[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kiwichick', 't')anada; re recycling nuclear fuel

why isn't that being done now?
or is it?

[Graeme]

Yucca Mountain nuclear project will not die - June 30, 2010

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')merica’s two-decade old proposal to store high level nuclear waste in a mountain in Nevada just will not die.

Geologists, local senators, and President Barack Obama have all tried to kybosh plans to build a waste storage facility inside Yucca Mountain.

But yesterday three judges from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), ruled that Obama doesn’t have the power to kill the Yucca dream. He cannot overrule the act passed by Congress in 1982 that specified the mountain as the resting place for waste from nuclear power plants across America, they said.

When the Department of Energy (DoE) tried to withdraw the 8,600-page construction authorization detailing the Yucca plans various states and other groups objected. Now the judges have denied the application to withdraw.

[Tanada]

Well thanks! It is nice to know at least one thing in energy development is actually going the way it is supposed too!

[eclipse]

1. There's hardly a storage emergency: all the world's waste put into oil drums would just about cover a football field one layer deep. What's the rush?

2. By the time they sort out Yukka we won't NEED Yukka. GenIV reactors are so hot right now. Which brings us to my poster!



Download ACTUAL poster at link below, not from the low-res preview above.
http://eclipsenow.files.wordpress.com/2 ... oster2.pdf

[Newbie Wants Info]

What happens to all the nuclear waste/unspent nuclear fuel in the world if an abrupt societal collapse is brought about by peak oil, global warming, financial meltdown, etc?

Can the waste/fuel/bombs/etc be buried in time? Does every single nuclear nation in the world have storage sites in which all of the radioactive material they possess can be isolated from the biosphere for thousands of years?

What about sites like the Chernobyl containment structure? A French company is building a dome over the existing sarcophagus, but it's only intended to serve its purpose for 100 years.

If the material can't be safely isolated does it pose an existential threat to life on Earth?

[C8]

Nuclear waste poses 2 threats actually:

1. the first risk is the actual damage caused by radiation overdose- I think the real threat here may not be so great as many believe. The wind and water dispersal will greatly weaken the doses received by most of the public and the effects are somewhat slow acting anyway for most cases (increased cancer risk in 20-40 years). Those who live very close will have to be evacuated of course.

2. the second risk, the one I believe to be far greater, is the public response to reactor failure. In our fear based media system, meltdowns will be viewed as outright death sentences for the masses. This will induce panic and cause many to flee who didn't need to- valuable property, machinery and infrastructure will be abandoned- and in a peak oil world these will be very expensive to replace. Also, the public will develop the basic belief that everything is falling apart and this may cause a general breakdown in the order so necessary to run a society effectively. My guess is that many will demand all reactors to be shut down in a panic based way at maximum speed- the resulting loss of energy will knock the economy down further. Fear has a very corrosive effect on social order.

A nuclear power plant is a psychological time bomb waiting to explode. No matter how well designed reactors get to be (and they are much better now) their is no way to factor out human error. We have been conditioned by hundreds of movies, TV shows and books to be scared to death of nuclear radiation- even in very small amounts. My chief objection to nuclear power is that it is psychologically unsafe.

[lper100km]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newbie Wants Info', 'W')hat happens to all the nuclear waste/unspent nuclear fuel in the world if an abrupt societal collapse is brought about by peak oil, global warming, financial meltdown, etc?

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newbie Wants Info', 'W')hat happens to all the nuclear waste/unspent nuclear fuel in the world if an abrupt societal collapse is brought about by peak oil, global warming....?

[dissident]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newbie Wants Info', 'W')hat happens to all the nuclear waste/unspent nuclear fuel in the world if an abrupt societal collapse is brought about by peak oil, global warming....?

[Newbie Wants Info]

Thanks for the interesting responses.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', '
')
1. the first risk is the actual damage caused by radiation overdose- I think the real threat here may not be so great as many believe. The wind and water dispersal will greatly weaken the doses received by most of the public and the effects are somewhat slow acting anyway for most cases (increased cancer risk in 20-40 years). Those who live very close will have to be evacuated of course.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newbie Wants Info', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')If the world would shift to nuclear power there wouldn't be a societal collapse due to peak oil----the world would stop using fossil fuel and shift to electricity generated from nukes.

[C8]

The recent articles on China's defective solar panels raises the fear that they will go about selling cheap reactors to the world someday- reactors that start showing how badly they are constructed within a decade. Capitalism and the desire for money over everything else may destroy any chance we have to make a successful energy transition. The key attribute of solar, wind, nuclear is their LONG TERM payback after initial high costs. But if cheapskate builders just slap together something that is supposed to repay after 15 years- and it fails after only 10 years- then faith in alt energy will vanish.

