Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Gil Dobie wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote: Until we figure out better ways to store nuclear waste... the best solution to the question of "what do we do with it" is to not make any more.

If we don't fund it how do we solve it. Like Obama said, we went to the moon in a decade, why not solve the nuclear waste issue in a decade. With a possible change to electric cars, the electrical grid would be useless, and wind can't take care of it alone. Nuclear, combined with other sources will be greatly needed in the future.

Obama is expected to establish a commission to examine alternatives to Yucca Mountain, even as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission continues to consider the license application for the waste repository that was submitted by the Bush administration last year.

slycat wrote:http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2978

Working on building one in Texas

For Pryor, the idea of letting a for-profit company handle, transport, and bury waste that will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years is crazy at best. State engineers and geologists largely agree. (See “Good to Glow,” April 4, 2008) They’ve publicly predicted the landfill will contaminate groundwater and pose unacceptable risks to residents. At least three state experts have quit the environmental commission in the past two years to protest what they see as politically motivated fast-tracking of Waste Control’s licenses.

Skjellyfetti wrote: Are we no longer funding the research?

There was funding in the stimuls bill (that you opposed ) along with the other government funded research, development, etc.

All Obama did was cut funding for Yucca mountain.

From travelinman's article:

Obama is expected to establish a commission to examine alternatives to Yucca Mountain, even as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission continues to consider the license application for the waste repository that was submitted by the Bush administration last year.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

For Pryor, the idea of letting a for-profit company handle, transport, and bury waste that will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years is crazy at best. State engineers and geologists largely agree. (See “Good to Glow,” April 4, 2008) They’ve publicly predicted the landfill will contaminate groundwater and pose unacceptable risks to residents. At least three state experts have quit the environmental commission in the past two years to protest what they see as politically motivated fast-tracking of Waste Control’s licenses.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

slycat wrote:http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2978

Working on building one in Texas

Hopefully they can stop it.

For Pryor, the idea of letting a for-profit company handle, transport, and bury waste that will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years is crazy at best. State engineers and geologists largely agree. (See “Good to Glow,” April 4, 2008) They’ve publicly predicted the landfill will contaminate groundwater and pose unacceptable risks to residents. At least three state experts have quit the environmental commission in the past two years to protest what they see as politically motivated fast-tracking of Waste Control’s licenses.

Gil Dobie wrote: It's only dangerous for 10 of thousands of years if we don't find a solution for it.
France is doing okay with their nuclear program.

A research program to study high-level radioactive waste disposal began with legislation enacted in 1991. The French Waste Management Research Act of December 1991 authorized 15-year studies of three management options for high-level or long half-life radioactive waste. They included separation and/or transmutation, long-term storage, and geologic disposal. One site under consideration for deep geologic disposal in clay is currently being studied. The French are also searching for a granite site to research.

slycat wrote: And yet one is moving full steam ahead in Andrews, TX.

The Valhi, Inc. facility in Andrews County received final licensing in January, but now faces DOE/NRC review of requests from individual energy corporations seeking to use the facility. Basically, every transfer to the facility requires a lengthy review process as it's a "near surface" disposal facility.

The budget cuts are not a benign action by Congress and the Obama Administration. The Omnibus bill was heavily "edited" with a guiding hand by environmental organizations, cutting essential funding that is required by the Nuclear industry to move forward with licensing and redesign of storage facilities. Here's the press release yesterday by the Nuclear Energy Institute regarding the Omnibus bill cuts...

http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsre ... egislation

...“Federal investment in nuclear energy has proven its worth many times over -- as evidenced by record-high levels of electricity production from power plants that are far and away our nation’s leading carbon-free electricity source. The state of the nation’s economy and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions present a powerful argument that monies invested in nuclear energy programs are monies invested wisely.

“Unfortunately, the Nuclear Power 2010 partnership program that is helping to bring advanced-design nuclear plants to the market saw a reduction of nearly $65 million from the budget request of $241 million. Similarly, DOE’s used nuclear fuel management program, with an appropriation of $288.4 million, now stands $206 million beneath the requested level of $494.7 million. Of that total, only $145 million comes from the federal Nuclear Waste Fund that this year alone will take in more than $750 million from ratepayers for the express purpose of financing this program.

“This diversion of funds from DOE’s used fuel management program is grossly unreasonable, particularly now that DOE has a license application for the Yucca Mountain repository program pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The federal government must fulfill its legal responsibility to manage used nuclear fuel. Our belief upon seeing this bill’s disparity between program revenues and expenditures is that Energy Secretary Chu should reduce the fee paid by ratepayers so that annual collections no longer exceed annual expenditures. This seems reasonable given the $22 billion balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund...

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote: It's only dangerous for 10 of thousands of years if we don't find a solution for it.
France is doing okay with their nuclear program.

It's dangerous for 1 million years.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/pdf/opinion04.pdf

France has not developed a long term underground storage system either.

