Posted on 08/03/2009 10:23:33 PM PDT by Steelfish
Death Knell For Nuclear Power?
August 03, 2009
Energy: A Senate vote to kill funding for the spent fuel repository in Nevada shows the Democratic Party and this administration aren't serious about energy independence, economic growth or environmental
Killing the storage facility for the spent fuel rods produced by the nation's nuclear power industry has long been a dream of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama.
Last week, the Senate granted their wish, voting to deny the resources needed to complete a review necessary for Yucca Mountain to open.
"This is a major victory for Nevada," said Reid, who is up for re-election next year. "I am pleased that President Obama has lived up to his promise to me and to all Nevadans by working with me to kill the Yucca Mountain project."
During a presidential campaign forum in Las Vegas last year, then-candidate Obama said of the site, "I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people of Nevada that they're going to be safe."
And what about the rest of the country? Reid may not want it in his backyard, but he doesn't mind keeping America's nuclear waste where it is right now — in everybody else's backyard.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
I do not think so. The facilities can continue to store the spent fuel rods on site like they do already.
They would have to expand the cooling pools.
“...aren’t serious about energy independence, economic growth...”
No, and the Dhim Party hasn’t been for decades. Their goal is a crippled US economy with both it and the people dependent upon the (Dhim-for-life) gov’t for support.
Whether we let them is another matter.
reprocess the spent fuel like France does and the problem goes away.
the communists in charge don’t want the problem to go away.
we send out spent fuel rods to France and/or Russia for reprocessing. I don’t think that we do any here by ourselves.
Costing us hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.
Just imagine - Frogs and Reds doing what Obama won’t let Americans do.
What a fu*king nightmare!
we send out spent fuel rods to France and/or Russia for reprocessing. I don’t think that we do any here by ourselves.
Costing us hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.
Just imagine - Frogs and Reds doing what Obama won’t let Americans do.
What a fu*king nightmare!
Look up Grace Chemicals, Erwin, Tennessee. Reprocessing plant.
“You bastards, you killed nuclear power!”
Recent article stated we need 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 to meet climate goals and preserve the country at the same time. I do not think the Dems want to preserve the countrys energy while meeting cap’n trade goals. Obama is committed to energy use REDUCTIONS. I think he wants to meet the goals at the expense of US energy use with no adequate maintenance of current energy production capabilities. No economic recovery is even possible with energy reductions he anticipates, especially if combined with increased energy costs anticipated soon. Administration, just on energy issues alone, has no basis for talking or thinking recovery of the US economy, and is suspect of offering the public a future he was not elected to produce:
http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50326 This is the energy article on nuclear needs to comply with global warming compliance issues.
Also, the entire global warming, climate change political position and politicization of pseudo science is unprecedented in world history with the exception of the US inspired invention and growth of worldwide credit derivatives that have swallowed all nation-state central banks beyond repair. All the gold on the planets’ surface is worht about $4 trillion at $1000 an ounce (from Jim Sinclairs’ ebsite a couple of years ago). Credit derivatives traded about $1.26 quadrillion dollars worth last year and the BIS considers $700 trillion in credit derivatives ‘fair value’, that is, if you have a market for them.
They don’t do commercial reactor fuel *re*processing (as in recycling spent fuel rods), they only do initial processing.
Commercial fuel reprocessing is banned in the United States. Guess which party is responsible.
There is still residual waste, which the French store in a cave in France. The steady state residual high level waste from nuclear power is about a kilogram per person, very managable.
I agree.
There is the water pool option
But you are correct
USA nuclear power companies currently store 50,000 tons of spent fuel at 72 sites in 33 states. [Source: US General Accounting Office, “SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL: Options Exist to Further Enhance Security”, Report No. GAO-03-426, July 2003
“With this joint venture, AREVA Newport News LLC, will construct a 330,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Newport News, Va., which will build heavy components for new nuclear plants, a $360 million investment that will create more than 500 jobs.
http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/07/20/AREVA-And-Northrop-Grumman-Shipbuilding-Preparing-For-Ground-Breaking-At-Newport-News-Facility-210.aspx
This a disaster, both for the nuclear industry as well as us taxpayers.
Typically, spent fuel is stored in fuel pools, where the water acts both as shielding and a cooling medium. These pools were designed to store fuel untill the decay heat had decreased to the point it could be safely shipped dry, without overheating, to a processing facility to reclaim the 2/3 of still usable uranium and make more fuel to use.
But, our fearless leaders closed the processing facility (Savannah River) and the plants have had to store the fuel onsite indefinitely.
As time went by, the fuel pools. which do not have room to store the amount of fuel used over the lifetime of the plant, filled to near capacity, putting future operations in question.
So, the Utilities have been the Fed Gov MILLIONS of dollars to develop Yucca as an alternative to Savannah River. But Yucca was not materializing.
The utilities went to Plan B. And now, they are spending MORE MILLIONS on dry storage, onsite. AND, they have successfully sued Fed Gov (read Taxpayers) to recover these costs.
Yes, the utilities can continue to store onsite. But in todays ‘terror environment’, I would ask, is it better to have the spent fuel in a controlled facility, underground, or stored in casks, outside, and somewhat vulnerable?
This administration believes the latter is the better option. It suits their goals - it is easier for terrorists to steal the stuff.
Imagine if terrorists got some spent fuel, made a radiological bomb from the fuel and used it. The administration will use that as a weapon to say that nuclear power is unsafe and we must get rid of it. Had we gotten rid of it earlier, the terrorists would not have been able to steal the spent fuel sitting out in the open. Yes, a swath of Mother Gaia would be polluted radiologically for a long time, but the nuclear industry would be destroyed. The ends justify the means and you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Rahm would propose this and Zero would approve it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.