I have a question I would like to read an answer for

[madokie]

What are we going to do with the waste of nuclear power generation??? In laymans terms mind you and not in nuclear engineering talk. And remember Its us people who don't recognize nor understand the language of the nuclear industry that you are trying to explain this too. What do we do with the nuclear waste???
When that aspect of nuclear power generation is honestly answered then and only then will I give a moments thought to maybe embracing nuclear energy. It has been 35 years since PSO attempted to put a plant of this sort in my back yard. No one could honestly answer that question then and 35 years later I still haven't heard an answer.

http://www.ecn.cz/temelin/CARRIE.HTM. This person is my Hero and will always be.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Fox_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Answers...

[jimlup]

1. The long term waste...

will be dangerously radioactive for at least 50,000 years. It will have to be buried. Hopefully in a stable defunct salt mine way down and out in the middle of a dessert. It will need to have warnings in pictoral form that will last 100,000 years so that future humans who won't speak English will be able to decifer its nature.

I agree that this is not a great solution. The problem is that we already have a substaintial amount of radioactive material. We have to find a long term burial site for it. The projected site is in Nevada near the Nevada Test site on stolen Shoeshone land. Though the mass sounds large, it isn't that big compared to other wastes from other fuels. It can all be buried in a good long term site.

Not to be cynical here but radioactive waste is an unfortunate but unavoidable artifact of our current technilogical civilization. If we stopped generating it right now we would still have a large amount to find a good burial site for. Though I agree that radioactive waste is a troubling and unsolved disposal problem it does seem to me that, at the moment, it is a lesser evil.

[madokie]

3. to me what troubling is the fact that after all these years we still have no idea of what or where

I realize it is generally accepted that we can bury it but where. If the solution hasn't been developed with all these 'smart' nuclear brains by now then why should I think there will ever be one. I personally don't see any reason to go any further until we have a viable solution to this one very troubling problem. We're wasting time on developing Nuclear power when after all these years we still don't know what we're going to do with the waste. Lets put our efforts and resources into the discovery stage of alternate energy sources.

First things first I am not and do not profess to know much about nuclear materials and I hope I never have to learn much more about it to be honest with you. I realize that coal is killing us but even though someone here boast about there's never been a death attributed to nuclear energy production then I would like to have some of the stuff that is being smoked, what I get around here isn't that good, just can't quite get to that level on it if you know what I mean.

But seriously if we are going to promote something shouldn't we first give thought to the whole process from start to finish rather than stopping at the money making part as making electrical energy and selling it is all about the money, money that neither you nor I will get any of I might add.

Yucca mountain is not the answer because if it is then why do we still have these questions as to what to do with the waste.

I'm not wishing to be obtuse, I'm just trying to understand. Help me out here and give me answers that the average joe can understand as I'm just an average joe myself.

On the argument on nuclear energy hasn't killed anyone yet do some research on DU munitions because nuclear energy production is where the waste that is used in making said munitions comes from in the first place.

[Ordr]

2. .

There are indeed many very viable options that will be available in the short/mid-term future but for now, yes, the best ways of "disposal" are long-term storage and recycling.

One of the more interesting future technologies that is being researched is the literal transmutation of high-energy nuclear waste into a less radioactive state. (If you're thinking that sounds like alchemy, you're right on.) There's some cool information on that research here: http://www.nea.fr/html/trw/index.html

Another bit of research that I found interesting (although possibly disastrous, in my opinion) is the burial of vitrified (glass-entombed) waste within subduction zones, allowing Earth's tectonic plates to very, very slowly cover the waste, letting it dissipate into the mantle over the period of thousands and thousands of years. This extremely gradual release would be roughly equivalent to the baseline radioactivity of the ground. I can't find the stupid journal that I read with that information so forgive the rough explanation.

[madokie]

5. but you have to agree this is all pie in sky thinking

we today need a solution to this very seriously troubling problem then we can move on to the next phase. Where to put the nuclear waste. What has so far been done or proposed is unacceptable to most of us out here with our feet planted firmly on the good earth

[Ordr]

6. .

