Nuclear waste discussion

[slycat]

Maybe we should just use coal instead.









Sorry, I know its off topic but I couldn't resist.

Damn your lighter fluid

[travelinman67]

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.

The reprocessing removes the materials that can be recycled as other fuels and reduces the remaining "long-term" half-life components to a small fraction of what's leftover from conventional fission reaction. The "volume" left over, commonly called a "byproduct" is small enough to store onsite or in "near surface" facilities like the one in Andrew County, TX. France has some "near surface" facilities, but is looking into developing a single repository for all remaining byproducts. Were the U.S. to follow suit, the storage in TX and the "class B and C" facilities in New Mexico and Utah could handle our storage capacity needs for decades if not centuries.
I agree that in time, refinements in the reprocessing could eventually eliminate the need for any storage.

I don't believe the technological "problems" our current generation leaves behind will be a fraction of the problem we're creating with our GDP/economic problems.

And, btw, I've had no "formal" education in nuclear energy, but had relatives that worked in a nuclear facility, studied the subject intensively during the campaign to shut down Rancho Seco G.S., to a degree I represented the pro-Rancho Seco side in radio broadcast debates at two of our local colleges.

[ASUMountaineer]

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.

Same thing with the Iraq War. That'll benefit somebody someday right? Stay on topic.

Not getting off topic. Stated a question...reading is hard? It's a legitimate question, if it would be unsafe 1,000,000 years from now, what about 100,000 years from now? Would technology advance enough to solve that problem later--especially within the next 100,000 years? That's the argument being made the stimulus (do something now and figure it out later), so I'm applying that argument to this issue.

Why do you suppose I supported the Iraq war (sure you can apply that--I agree, the Iraq war was a mistake)? Stay out of generalizing. Anyways, just making a point. If it hurts your argument, sucks for you.

[slycat]

Same thing with the Iraq War. That'll benefit somebody someday right? Stay on topic.

Not getting off topic. Stated a question...reading is hard? It's a legitimate question, if it would be unsafe 1,000,000 years from now, what about 100,000 years from now? Would technology advance enough to solve that problem later--especially within the next 100,000 years? That's the argument being made the stimulus (do something now and figure it out later), so I'm applying that argument to this issue.

Why do you suppose I supported the Iraq war (sure you can apply that--I agree, the Iraq war was a mistake)? Stay out of generalizing. Anyways, just making a point. If it hurts your argument, sucks for you.

Nothing in my statement states I say you supported the Iraq war.

As far as your original question its hard to answer. But the real question is what will we use for power when oil and coal run out in the near future? It seems energy created from nuclear power may be the only answer. The other renewable energies will never provide enough power to run everything. I wonder if a problem with nuclear waste in the future will be a bigger problem then never using nuclear power at all.

The more I look at it the more I like your analogy.

[houndawg]

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.

Same thing with the Iraq War. That'll benefit somebody someday right? Stay on topic.

It has already benefitted many people very handsomely. Thousands of others, not so much.

Nuclear may be useful as a short-term transitional fix, but the future of the nation depends on making solar the primary source. If we'd put the Trillion Dollars we're pissing away overseas into AE research and repairing the transmission grid we'd be doing something very positive for the future of the country and the long-term savings will be astronomical. Of course the downside is that we wouldn't need much of a military.

[clenz]

Same thing with the Iraq War. That'll benefit somebody someday right? Stay on topic.

It has already benefitted many people very handsomely. Thousands of others, not so much.

Nuclear may be useful as a short-term transitional fix, but the future of the nation depends on making solar the primary source. If we'd put the Trillion Dollars we're pissing away overseas into AE research and repairing the transmission grid we'd be doing something very positive for the future of the country and the long-term savings will be astronomical. Of course the downside is that we wouldn't need much of a military.

And with a majority of congress that doesn't agree with the war and a president who doens't like the war it shouldn't be that hard to cut the funding there and get it on what they want it to be on. I realize it is more complex than this but if the majority of people in congress wanting out of Iraq it could easily be passed.

[ASUMountaineer]

Not getting off topic. Stated a question...reading is hard? It's a legitimate question, if it would be unsafe 1,000,000 years from now, what about 100,000 years from now? Would technology advance enough to solve that problem later--especially within the next 100,000 years? That's the argument being made the stimulus (do something now and figure it out later), so I'm applying that argument to this issue.

Why do you suppose I supported the Iraq war (sure you can apply that--I agree, the Iraq war was a mistake)? Stay out of generalizing. Anyways, just making a point. If it hurts your argument, sucks for you.

