The idea of new nuclear power plants to offset fossil fuels is a great idea, but what it never talked about is what to do with the waste? Waste is currently stored onsite, a temporary solution as plants can only store so much due to the hot nature and radioactivity of it. The waste was supposed to go to Yucca Mountain, but thanks to Harry Reid, environmentalists and even the administration, the idea of Yucca is pretty much dead.

But, the Bush administration told power plants that it would take the fuel off the sites and move them to a facility. Now, of course, the power plants want to sue the government to offset the high cost of storing waste onsite, costing tax payer money in court and payout costs.

Yucca mountain has been delayed so long that even if it is put back in order and waste put in it, there is already enough waste to fill it. That means, we need to seriously look at a long term solution to waste storage, and fast.

But, no one is really talking about it, or has the stones to put forth a plan. Why? Waste is a no-no to touch and most members of Congress will not support waste dumps in their states.

Yucca Mountain needs to be opened, fully, and then the Energy Dept needs to look at a 2nd and 3rd site for storage, probably somewhere in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho would be the best places.

"Nuclear waste piles up, and it's costing taxpayers billions"
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0324/Nuclear-waste-piles-up-and-it-s-costing-taxpayers-billions

How about Ann Arbor?

fish82 wrote: How about Ann Arbor?

LMAO!

fish82 wrote: How about Ann Arbor?

this

the sun haha. i remember that being considered, but no one trust space flight enough in case something happens at launch etc and nuclear waste is raining down from above.

fish82 wrote: How about Ann Arbor?

No, that would be an improvement to AA.

Glory Days wrote: the sun haha. i remember that being considered, but no one trust space flight enough in case something happens at launch etc and nuclear waste is raining down from above.

Superman IV? lol.
Sun, too risky, and insanely expensive I'm sure.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

fish82 wrote: How about Ann Arbor?

No, that would be an improvement to AA.

Glory Days wrote: the sun haha. i remember that being considered, but no one trust space flight enough in case something happens at launch etc and nuclear waste is raining down from above.

Superman IV? lol.
Sun, too risky, and insanely expensive I'm sure.

Plus, then that Captain Nuclear super villain gets created...lots of downside there.

Just out of curiosity, PT...what are we talking about volume wise with the waste, say yearly (or however often it's created.)

Captain nuclear lol. Man, that movie was bad.


Volume size, I'm not too sure, as I'm not that informed about nuclear waste as I should be. But, I do know it depends on the type of reactor. I believe it would probably run in the neighborhood of 20-30 tons a year.

Wiki article on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Nevada is a the best state to store it. The Government owns such large quantities of land out there and it's basically uninhabited outside of Reno and Las Vegas.

I was on a field trip last year for my Geology 3000 class, and one of the liberal/environmentalist students in the class, as we were driving past Davis-Besse says to me, "Nuclear power.....and people actually think that's a feasible idea!" I figured I would have some fun with her, and replied, "it isn't?" She exploded in my face shouting "All of the radioactive waste they've ever made is stored there! That's just ridiculous! All of it! It's been operating for like forty years!" I just smiled and said, "well then they can't be making that much of it..." She just sorta looked defeated haha

"COOL STORY BRO."

I know...

In all seriousness Nuclear Power is our best option. Other countries are moving ahead with it, we need to be too. We can always do what the French do and just pay Russia to dump the waste in their backyard.