The waste storage facilities of these plants are some of the strongest and most damage-resistant structures ever built. On top of that, they're guarded by a phalanx of rifle-equipped security. I, personally, would not feel danger with one of these in my neighborhood. I certainly can see how others may not feel the same way, though. :)

[pscot]

38. The waste storage tanks at Hanford, Washington

are now fifty years old. They are filled with tens of thousands of gallons of highly caustic, highly radioactive waste left over from the bomb factory and power generators. They are leaking, and have been for many years. The waste "plume" beneath Hanford is moving toward the Columbia river. Officials deny that it's actually bleeding into the river, but who knows. Vitrification, or glassification of high-level waste has been promised for the last forty years, but not a single "glass log" has yet been produced. Leaving the stuff in place is not an option, but billions have been spent on "clean-up" with essentially no result. Soaring cancer rates among so-called down-winders, have been the subject of studies, editorial hand wringing and litigation for two generations. Are you sure you want one of these in your neighborhood?

[Ordr]

39. Are you sure you want one of these in your neighborhood?

Hell no. In all my posts I've tried to preface every mention of nuclear power and nuclear waste disposal with the word "modern". Older methods of storage are woefully inadequate to the point of criminality but one major problem is that wanting to reinforce or move that waste to a secure, modern location is met with just as much protest.

That Hanford situation sounds pretty scary. I'm not familiar with it at all. Hopefully it isn't as dire as you make it sound (I don't doubt you, by the way) and it can be remedied before any profoundly damaging environmental incident occurs (or continues to occur).

[Lint Head]

4. It will be 'global slow cooking' with a side of cancer.

:dem:

[Ordr]

7. .

It will be 'global slow cooking' with a side of cancer.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[madokie]

8. may I comment on this

Thanks, there are many people who believe and many studies that show a direct link with cancers to radiation. Whereas the other part is I suspect only a matter of speech. Correct me if I'm wrong.


to add: Why the period rather than words. People like myself who have vertigo find a little dot somewhat hard to pin down so as to click on it. Just saying

[Ordr]

9. Sorry about that, lol, it is a habit that I have carried over from my email subject lines.

Back on topic, though, I couldn't agree more that unsafe doses of radiation causes cancer. I don't think you'd find anyone disagreeing with that. The whole purpose of nuclear waste disposal is to ensure that no unsafe levels of radiation get released in such a way that would cause illness or injury in any person, animal, or environment.

(edited because I apparently don't know what grammar is)

[madokie]

10. Yep we're still looking for it

willing to put all our eggs in one basket, so to say, in spite of that fact though is in itself troubling to me.

If one must be fluent in writing words then maybe I shouldn't be allowed to post here at all for it is not my strong point

[Ordr]

12. Well, personally...

...as I've said in other posts, I'm more a fan of cheap, efficient solar power. Unfortunately, our technology hasn't advanced to the point where either of those is possible. We, as a society, have our technological advancements growing at a hyperbolic rate. Our energy consumption is in direct correlation with that growth. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; advancement in technology gradually advances our humanity in general. Energy consumption, also, is not necessarily a bad thing; the consumption of energy fuels our advancement. The main caveat, though, is how to prevent the byproducts that come from our harnessing of this energy from ruining our natural environment.

Scientists researching global warming have done a very good job of presenting the public with the dangers of rampant fossil-fuel consumption. The logical idea, then, is to find a solution. Modern nuclear power, while still having a danger of environmental and human impact, has far, far fewer pitfalls when faced with the fossil-fuel alternatives. Fission power, from what I've come to understand, will never be perfect because of the aforementioned waste disposal issues. It can, however, be the most important stop-gap between efficient and cheap solar power, efficient and cheap tidal power, and fusion power.