Nothing in my statement states I say you supported the Iraq war. (I read it that way, my bad.)

As far as your original question its hard to answer. But the real question is what will we use for power when oil and coal run out in the near future? It seems energy created from nuclear power may be the only answer. The other renewable energies will never provide enough power to run everything. I wonder if a problem with nuclear waste in the future will be a bigger problem then never using nuclear power at all.

The more I look at it the more I like your analogy.

I agree. We can't just keep burning fossil fuels, they're not really replenishable. With that said, I also agree that other renewable energies cannot provide enough power. I think it needs to be mixed. I definitely think nuclear has a place in the future, and probably fairly a big place, but in areas where a lot can be accomplished with other renewable energies, go for it.

Thanks.

[houndawg]

Nothing in my statement states I say you supported the Iraq war. (I read it that way, my bad.)

As far as your original question its hard to answer. But the real question is what will we use for power when oil and coal run out in the near future? It seems energy created from nuclear power may be the only answer. The other renewable energies will never provide enough power to run everything. I wonder if a problem with nuclear waste in the future will be a bigger problem then never using nuclear power at all.

The more I look at it the more I like your analogy.

I agree. We can't just keep burning fossil fuels, they're not really replenishable. With that said, I also agree that other renewable energies cannot provide enough power. I think it needs to be mixed. I definitely think nuclear has a place in the future, and probably fairly a big place, but in areas where a lot can be accomplished with other renewable energies, go for it.

Thanks.

Only true if we don't get serious. We're investing peanuts and still need to modernize the transmission grid.

[travelinman67]

I agree. We can't just keep burning fossil fuels, they're not really replenishable. With that said, I also agree that other renewable energies cannot provide enough power. I think it needs to be mixed. I definitely think nuclear has a place in the future, and probably fairly a big place, but in areas where a lot can be accomplished with other renewable energies, go for it.

Thanks.

Only true if we don't get serious. We're investing peanuts and still need to modernize the transmission grid.

If I'm not mistaken, all of the funding in the Stimulus Bill that was earmarked for "electrical transmission" construction and improvements was tied to a stipulation that the improvements be in some way connected with wind or solar production.
I learned about this as the Bonneville Power Administration in Washington was partway through construction of new transmission lines tying together some existing and new hydroelectric facilities, as well as a tie-in to other grids in the NW, and were expecting to receive a couple more billion from the Feds in matching funds to complete the project. The Stimulus bill in effect rescinded the previous agreement, put a hold on the matching funds, and is attempting to force BPA to redesign the system to incorporate a tie-in to new, as yet unconstructed, solar facility in Eastern Washington. BPA has indicated they intend to sue the Feds.

[houndawg]

Only true if we don't get serious. We're investing peanuts and still need to modernize the transmission grid.

If I'm not mistaken, all of the funding in the Stimulus Bill that was earmarked for "electrical transmission" construction and improvements was tied to a stipulation that the improvements be in some way connected with wind or solar production.
I learned about this as the Bonneville Power Administration in Washington was partway through construction of new transmission lines tying together some existing and new hydroelectric facilities, as well as a tie-in to other grids in the NW, and were expecting to receive a couple more billion from the Feds in matching funds to complete the project. The Stimulus bill in effect rescinded the previous agreement, put a hold on the matching funds, and is attempting to force BPA to redesign the system to incorporate a tie-in to new, as yet unconstructed, solar facility in Eastern Washington. BPA has indicated they intend to sue the Feds.

I think it's a step in the right direction and that the feds should foot the bill for some to all of the redesign. Certainly a more worthwhile use of my tax money than funding unnecessary oil wars.

[travelinman67]

If I'm not mistaken, all of the funding in the Stimulus Bill that was earmarked for "electrical transmission" construction and improvements was tied to a stipulation that the improvements be in some way connected with wind or solar production.
I learned about this as the Bonneville Power Administration in Washington was partway through construction of new transmission lines tying together some existing and new hydroelectric facilities, as well as a tie-in to other grids in the NW, and were expecting to receive a couple more billion from the Feds in matching funds to complete the project. The Stimulus bill in effect rescinded the previous agreement, put a hold on the matching funds, and is attempting to force BPA to redesign the system to incorporate a tie-in to new, as yet unconstructed, solar facility in Eastern Washington. BPA has indicated they intend to sue the Feds.

I think it's a step in the right direction and that the feds should foot the bill for some to all of the redesign. Certainly a more worthwhile use of my tax money than funding unnecessary oil wars.

