Posted on 09/08/2008 12:15:20 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced this morning it will conduct an in-depth review of the government plans for Yucca Mountain, another step forward for the controversial nuclear waste storage project.
The decision by the nuclear safety agency to place a Department of Energy license application on its docket represents a milestone for the project over the objections of Nevada's elected leaders.
The NRC concluded following an initial 90-day screening by its technical staff that an application that DOE filed on June 3 "is sufficiently complete" for the agency to move forward, according to its announcement.
The move opens the way for detailed safety studies that will be performed by NRC technical staff, and for legal hearings before panels of administrative judges where Nevada and other parties would be able to raise objections.
The process will result in a decision whether to grant a license for the repository to be built.
The decision was announced shortly after the NRC notified members of Congress. Those from Nevada were not happy although they were not altogether surprised.
"The NRC’s decision puts nuclear politics over the health and safety of Nevada families and you can bet that we will continue fighting the Bush-McCain Yucca Mountain plan," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.
The licensing process is envisioned by law to take three-four years. Many officials believe it could take years longer for the NRC to sort through a project that is the first of its kind.
Following construction the agency would consider a second application for DOE to begin receiving waste at the site.
The Energy Department proposes to build a warren of tunnels beneath Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where 77,000 tons of used nuclear fuel and highly radioactive material from U.S. weapons manufacturing would be stored and eventually sealed within the mountain.
An above-ground waste handling complex also would be constructed where canisters of waste would arrive, mostly by rail, from sites in 39 states.
The repository plan is opposed by a majority of Nevadans. State leaders have committed millions of dollars to fight at the NRC and in courts.
The presidential nominees are split. Democratic Barack Obama has said he will stop the project if he is elected. Republican John McCain said he would support it if it can meet "environmental requirements."
But the tons of real waste blowing in the wind outside are ignored.
I hear that the French recycle their nuclear waste by reprocessing it in breeder reactors.
Why can’t we do that?
Perfect government program. Spend decades and billions and then get ready for a fight so it is all a waste of time and money. FREE YUCCA!!!
A gift from Jimmy Carter.
The democrats said we could not. Said they were worried about Iran (or somebody) getting their hands on Plutonium, and maybe making nuclear weapons.
Can’t have that now, can we?
By the way, if we recycle nuclear wastes, we can get MORE fuel back after recycling than we started with.
How so?
Idiotic actions by a previous POTUS should be reversed as a matter of course.
All the land swiped during Bubba's reign should be released; stupid restrictions like that against breeder reactors should be turned to ashes.
Holding onto assinine decisions of the past simply because "it's always been done that way" is the height of foolishness, IMO.
270 tons of nuclear waste down the gullet of a dormant volcano.
Maybe that is the best answer available yet fraught with risk.
> A gift from Jimmy Carter.
I figured it had to be something like that.
> By the way, if we recycle nuclear wastes, we can get MORE
> fuel back after recycling than we started with.
Imagine that!
No wonder the Left hates the idea so much. It might accelerate our independence on foreign energy.
Build (nukes) here, build now!
Carter didn't want us to use Plutonium for fuel in nuke plants, so we have to store it
Oh, so it’s a different but usable fuel? From the original post, it kind of sounded like BS at first because it sounded like matter was being created...I’m a new EE, but even I know that that’s impossible.
The current regulations concerning "waste" from atomic reactor fuel rods PROHIBIT the recycling of "spent" rods, which still contain some 97% of the energy they had when first put into use. We are told, that such recycling will concentrate the plutonium, one of the reaction products of the radioactive decay of U-235, and there is great superstition surrounding plutonium - it can be used to make atomic bombs!
It may also be used as a fuel in a very high-energy atomic reactor. Risky? Well, yeah, but so is sending men down into the ground to excavate coal from seams underground, but the human race does it every day.
But that is only the first step of re-refining the spent fuel rods. Natural uranium is some 99.27% U-238 (not radioactive), 0.72% U-235 (radioactive, and the "power" in control rods used in atomic reactors) and 0.0055% U-234 (highly radioactive, contributing about HALF of the radioactivity of natural uranium). By careful separation of these isotopes, the concentration of enriched uranium can be raised to about 5% U-235, while reducing the concentration of radioactivity of the processed "depleted" uranium, to about a third of that of natural uranium. This "depleted" uranium is extremely dense, greater than that of lead or even gold, and when used as an artillery round, has far greater penetrating capability through armor plate than lead.
But it is still faintly radioactive. Therefore, it is "atomic waste" and must be segregated from honest, good "non-radioactive" materials, a pariah among elements.
With sufficiently highly developed technology, the radioactive isotopes could be ENTIRELY extracted from the "depleted" uranium, supplying an additional supply of fuel for an atomic pile.
The technology has been done at the laboratory level, but the cost of the processing is horribly expensive (or so it is claimed). Therefore it is cheaper to simply store the "spent" rods.
At least for now.
For the same reason we can't complete Yucca Mountain. The eco-commies are opposed to ANYTHING that might enhance the use of nuclear fission. The opposition stems from the days when the KGB was funding anti-nuke activities to delay any and all progress that the US might make in nuclear research, but it has assumed a life of it's own now that the KGB is kaput.
"IF" we decide we want to get rid of it permanently, then the safest answer is to drop it in the deep ocean in a subduction zone. Plate tectonics will suck it down into the "bowels of the earth", and sequester it for millions of years.
But it is more likely that we will find that we want to make use of the "waste" in the future, so we a better approach is "monitored retrievable storage"---for which Yucca Moutain is perfect. Chemically reprocess the spent fuel and recover the remaining fissionable content (and any other valuable materials--several isotopes are currently useful), and store the remaining tiny amount in Yucca.
Our nuclear reactors begin generating PU on day one of operations after the fuel goes in. During the cycle, PU is created but it is also burned creating almost half the power at the end of the cycle before it is removed. Our reactors are ‘breeders’ but not in the strict sense of the word.
I saw that show on TV also. Eventually, Hawaii will follow!
A couple of fixes.
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.