Massive energy requirements are what drive a civilization forward because our technological advances require them. It is a symbiosis. The consequences of not meeting an energy demand would cause far more worldwide violence than we're seeing even now. My thinking is on a scale that isn't solely for my benefit (or even the benefit of my generation) but for future generations. We're not going to be able to use a perfect energy source without taking all the steps to reach it.

I'm sorry if this sounded like an essay but I just wanted to get my point across.

[madokie]

15. how much money and how much time has been spent on just the one aspect of nuclear

energy production of what to do with the waste. It sure seems to me to be a basic part of the equation of whether or not we even use it to begin with. Waiting to see if someone pulls an answers out of their ass just isn't getting it and that is what is happening today, apparently.
I'm not trying to argue with you or with anyone else, I'm only trying to get some answers to what I find to be very worrisome whether or not you do, I do.

[Ordr]

24. "how much money and how much time..."

Honestly, to put it bluntly, a shitload. The entire design of modern (1990-on) plants has been centered upon safety. There are literally 30,000 page safety regulation forms that the NRC must examine to ensure that a plant is safe before it is even built, let alone put online. The vast majority of money spent on a plant is for the safety of the operators and the public.

I know you're not trying to argue and I appreciate the civility in this thread. I'm very worried about the disposal of nuclear waste which is why I've done extensive research on the topic which in turn lead me to the semi-solutions I proposed.

[phantom power]

11. You must mean you haven't heard an answer that satisfied you.

Because people post answers to that question fairly regularly here. Let me ask you this. What kind of answer would you find convincing?

[madokie]

13. thats crazy, what is your plan to deal with the waste

so far its been an out of sight out of mind kind of thinking. No I haven't heard anything viable yet but I'm still looking and by not answering my question and asking a question of that is not helping any. What is the answer to what we do with nuclear waste? DU munitions is not acceptable and thats the only thing I see being done today to lessen the total amount. So what is it in English as its the only language I understand, Nothing personal here OK, it just you pro-nuke guys keep blowing smoke and insinuating that we are all dumb as post and can't understand anyway so why try. I'll ask you personally what do you propose to do with the waste. I need something to work with and that I guess would be a start

If you think that radiation is not killing people go to Iraq or Afghanistan and talk to the doctors and scientist there and see if they agree, I don't.

[Ordr]

14. "What is the answer to what we do with nuclear waste? "

I posted quite a few answers to that question.

[madokie]

16. and what were they

[Ordr]

17. "and what were they"

Please see post #2.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=136236&mesg_id=136241

[phantom power]

18. OK, here is my answer:

a) We can continue storing it where we're already storing it. On site.

b) I think we should begin recycling it. That would require building recycling facilities.

c) If for some reason we need off-site storage, we can build Yucca Mtn, or something else like it, and keep it there until we recycle it.

[madokie]

20. lots of ifs not much meat.

sorry man but have you read anything about the on site storage that is happening now. I suggest you do if you haven't and if you have then where are you coming from in saying this is a viable way to deal with a substance that keeps on giving for thousands of years. A long time in anyones book. Still no answer to my question
Hell, its being recycled now and its into an unacceptable form, DU munitions.

[Ordr]

22. "lots of ifs not much meat."

I will agree with you on that. There currently is no good way to completely dispose of highly radioactive waste. I do believe, however, considering our rate of technological advancements in nuclear physics, nanotechnology, and material science, that we will find a way in the near (50 year) future.

I have to ask, though, what do you consider to be a reasonable stopgap between fossil fuel energy and solar energy that can exist within the realm of feasibility and economics?

[phantom power]

23. What kind of meat are you looking for?

I mean, do you want some kind of answer involving redundant layers of lead and concrete? Stored in a shaft bored out of the Canadian shield pluton for geologic stability?

If people want to do that, it's really OK with me. Based on what I've learned about the issues, I have an opinion that we should not sinter it, or render it in any form that is harder to recycle. By "recycling" I mean re-process it so that it can be put back into a reactor and burned for more energy, and extract other useful non-radioactive decay products.

I don't like depleted uranium as a weapon. I think it should be banned, like land-mines and torture.

