The folks who made the pots the Dead Sea scrolls were found in seem to have some clue. Also the builders of those big pointy buildings and the giant cat model…
I did not know the scrolls were full of hot radioactive waste. Sure just put the radioactive waste in clay pots and bury them in a pyramid. Problem solved.
You should look up the Yucca containers. They are going through some huge measures to enclose the waste. It wont be enough.
Storing spent nuclear fuel isn’t that hard to do. Storing it so nobody can get a hold of it for the next 10,000 years is.
Radioactive material from reactors and buildings is buried. Why not bury the spent fuel?
That is the interesting thing. It’s not hard to bury it. Why then is almost all of it still in pools of water right next to working reactors?
Burying it does not work. he leaches into the surrounding and the water table eventually poisoning a huge area.
In Fukishima, the bottoms of the containers have been eaten through. Tossing tons of concrete on top of it will not fix the real problems underneath.
There is a problem in the selection of the man in charge of the cleanup. He has said that radiation will not hurt someone who is happy and content. It is the sullen and morose who will suffer.
I saw that quote on Thom Hartmannn yesterday.
The nuclear cheerleaders don’t seem worried about all the radioactive material leaking out, and that is from multiple reactors and fuel ponds, with no containment.
A site with no rain, no water table, and lots of rock under it would be easy enough to bury fuel rods encased in containers. Why don’t they just bury it?
Gee,
I don’t think anybody has ever thought of that. I am positive nobody has actually spent any money or did any engineering or construction to do such a radical thing. And I am doubly sure that even if somebody did all that, some politician would never just cancel it so that stuff can just keep piling up at the reactor sites instead.
And of course gonzomax is just sure such a thing could never work in the first place so why even bother?
What kind of a fool builds an industry around toxic radioactive waste with no plans for what to do with it? That’s precisely what the nuke industry did. “Don’t worry, eventually a method of disposal will be worked out.”
Don’t blame Nevada because they didn’t feel like it. Nevada was never the original plan. There was no original plan. There still isn’t, and the industry still wants to build more. Insane, is what that is.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
What kind of a fool builds an industry around toxic radioactive waste with no plans for what to do with it? That’s precisely what the nuke industry did. “Don’t worry, eventually a method of disposal will be worked out.”
[/QUOTE]
They planned to recycle it. Sadly, they weren’t allowed too. Then they planned to store it. Sadly, they weren’t allowed to finish the repository and store it as planned.
I don’t blame Nevada (which is a state after all, and really doesn’t have any say in the matter, simply being markings on a map) nor the PEOPLE of Nevada. They are merely frightened and ignorant people who have been deluded and scared by the anti-nukes and by idiotic politicians…who I DO blame for both halting the building of any new nuclear power plants and for preventing any solutions to nuclear waste, while simultaneously waving their arms and pulling their hair in mock outrage that we don’t have any solutions to nuclear waste. Oh, and look how much nuclear power plants cost!! Oh, and look how long they take to build, and how they always overrun costs!! Oh, and look how dangerous they are…look at what’s happening in Japan, nomnomnom!! Oh my, oh my…we need good, clean wind and solar to save the day! nomnomnom!!
-XT
Recycle it! That’s hilarious. Because you know, none of it is actually bad, it’s just reusable. Strontium and Cesium, well they planned on just recycling them. No need to get rid of them.
The true nuclear moonbat probably even believes in this. That all along they had plans on what to do with it.
Hahahahaha!
Priceless.
Do even realize how much your use of phrases like “cheerleader” and “moonbat” make you and your position sound? Someone with actual points to make usually has no need to resort to name calling.
Do you understand what “recycle” means in this context?
The nuclear waste issue is a very real and serious one, and it is not currently solved, to no small degree for political reasons more than scientific ones. The current interim approach involves unacceptable risks and one can make a good argument that proceeding further until better solutions are assured is a poor idea. To go from that statement to saying that there is no possible solution and that anyone who sees plausible solutions as possible is crazy merely tells us something about the person making those statements.
The original point was reactors were built and massive amounts of very dangerous waste and by products were created, with no plan on what to do with it. Meanwhile the people who profited cashed their checks and built their bombs and went on making more and more of a mess with not even a plan on how to clean up later.
That the TNB’s want to now say it’s all somebody else’s fault is just more horseshit. This blaming “the public” or “politics” is stupid. Yeah, name calliing is also stupid. So stop insulting my intelligence and I quick calling idiots moonbats.
FXMastermind, since you’re being vague about who your insults are directed against, it sounds like you are describing other posters as idiots, moonbats, and cheerleaders. Stop it now.
You do understand that in America the nuclear operators have in fact paid the government a fee, in return for which the government was obligated to take care of permanent storage? As of March 2010the utilities have put $34.4 billion into the fund; they have not yet seen the government live up to their end of the contract.
Once again, a reasonable argument can be made that no additional new or replacement plants should be built until a waste plan is actually in place … but one can also argue that then the utilities are owed their $34.4 billion back.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Recycle it! That’s hilarious. Because you know, none of it is actually bad, it’s just reusable. Strontium and Cesium, well they planned on just recycling them. No need to get rid of them.
[/QUOTE]
Why yes…I’m a bit surprised you don’t seemingly know anything about it. Before calling someone a ‘moonbat’, it might be wise to at least nominally educate yourself on the subject…it spares one looking like a total fool.