A research program to study high-level radioactive waste disposal began with legislation enacted in 1991. The French Waste Management Research Act of December 1991 authorized 15-year studies of three management options for high-level or long half-life radioactive waste. They included separation and/or transmutation, long-term storage, and geologic disposal. One site under consideration for deep geologic disposal in clay is currently being studied. The French are also searching for a granite site to research.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml

travelinman67 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
It's dangerous for 1 million years.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/pdf/opinion04.pdf

France has not developed a long term underground storage system either.



http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml

Skellycommie, France has been reprocessing it's spent fuel for 30 years and it only adds 6% to the cost of energy production. They are studying entombment, but their reprocessing capacity is so high, they import in spent fuel from other countries for reprocessing, AND PROFIT.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

travelinman67 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
It's dangerous for 1 million years.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/pdf/opinion04.pdf

France has not developed a long term underground storage system either.



http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml

Skellycommie, France has been reprocessing it's spent fuel for 30 years and it only adds 6% to the cost of energy production. They are studying entombment, but their reprocessing capacity is so high, they import in spent fuel from other countries for reprocessing, AND PROFIT.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

slycat wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Skellycommie, France has been reprocessing it's spent fuel for 30 years and it only adds 6% to the cost of energy production. They are studying entombment, but their reprocessing capacity is so high, they import in spent fuel from other countries for reprocessing, AND PROFIT.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Problem is with the American sterotype against France people will not want to try and learn from them. Then Americans would have to admit the France was right and they were wrong.

AZGrizFan wrote:Let's just send it to outer space.

AZGrizFan wrote:Let's just send it to outer space.

travelinman67 wrote:

slycat wrote:

Problem is with the American sterotype against France people will not want to try and learn from them. Then Americans would have to admit the France was right and they were wrong.

I think that's partly the problem, but a bigger factor is that it takes America generations to accomplish anything. With politician's extorting considerations from industries, NIMBY's abusing the courts to block construction or advancement of facilities, and ill-thought environmentalists campaigning against EVERYTHING, as is the case with Yucca Mountain which was first green-lighted by the NRC in 1982, it is ABSURD to think we can accomplish something as intelligent as developing, licensing, and implementing reprocessing to a degree that it eliminates the need for long term storage of Class B and C waste materials.

Everyone has an opinion and a gripe, but none are willing to provide and implement a solution.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Skellycommie, France has been reprocessing it's spent fuel for 30 years and it only adds 6% to the cost of energy production. They are studying entombment, but their reprocessing capacity is so high, they import in spent fuel from other countries for reprocessing, AND PROFIT.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Nothing I said disagrees with what you just said...

They don't have long term storage capabilities do they?

And, when we are talking about nuclear waste........ 30 years is not long term.

travelinman67 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Nothing I said disagrees with what you just said...

They don't have long term storage capabilities do they?

And, when we are talking about nuclear waste........ 30 years is not long term.

I'll be gentle, SkEllyskokie...

I realize you've been spending all your time at AGS in an intellectual vacuum.

What you say, makes no sense, nor are you making any point.

You have not kept up with the nuclear industry and are parroting dogma talking points.

January 20th has come and gone, Obama's in power. It's time to offer solutions, not just bitch about everything.

XXOOXXX
Tman

PS, I'll respect you in the morning...

Really...

Skjellyfetti wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
I'll be gentle, SkEllyskokie...

I realize you've been spending all your time at AGS in an intellectual vacuum.

What you say, makes no sense, nor are you making any point.

You have not kept up with the nuclear industry and are parroting dogma talking points.

January 20th has come and gone, Obama's in power. It's time to offer solutions, not just bitch about everything.

XXOOXXX
Tman

PS, I'll respect you in the morning...

Really...

You just ignored everything I said/asked and provided no argument.....

So, again...

What did I say in my last post you disagree with?

Does France have effective long term storage capabilities?



And, what have I bitched about? Want me to link all the threads with you bitching?

travelinman67 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:


You just ignored everything I said/asked and provided no argument.....

So, again...

What did I say in my last post you disagree with?

Does France have effective long term storage capabilities?



And, what have I bitched about? Want me to link all the threads with you bitching?

Do you not understand what the concept of "reprocessing" means? The French have advanced their methods to recycle or remove virtually all the actinides (that's the stuff that makes those little boxes you've seen in movies go, "clicky, clicky, clicky, clicky") in effect relieving the waste of any long-term half-life byproducts.

Basically means, they don't need to dig a big hole like Yucca Mountain to bury their waste.

Is that simple enough for you? If not, I can draw pictures.

Regards,
Tman

ASUMountaineer wrote:Would it be possible, if the waste wasn't safely stored for 1 million years (as posed earlier) if was about to be safely stored for 100,000 years? I would think, that within the next 100,000 years our descendants would be able to develop a technology able to solve that problem and thus, handle that issue. I mean, that's not much different then what we're doing with these "stimulus" packages. We're, supposedly, solving our issues now at the expense of generations to come.