Not seeing the cost breakdowns, the transmission line issue may be a door-opener for development of the wind (especially) and solar facilities. They cannot compete with coal dollar for dollar, and adding in billions to construct transmission lines only worsens the ROI. This should at least give them a boost.
Something I've not seen yet, however, is implementation of tax-free status for those projects. You'll recall the "door opener" for solar and wind in CA resulted from Gov. Moonbeam's signing of tax code allowing for tax exempt "municipal" bonds to fund construction, as well as allowing a full write off of solar improvements for homeowners and businesses. The, the floor dropped out around '80-'82 (?) when the tax credit was allowed to sunset out. Gotta admit, as much as I can't stand "flush me" Brown, the tax credits were a great idea.
Now...will Congress follow suit...establish tax-exempt status for all solar and wind investment...

...and yes...nuclear also. Solar and wind alone will not suffice...they'll need to be supplemented with some form of non-weather dependent sources. My point in this thread is, with the defunding of Yucca, and no other plan in place, the Admin's action just appear to be more of the same...obstruction without first providing a solution.

[HI54UNI]

Wind and solar will not be able to replace nuclear or coal anytime in the next 30 years without a major technological advance. Wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal total 3% of the nameplate capacity in the U.S. today. And that is nameplate capacity. The capacity factor is much lower. The transmission grid needs improvements. We need to be investing money in R&D to improve the capacity factor and most importantly storage of electricity.

Anybody that figures out how to store electricity on a large scale basis will make Bill Gates look like a pauper.

[houndawg]

I think it's a step in the right direction and that the feds should foot the bill for some to all of the redesign. Certainly a more worthwhile use of my tax money than funding unnecessary oil wars.

Not seeing the cost breakdowns, the transmission line issue may be a door-opener for development of the wind (especially) and solar facilities. They cannot compete with coal dollar for dollar, and adding in billions to construct transmission lines only worsens the ROI. This should at least give them a boost.
Something I've not seen yet, however, is implementation of tax-free status for those projects. You'll recall the "door opener" for solar and wind in CA resulted from Gov. Moonbeam's signing of tax code allowing for tax exempt "municipal" bonds to fund construction, as well as allowing a full write off of solar improvements for homeowners and businesses. The, the floor dropped out around '80-'82 (?) when the tax credit was allowed to sunset out. Gotta admit, as much as I can't stand "flush me" Brown, the tax credits were a great idea.
Now...will Congress follow suit...establish tax-exempt status for all solar and wind investment...

...and yes...nuclear also. Solar and wind alone will not suffice...they'll need to be supplemented with some form of non-weather dependent sources. My point in this thread is, with the defunding of Yucca, and no other plan in place, the Admin's action just appear to be more of the same...obstruction without first providing a solution.

The transmission grid is aging infrastructure, those billions will have to spent in any case. Tax credits should be 100% for businesses and homeowners that add AE systems and utilities should be required to provide access to net metering.

[houndawg]

Wind and solar will not be able to replace nuclear or coal anytime in the next 30 years without a major technological advance. Wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal total 3% of the nameplate capacity in the U.S. today. And that is nameplate capacity. The capacity factor is much lower. The transmission grid needs improvements. We need to be investing money in R&D to improve the capacity factor and most importantly storage of electricity.

Anybody that figures out how to store electricity on a large scale basis will make Bill Gates look like a pauper.

People in this country need to stop looking at 30 years like it's the long-term, it isn't. It's the immediate future. And if we put the kind of money into AE R&D that we put into seizing Iraqi oil and then leaving it in the ground, we'll get major technological advances. The money will be recouped fairly quickly in the hundreds of billions the Pentagon won't need to ensure the safety of our oil supply half way around the world.

(Never could figure out why we went halfway around the world to steal Iraq's oil when a bunch of mall cops with baseball bats could have taken Venezuela before supper.)

[AZGrizFan]

Wind and solar will not be able to replace nuclear or coal anytime in the next 30 years without a major technological advance. Wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal total 3% of the nameplate capacity in the U.S. today. And that is nameplate capacity. The capacity factor is much lower. The transmission grid needs improvements. We need to be investing money in R&D to improve the capacity factor and most importantly storage of electricity.

Anybody that figures out how to store electricity on a large scale basis will make Bill Gates look like a pauper.

People in this country need to stop looking at 30 years like it's the long-term, it isn't. It's the immediate future. And if we put the kind of money into AE R&D that we put into seizing Iraqi oil and then leaving it in the ground, we'll get major technological advances. The money will be recouped fairly quickly in the hundreds of billions the Pentagon won't need to ensure the safety of our oil supply half way around the world.