Today I have come to the conclusion that capitalism will prevent any successful energy transition. This is a very unexpected and hard pill to swallow. Greed condemns us to short term profits and long term disaster since our new energy sources require extreme durability and builders will cheat on this. It is 11pm here in Ohio, I am going to go to bed now- today has not ended well for me. I will be better (and wiser) tomorrow.

Bummer day.

[Newbie Wants Info]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')If your main concern is societal collapse due to peak oil or greenhouse warming caused by fossil fuel use, then rest easy----there are difficult, expensive and painful choices to be made, but by switching from oil and other fossil fuels to nuclear power and other non-fossil-fuel alternative energy sources there is a good chance we can avoid societal collapse due to peak oil.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newbie Wants Info', '
')
Another interesting and valid point.

I agree, the risk of Chinese-constructed nuclear reactors is great. I don't think that blaming capitalism or "greed" is a good idea, though. To me, these buzzwords only distract people from the real issues and their potential solutions. So as long as everyone's attention is diverted towards non-issues like "gay rights," "women's rights," "greed," "Kony," "Arab Spring," "capitalism," "2nd Amendment," "taxes," "healthcare" and so forth, nothing will be done to address truly urgent matters like global warming, nuclear waste, water depletion, renewable energy, etc.

Because the fact is that there are no "anti-greed" people who are willing to do anything about nuclear power. Nuclear power is people power, and anti-Capitalists have been some of the biggest proponents of nuclear power the world has ever known. Action in defense of the environment is politicaly unpalatable because the public's thirst for cheap energy trumps human responsibility.

If anything I would say that newfound national pride is the biggest proponent of nuclear energy and the perpetuation of the storage issue. The vast majority of anti-capitalists seem to view the "busting" of a non-Western nation's "pride" and "cultural imperialism" as two of the most evil sins one could possibly commit.

[Newbie Wants Info]

From where I'm sitting right now, gobal capitalism and colonialism appear to be the only solutions to the pollution problem.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newbie Wants Info', 'W')hat happens to all the nuclear waste/unspent nuclear fuel in the world if an abrupt societal collapse is brought about by peak oil, global warming, financial meltdown, etc?

Can the waste/fuel/bombs/etc be buried in time? Does every single nuclear nation in the world have storage sites in which all of the radioactive material they possess can be isolated from the biosphere for thousands of years?

What about sites like the Chernobyl containment structure? A French company is building a dome over the existing sarcophagus, but it's only intended to serve its purpose for 100 years.

If the material can't be safely isolated does it pose an existential threat to life on Earth?

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newbie Wants Info', 'F')rom where I'm sitting right now, gobal capitalism and colonialism appear to be the only solutions to the pollution problem.

[ROCKMAN]

Tanada - Now you did it: blew your chance at a consulting gig on the next zombie movie. I understand the plot involves injecting those pellets into the dead and thus giving them a new lease on life, so to speak. But only for about 300 years.

ralfy - Hey! I resemble that remark! Uhh...I meant resent.

[Newbie Wants Info]

Tanada: Thanks for the interesting post.

Can you show me a source suggesting that all radioactive material is non-dangerous after 300 years? Would the massive amount of radioactive material left behind (i.e. from multiple plants, manufacturing facilities, bombs, etc) really present no threat after 300 years?

Does it only present a threat if it is left alone, kept at a distance from, and not placed in contact with other materials?

Human beings are curious creatures, they like to pick stuff up, put it in their mouths, throw it, etc. Just a couple of years ago an Indian fellow took a piece of cobalt from a nuclear plant and kept it in his wallet. Died a few weeks later. If a future caveman picks up a couple of pieces of radioactive material and bangs it together with his hands or throws it on to an opposing pile of radiation could this generate intense radioactivity in material that would otherwise be "safe" if left alone?

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my concerns.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newbie Wants Info', 'T')anada: Thanks for the interesting post.

Can you show me a source suggesting that all radioactive material is non-dangerous after 300 years? Would the massive amount of radioactive material left behind (i.e. from multiple plants, manufacturing facilities, bombs, etc) really present no threat after 300 years?

Does it only present a threat if it is left alone, kept at a distance from, and not placed in contact with other materials?

Human beings are curious creatures, they like to pick stuff up, put it in their mouths, throw it, etc. Just a couple of years ago an Indian fellow took a piece of cobalt from a nuclear plant and kept it in his wallet. Died a few weeks later. If a future caveman picks up a couple of pieces of radioactive material and bangs it together with his hands or throws it on to an opposing pile of radiation could this generate intense radioactivity in material that would otherwise be "safe" if left alone?

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my concerns.