Originally, the plan was to reprocess nuclear waste (‘recycle’ it IOW). Unfortunately, the byproduct of that reprocessing is weapons grade nuclear material, and for various reasons the US did not want to do that on a large scale. There are other ways to ‘recycle’ nuclear waste, including using it as fuel in breeder reactors, which also eliminates a large percentage of the waste. For various reasons this hasn’t been politically feasible in the US either.
If you want some cites on any of this I’d be happy to get them for you, but really all you have to do is type ‘recycle nuclear waste’ into Google to see how foolish your post here was.
Well, it’s easy enough to look it up. I suppose ‘moonbat’=‘Knows something about the history of the nuclear industry’. You might want to Google ‘Yucca Mountain’ as well, to see if indeed there was some sort of plan in the past as to what they would do with the waste. There have been several such plans over time. Sadly, all of them keep getting short circuited for some reason. It’s a mystery as to why, when there are such knowledgeable anti-nuclear folks such as yourself weighing in on the subject.
But, you see, you are WRONG. They DID have a plan on what they were going to do with the waste. But having a plan doesn’t mean the plan gets implemented. Plans change…and they they come up with new plans. Which have to be changed as well. Currently, the plan seems to be ‘wait, let the waste pile up and hope something new comes out that the anti-nuclear crowd won’t torpedo as well’. I’ve heard some talk that they might be taking another look at Yucca Mountain, because really we have to do something. Letting the anti-nuclear types just get in the way every time without them offering up any alternatives seems to be a losing proposition.
-XT
I’m pretty sure they already are suing to stop payment.
It’s beyond me why the government and taxpayers would be on the hook to deal with nuclear utilities’ waste.
That, and the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act are two classic examples of ridiculously irresponsible corporate welfare the American taxpayers could well do without.
Sure we should monetize carbon emissions as you say, and we should also let taxpayers know just how much they subsidize the nuclear industry, and force nuclear power to genuinely reflect and charge its real costs.
Why are you dissing the coal and fossil fuel industry and the people who use it?
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
I’m pretty sure they already are suing to stop payment.
[/QUOTE]
Well…yeah. I mean…duh. Have you noticed that THERE IS NO NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY?? It was supposed to already be processing waste (which is what the fees paid for)…but, you know, it’s been killed by the government. I’m fairly sure that some of those utilities are going to sue (or already suing) to get their money back. Folks tend to do that when they pay for a service that never materializes. Right?
Think about that next time you are cheering the brave anti-nukes for killing Yucca Mountain.
Considering it’s the government and the taxpayers who have prevented such a repository, I’m puzzled why this is beyond you. Besides which, that’s one of the functions of government, no? Aren’t you one of those big government types who doesn’t want or believe the free market can or should provide such services? Only the government can do it? Well, in this case, I agree…nuclear waste is obviously dangerous stuff and needs to be handled collectively with care. It freaks me out a bit that the waste is being left in pools at the reactor sites…and it should freak you out as well, even though the government has oversight of that waste.
Seems pretty straightforward to me…and doesn’t seem like ‘ridiculously irresponsible corporate welfare’. Possibly you could elaborate? Here is the first couple paragraphs from your cite:
My emphasis.
Good luck with that. Do you WANT to pay double, triple or more for energy? Even if for some odd reason you are all for that, do you actually expect everyone is going to be on board with it? You do realize that while you may think the nuclear folks are getting away with murder, that all the other energy producers are equally getting subsidies to keep the costs of energy low, and to amortize the large capital costs of building the plants initially…right?
-XT
Well in this case the utilities paid a fee to have it handled and the government is obligated to do so. If I paid a waste management firm a fee every month to pick up my garbage and dispose of it, and then they did not for, say going on 30 years, I might want to stop paying too. And get my money back. Which in this case was up to $34.4 billion over a year ago. Um, no “might” about it.
Compare this to the coal power plants which just dumps waste into the atmosphere without paying any disposal fees.
Here we go. Cite please for a carbon cap and trade or tax leading to double or triple the cost for energy?
-
The costs of the carbon are real, they are just being deferred and allowed to compound. Pay some now or pay much much more later.
-
The CBO estimated the cost of cap and trade to be about $175/year, hardly double or triple, and looking at it more granularly according to income level
Of course those of us in a higher quintile might respond by investing in some energy efficient technology, which might lower our costs over time.
- What is the problem with making the true costs of each energy source, including its waste be it radioactive (the disposal already paid for) or the CO2 (not), the subsidies both explicit and implicit, transparant? They are real costs; monetize them and then let them compete fairly. Nuclear will have a place in that competition with the true costs all monetized and part of the price to the consumer, not as much of a slam dunk as some here think though.
I want to see a cite the original plan was reprocessing. There was no such original plan. The first nuke plant opened in 1957 and immediately started piling nuclear waste up on site.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is uh, from 1982. That’s quite a bit later than when the nuclear industry should have had a plan in place. There was no plan. There was never a plan. There still is no plan.
Your reprocessing and enrichment ideas have been tried by every nuclear power on earth and not a single country has been able to make them work.
Making the government take the waste, bury it under a mountain, and guard it for the rest of eternity is the sweetheart deal the nuke industry got away with, and that’s the government’s plan. The nuke industry doesn’t have a plan, and are content to let thousands and thousands (millions by now?) tons of nuclear material pile up on-site, at hundreds of sites around densely populated areas around the US, waiting for something we call “an accident” to happen. They do happen, you know.
Oh, and I’m pretty sure you were the first one to non-sarcastically refer to anti-nuke people as neo-Luddites and moonbats with their “panties in a twist,” over, “evil nuclear energy,” way back on page 1 of this thread.