I think it would be ultimately cheaper for nuclear plants to launch their waste into space. Once it's successfully launched, you don't have to worry about it again. Yucca mountain and other storage facilities will always have the risk of containment breach plus the costs of security. It costs around 11,000/lb to launch an unmanned rocket into space, so at 20-30 tons, that would be 440,000,000 to 660,000,000 to launch that into space. I'd rather have Congress delegate 10-15B a year for waste removal launch, then spend it in Iraq or waste it on other nonsense items. For those worrying about the rocket exploding, I think the last time a delta rocket exploded on launch was in '97, so they are relatively safe.

we should build a wall between us and Mexico with it to keep the illegals out!

tk421 wrote: I think it would be ultimately cheaper for nuclear plants to launch their waste into space. Once it's successfully launched, you don't have to worry about it again. Yucca mountain and other storage facilities will always have the risk of containment breach plus the costs of security. It costs around 11,000/lb to launch an unmanned rocket into space, so at 20-30 tons, that would be 440,000,000 to 660,000,000 to launch that into space. I'd rather have Congress delegate 10-15B a year for waste removal launch, then spend it in Iraq or waste it on other nonsense items. For those worrying about the rocket exploding, I think the last time a delta rocket exploded on launch was in '97, so they are relatively safe.

the problem is though like i said earlier. what if something goes wrong? we are good at space flight, but we arent perfect. 20-30 tons of waste falling into the ocean or on land somewhere wouldnt be good.

Glory Days wrote: we should build a wall between us and Mexico with it to keep the illegals out!

tk421 wrote: I think it would be ultimately cheaper for nuclear plants to launch their waste into space. Once it's successfully launched, you don't have to worry about it again. Yucca mountain and other storage facilities will always have the risk of containment breach plus the costs of security. It costs around 11,000/lb to launch an unmanned rocket into space, so at 20-30 tons, that would be 440,000,000 to 660,000,000 to launch that into space. I'd rather have Congress delegate 10-15B a year for waste removal launch, then spend it in Iraq or waste it on other nonsense items. For those worrying about the rocket exploding, I think the last time a delta rocket exploded on launch was in '97, so they are relatively safe.

the problem is though like i said earlier. what if something goes wrong? we are good at space flight, but we arent perfect. 20-30 tons of waste falling into the ocean or on land somewhere wouldnt be good.

There's risks with all the options, though.

It would be great for the world if we could have a breakthrough on nuclear fusion reactors, but that's still probably a 100 years away or so. That is our ultimate energy solution for the planet.

Aren't there a lot of restrictions on what you can use the waste for? I think I remember reading something that said we could considerably reduce the amount of nuclear waste we have if the gov't would let companies recycle the waste, since something like 80% of it can be used for other industrial processes. Then you are left with only the radioactive parts. I think this is what France does.

David St. Hubbins wrote: Aren't there a lot of restrictions on what you can use the waste for? I think I remember reading something that said we could considerably reduce the amount of nuclear waste we have if the gov't would let companies recycle the waste, since something like 80% of it can be used for other industrial processes. Then you are left with only the radioactive parts. I think this is what France does.

That is reprocessing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

There are two problems.
1. It is insanely expensive, much higher to reprocess than to just store it. Here is one report by Matt Bunn at Harvard.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2089/economics_of_reprocessing_vs_direct_disposal_of_spent_nuclear_fuel.html

2. Proliferation issues. The resulting product is highly enriched plutonium, the size of a lunch pale. That is a terrorists dream for stealing and making their own bomb. Plus, it would allow a non-nuclear weapons country to easily obtain the material needed for a bomb.

One example is the U.S. is trying to keep the South Koreans from reprocessing as if the S.Koreans do, they could easily make nuclear weapons of their own over night.

Reprocessing, if the costs can come down and the proliferation concerns really addressed could be an option eventually.


As for the space option, I'd have to see a detailed explanation to really support the move. It sounds good, but I'm not totally convinced.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: As for the space option, I'd have to see a detailed explanation to really support the move. It sounds good, but I'm not totally convinced.

Interesting article on the space option.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1

tk421 wrote: It would be great for the world if we could have a breakthrough on nuclear fusion reactors, but that's still probably a 100 years away or so. That is our ultimate energy solution for the planet.

Fusion power is the power of the future and always will be.

Seriously, there is a lot of empty space in the United States. There is no reason we can't designate a ridiculously-desolate area for our waste to be stored.