10:30 AM)cj2112 Wrote: This is flat out bullshit. I have a longtime friend (I've known him for nearly 30 years, he is soon to be my brother-in-law) that has developed a process to safely extract radiation from virtually any surface without removing the soil, metal, plants, etc. He is currently cleaning up the mess at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. He has had several meetings with the US Government about his technology, and has partnered with another firm that removes the radiation from the water used in his process. His process is proven, and in many instances, leaves the contaminated surfaces with lower radiation levels than what occurs naturally. There is still waste, but not nearly the volume.

Interesting but I have one question how much more would this cost than it costs us to store this 70,000 tons of waste.
Reply
#11
RT left out a few significant parts of the story.

In a study completed late last year, Oak Ridge officials determined that the U.S. is at least 20 years away from large-scale reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, if it decides to pursue such technologies. By then, they estimate, nuclear plants will have generated another 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel.

The United States long opposed the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel because of terrorism and proliferation concerns, but DOE began researching new reprocessing technologies in 2005, and the Obama Administration has remained open to new technologies.

In 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told Congress “there is research that has to be done, again, because reprocessing has the potential for greatly reducing both the amount and lifetime of the waste and to extend the nuclear fuel.”


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/...ear-waste/

This is not a failure of technology. It is a failure of policy. This is exactly the kind of poor decision-making that Michael Shellenberger is talking about in the new film "Pandora's Promise."
Reply
#12
(02-07-2013, 10:42 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 10:30 AM)cj2112 Wrote: This is flat out bullshit. I have a longtime friend (I've known him for nearly 30 years, he is soon to be my brother-in-law) that has developed a process to safely extract radiation from virtually any surface without removing the soil, metal, plants, etc. He is currently cleaning up the mess at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. He has had several meetings with the US Government about his technology, and has partnered with another firm that removes the radiation from the water used in his process. His process is proven, and in many instances, leaves the contaminated surfaces with lower radiation levels than what occurs naturally. There is still waste, but not nearly the volume.

Interesting but I have one question how much more would this cost than it costs us to store this 70,000 tons of waste.

They're talking about building a shielded landfill, and guarding 70,000 tons of nuclear waste. The cost for construction, and labor to patrol this area would be a lot more than the cost of treating it. Add to that, the money generated from the sales of the radioactive material, and you end up with a substantial cost savings.
Reply
#13
(02-07-2013, 11:12 AM)cj2112 Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 10:42 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 10:30 AM)cj2112 Wrote: This is flat out bullshit. I have a longtime friend (I've known him for nearly 30 years, he is soon to be my brother-in-law) that has developed a process to safely extract radiation from virtually any surface without removing the soil, metal, plants, etc. He is currently cleaning up the mess at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. He has had several meetings with the US Government about his technology, and has partnered with another firm that removes the radiation from the water used in his process. His process is proven, and in many instances, leaves the contaminated surfaces with lower radiation levels than what occurs naturally. There is still waste, but not nearly the volume.

Interesting but I have one question how much more would this cost than it costs us to store this 70,000 tons of waste.

They're talking about building a shielded landfill, and guarding 70,000 tons of nuclear waste. The cost for construction, and labor to patrol this area would be a lot more than the cost of treating it. Add to that, the money generated from the sales of the radioactive material, and you end up with a substantial cost savings.

They already have a site, the leftists just don't like it. Why spend MORE
money on a new site when the one we already have has about 17,000 tons already, and sits in the middle of an old nuclear test site?
Reply
#14
(02-07-2013, 08:55 AM)Larry Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 08:38 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 12:30 AM)PonderThis Wrote: How many traffic accidents happen during that 7000 truckloads? How many opportunities for hijacking, whatever nefarious purposes someone might have in mind (dirty bombs, anyone?). How about ransom possibilities? I can see this being great fun for all. Meanwhile, they just keep making more of it...

It is already being shipped there. Haven't heard of any accidents yet have you? The original route used to go by our development in the wee hours of the morning when the roads were empty. Then when that area became populated to the point of being out of compliance for travel they switched to the new roads put in that were part of the master plan for the transportation of the waste. There's roads all across the country, mainly in low to no populated areas, that have been designated travel routes to Yucca Mountain. Besides, what better place to store it than an over 70 yr old nuclear test site?

Most people that moved to Las Vegas and the surrounding area don't even know that they live next to the original nuclear test site they watch films about. That's how Dingy Harry and the rest of the libs convinced people to oppose Yucca Mountain in the first place. Most still don't know, and still don't know that waste goes right through Vegas to that place now.

In other words, this isn't "news"? Where is Wonky? Why isn't he on this?