(Never could figure out why we went halfway around the world to steal Iraq's oil when a bunch of mall cops with baseball bats could have taken Venezuela before supper.)

Where's Paul Blart when you need him!

[houndawg]

Wind and solar will not be able to replace nuclear or coal anytime in the next 30 years without a major technological advance. Wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal total 3% of the nameplate capacity in the U.S. today. And that is nameplate capacity. The capacity factor is much lower. The transmission grid needs improvements. We need to be investing money in R&D to improve the capacity factor and most importantly storage of electricity.

Anybody that figures out how to store electricity on a large scale basis will make Bill Gates look like a pauper.

It's coming. One promising method involves using solar generated electricity to compress air into large underground caverns. At night the compressed air is released to drive turbines.

Great idea, stick it where the sun don't shine.

[HI54UNI]

Wind and solar will not be able to replace nuclear or coal anytime in the next 30 years without a major technological advance. Wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal total 3% of the nameplate capacity in the U.S. today. And that is nameplate capacity. The capacity factor is much lower. The transmission grid needs improvements. We need to be investing money in R&D to improve the capacity factor and most importantly storage of electricity.

Anybody that figures out how to store electricity on a large scale basis will make Bill Gates look like a pauper.

People in this country need to stop looking at 30 years like it's the long-term, it isn't. It's the immediate future. And if we put the kind of money into AE R&D that we put into seizing Iraqi oil and then leaving it in the ground, we'll get major technological advances. The money will be recouped fairly quickly in the hundreds of billions the Pentagon won't need to ensure the safety of our oil supply half way around the world.

(Never could figure out why we went halfway around the world to steal Iraq's oil when a bunch of mall cops with baseball bats could have taken Venezuela before supper.)

OK, if 30 years isn't long term (and I don't disagree) what are we going to do in the short term? Envirowhackos won't let us build coal. Nuclear faces envirowhackos and NIMBY. The good states for wind are all rural where there's little electric demand requiring huge and expensive transmission upgrades. We have a lot of wind farms in our area and we are starting to hear the NIMBY around here. A 765 kV transmission line to move the energy will face NIMBY. Solar isn't technologically there yet. About all that is left is natural gas which still releases CO2 and drives up the cost of heating homes and businesses, fertilizer, and other products. Plus natural gas is more expensive which means higher electricity costs.

Then after we debate all that our politicians can argue who pays for this. Should the taxpayer pay to build transmission lines across North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota so Chicago and St. Louis can have wind power? Or should the electric ratepayers in Chicago and St. Louis pay for it? Is the government going to own the transmission line or are we giving incentives to private industry to build? Should the property owners in North Dakota have to look at windmills when Ted Kennedy doesn't have to look at Cape Wind off his beach house?

More R&D is needed but it is not going to solve the problems we face in the short term. We need both short and long range plans.

[HI54UNI]

Wind and solar will not be able to replace nuclear or coal anytime in the next 30 years without a major technological advance. Wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal total 3% of the nameplate capacity in the U.S. today. And that is nameplate capacity. The capacity factor is much lower. The transmission grid needs improvements. We need to be investing money in R&D to improve the capacity factor and most importantly storage of electricity.

Anybody that figures out how to store electricity on a large scale basis will make Bill Gates look like a pauper.

It's coming. One promising method involves using solar generated electricity to compress air into large underground caverns. At night the compressed air is released to drive turbines.

Great idea, stick it where the sun don't shine.

Not just solar but wind and other energy sources too. Our state utility association is working on a project. The idea is to take any off peak energy and pump air in the ground. There are times in the middle of the night that utilities will pay you to take electricity. The turbine still requires natural gas but only about 1/3 of the amount a normal utility uses. Unfortunately we are seeing a little NIMBY on this project too. People are afraid the air will seep out and make their homes explode or something.

Info about the Iowa project
http://www.isepa.com/about_isep.asp

[houndawg]

People in this country need to stop looking at 30 years like it's the long-term, it isn't. It's the immediate future. And if we put the kind of money into AE R&D that we put into seizing Iraqi oil and then leaving it in the ground, we'll get major technological advances. The money will be recouped fairly quickly in the hundreds of billions the Pentagon won't need to ensure the safety of our oil supply half way around the world.

(Never could figure out why we went halfway around the world to steal Iraq's oil when a bunch of mall cops with baseball bats could have taken Venezuela before supper.)