I'm here Larry.
And, I've feared this for many years. Of course it's news, and should be front page stuff. It has a news cycle and does hit the front pages from time to time.
The half life of this stuff will threaten many generations to come. Splitting the atom was a great scientific achievement. Our lack of social responsibility was equally a great failure.
I'd like to see the stuff buried in the back yards of all the power elites who made huge fortunes pushing the use of this toxic waste.
Reply
#15
(02-07-2013, 12:41 PM)Wonky Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 08:55 AM)Larry Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 08:38 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 12:30 AM)PonderThis Wrote: How many traffic accidents happen during that 7000 truckloads? How many opportunities for hijacking, whatever nefarious purposes someone might have in mind (dirty bombs, anyone?). How about ransom possibilities? I can see this being great fun for all. Meanwhile, they just keep making more of it...

It is already being shipped there. Haven't heard of any accidents yet have you? The original route used to go by our development in the wee hours of the morning when the roads were empty. Then when that area became populated to the point of being out of compliance for travel they switched to the new roads put in that were part of the master plan for the transportation of the waste. There's roads all across the country, mainly in low to no populated areas, that have been designated travel routes to Yucca Mountain. Besides, what better place to store it than an over 70 yr old nuclear test site?

Most people that moved to Las Vegas and the surrounding area don't even know that they live next to the original nuclear test site they watch films about. That's how Dingy Harry and the rest of the libs convinced people to oppose Yucca Mountain in the first place. Most still don't know, and still don't know that waste goes right through Vegas to that place now.

In other words, this isn't "news"? Where is Wonky? Why isn't he on this?

I'm here Larry.
And, I've feared this for many years. Of course it's news, and should be front page stuff. It has a news cycle and does hit the front pages from time to time.
The half life of this stuff will threaten many generations to come. Splitting the atom was a great scientific achievement. Our lack of social responsibility was equally a great failure.
I'd like to see the stuff buried in the back yards of all the power elites who made huge fortunes pushing the use of this toxic waste.

I was against nuclear power before I was for itLaughing It seems to me that nuclear power is just about the only logical answer to our dependance on fossil fuel energy.
When I was against it was before we knew that humans were messing up the earths weather patterns and warming the seas.
This will "threaten many generations to come" and quite possibly a lot more than radio active materials buried in some remote location.

Is the fact that our nuclear power creates very hazardous waste that we have to deal with really front page news?
I think Ponders comment that this waste will "cause people cancers for thousands of year is front page material ... on the National Enquirer right next to "Family of bigfoots qualify for welfare".

Also cj2112 has encouraging info that shows that with technology maybe we can find a better way to handle Nuclear waste.
Reply
#16
(02-07-2013, 12:11 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 11:12 AM)cj2112 Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 10:42 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 10:30 AM)cj2112 Wrote: This is flat out bullshit. I have a longtime friend (I've known him for nearly 30 years, he is soon to be my brother-in-law) that has developed a process to safely extract radiation from virtually any surface without removing the soil, metal, plants, etc. He is currently cleaning up the mess at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. He has had several meetings with the US Government about his technology, and has partnered with another firm that removes the radiation from the water used in his process. His process is proven, and in many instances, leaves the contaminated surfaces with lower radiation levels than what occurs naturally. There is still waste, but not nearly the volume.

Interesting but I have one question how much more would this cost than it costs us to store this 70,000 tons of waste.

They're talking about building a shielded landfill, and guarding 70,000 tons of nuclear waste. The cost for construction, and labor to patrol this area would be a lot more than the cost of treating it. Add to that, the money generated from the sales of the radioactive material, and you end up with a substantial cost savings.

They already have a site, the leftists just don't like it. Why spend MORE
money on a new site when the one we already have has about 17,000 tons already, and sits in the middle of an old nuclear test site?
I'd be interested to see who gets the contract to build this site. Follow the money, and there's a good chance that you'll see why they are doing this.
Reply
#17
(02-07-2013, 01:28 PM)cj2112 Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 12:11 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 11:12 AM)cj2112 Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 10:42 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 10:30 AM)cj2112 Wrote: This is flat out bullshit. I have a longtime friend (I've known him for nearly 30 years, he is soon to be my brother-in-law) that has developed a process to safely extract radiation from virtually any surface without removing the soil, metal, plants, etc. He is currently cleaning up the mess at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. He has had several meetings with the US Government about his technology, and has partnered with another firm that removes the radiation from the water used in his process. His process is proven, and in many instances, leaves the contaminated surfaces with lower radiation levels than what occurs naturally. There is still waste, but not nearly the volume.

Interesting but I have one question how much more would this cost than it costs us to store this 70,000 tons of waste.

They're talking about building a shielded landfill, and guarding 70,000 tons of nuclear waste. The cost for construction, and labor to patrol this area would be a lot more than the cost of treating it. Add to that, the money generated from the sales of the radioactive material, and you end up with a substantial cost savings.

They already have a site, the leftists just don't like it. Why spend MORE
money on a new site when the one we already have has about 17,000 tons already, and sits in the middle of an old nuclear test site?
I'd be interested to see who gets the contract to build this site. Follow the money, and there's a good chance that you'll see why they are doing this.

No doubt. A friends wife is an environmental scientist out at the test site in Nevada, she works for the company doing cleanup. She's been there at least 15 years, but she will most likely be unemployed by the end of this year after this election.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)