OK, if 30 years isn't long term (and I don't disagree) what are we going to do in the short term? Envirowhackos won't let us build coal. Nuclear faces envirowhackos and NIMBY. The good states for wind are all rural where there's little electric demand requiring huge and expensive transmission upgrades. We have a lot of wind farms in our area and we are starting to hear the NIMBY around here. A 765 kV transmission line to move the energy will face NIMBY. Solar isn't technologically there yet. About all that is left is natural gas which still releases CO2 and drives up the cost of heating homes and businesses, fertilizer, and other products. Plus natural gas is more expensive which means higher electricity costs.

Then after we debate all that our politicians can argue who pays for this. Should the taxpayer pay to build transmission lines across North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota so Chicago and St. Louis can have wind power? Or should the electric ratepayers in Chicago and St. Louis pay for it? Is the government going to own the transmission line or are we giving incentives to private industry to build? Should the property owners in North Dakota have to look at windmills when Ted Kennedy doesn't have to look at Cape Wind off his beach house?

More R&D is needed but it is not going to solve the problems we face in the short term. We need both short and long range plans.

Like I mentioned earlier, nuclear power has a use in the short term as a transitional supply.

One of the problems is that when the price of oil drops, the research money dries up. Ironically, the recent drop in oil was largely due to conservation steps caused by the shock of $4 gas. If we don't get an Apollo-style crash program for energy independence we will always be in the short-term mode. Your other questions are small problems when compared with a future where we don't need a bigger military than the rest of the world combined just to ensure the safety of "our oil". Think of the tax burden removed by saving a few hundred billion per year in Pentagon spending and another 50 odd billion per year in the cost of keeping Iraqi oil in the ground.

[HI54UNI]

OK, if 30 years isn't long term (and I don't disagree) what are we going to do in the short term? Envirowhackos won't let us build coal. Nuclear faces envirowhackos and NIMBY. The good states for wind are all rural where there's little electric demand requiring huge and expensive transmission upgrades. We have a lot of wind farms in our area and we are starting to hear the NIMBY around here. A 765 kV transmission line to move the energy will face NIMBY. Solar isn't technologically there yet. About all that is left is natural gas which still releases CO2 and drives up the cost of heating homes and businesses, fertilizer, and other products. Plus natural gas is more expensive which means higher electricity costs.

Then after we debate all that our politicians can argue who pays for this. Should the taxpayer pay to build transmission lines across North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota so Chicago and St. Louis can have wind power? Or should the electric ratepayers in Chicago and St. Louis pay for it? Is the government going to own the transmission line or are we giving incentives to private industry to build? Should the property owners in North Dakota have to look at windmills when Ted Kennedy doesn't have to look at Cape Wind off his beach house?

More R&D is needed but it is not going to solve the problems we face in the short term. We need both short and long range plans.

Like I mentioned earlier, nuclear power has a use in the short term as a transitional supply.

One of the problems is that when the price of oil drops, the research money dries up. Ironically, the recent drop in oil was largely due to conservation steps caused by the shock of $4 gas. If we don't get an Apollo-style crash program for energy independence we will always be in the short-term mode. Your other questions are small problems when compared with a future where we don't need a bigger military than the rest of the world combined just to ensure the safety of "our oil". Think of the tax burden removed by saving a few hundred billion per year in Pentagon spending and another 50 odd billion per year in the cost of keeping Iraqi oil in the ground.

I don't disagree. My concern is our elected officials are the ones that will have to craft a solution and I have very little faith in them doing something that makes sense.

[houndawg]

It's coming. One promising method involves using solar generated electricity to compress air into large underground caverns. At night the compressed air is released to drive turbines.

Great idea, stick it where the sun don't shine.

Not just solar but wind and other energy sources too. Our state utility association is working on a project. The idea is to take any off peak energy and pump air in the ground. There are times in the middle of the night that utilities will pay you to take electricity. The turbine still requires natural gas but only about 1/3 of the amount a normal utility uses. Unfortunately we are seeing a little NIMBY on this project too. People are afraid the air will seep out and make their homes explode or something.

Info about the Iowa project
http://www.isepa.com/about_isep.asp

NIMBYs and "envirowhackos" lose much more often than they win. They do, however, make a very nice scapegoat for, say, an oil company that has no intention of building a refinery that would be very expensive and reduce demand by increasing supply. When the stakes are energy independence for the whole nation and cleaner energy to boot..........well, I don't see the "e-whacks" winning that one without a whole bunch of support, which, ironically, would probably come from current vested interests that don't want the changes.