[madokie]

26. I have no idea as I'm not advocating using it

All I want to hear is a viable way to deal with it, not a bunch of ifs ands or buts. Its not like its the new kid on the block as its been around for years now and still up until today there is no answer for us who are afraid of nuclear energy production waste. Don't we have a say in this at all?

If recycling it into a form to be reused or maybe in a totally different type reactor is possible and not just a theory then why are we not hearing more about it and why then is it not being done. I know what we are doing today with burning fossil fuels is killing our planet but it can and will rebound if we succeed in doing that, us maybe not. With radiation I'm not so sure it will ever make a comeback before we are too far from the sun so as life as we know it can survive. By using nuclear energy looks to me like a jump out of the frying pan into the fire solution to a very pressing problem, production of energy.

[phantom power]

29. I've explained a viable way to deal with it.

So I assume you are feeling more comfortable with nuclear power now, right?

[madokie]

32. I'm sorry, I fail to see that

keeping on keeping on is not getting it anymore. There has been ample time, effort and money spent on this so as we should have some answers, today, and since we don't I say we should not be advocating adding to the stockpile of waste we already have. Isn't it very possible that there is no answer to this pressing question and if that is true then should we continue to waste time on it?

anyways thanks for trying

[phantom power]

34. I'm actually a bit annoyed with you, for wasting everybody's time.

You said you wanted an answer, but clearly all you really wanted was somebody to agree with you. It's pretty disappointing.

[madokie]

37. its the same thing you have no answer so you will try to bull your way

then at some point it turns to this. I've seen it happen other times when this question is asked. You are not giving me any answers as to what to do with the waste or what our plan is. My point is we can't answer that so why continue to push for making more of it.

you shouldn't let things I say annoy you, you should if you have no viable answers then not reply at all. I wish there was an answer to that question because we need the energy. so sad
Oh well no love lost ;-)

[Zachstar]

43. Agreed, phantom power

madokie, If there is no chance of convincing you otherwise why the fuck did you make the topic?

[madokie]

46. cause we need answers thats all

its the same as it was way back when, lots of beating around the bush with no real answers, we were asking this question then same as now so you would think that someone would have figured something concrete out before now so I'm inclined to believe there may not be one afterall, in a few years I'll be dead and it won't matter to me anymore anyway.


I have a question to you and you can pm me with the answer if you would like so this thread can die cause it is only going down hill now but why do the pro-nuke people always get testy when us anti-nuke people inquire about the waste and what to do with it. Its not only today and by me this has been going on for 40 plus years

[Zachstar]

47. Because the time to discuss crap like this was 10-20 years ago!

We don't have any fucking time anymore to be talking about this crap! We got maybe 5 years before massive amounts of people will no longer be able to power their homes or cars. Maybe 5 years if we are luckly that the climate change can be reversed.

Topics like this cover over important development topics such as updates on climate and food supplies and technology innovations. These topics which frankly are filled to the brim with a dumbass agenda blanket over these important topics and I wish you would stop already.

Maybe its time to have 2 forums for Environment and Energy

One for news and updates.

the other to have your say.

[madokie]

50. parden me, we were but we didn't get any answers then either

it would be pretty durn easy to convince me if that one aspect was adequately addressed rather that blowing smoke and when that doesn't take with me then tell me to just shut the fuck up. Hey its only been 40 some odd years and the waste of all these years is still just laying there, some of it in containers that are failing whether one wants to believe that or not. The track record of the nuclear industry policing themselves is not very good. No amount of personal attacks is going to change anything only answers will. Tell me what is the plan for the waste, more of the same I suppose since I haven't gotten an answer from you. If this subject bothers you so much and this thread is bugging you then why even click on it let alone make a reply. Myself I am looking for some answers so I too could be a pro nuker but all I'm getting so far here is bull. sorry but put me on ignore if you must it matters not to me, in fact we'd probably be both much happier if you did. geeeze

[Zachstar]

57. I am not a "pro-nuker" I am simply one tired of the whole deal when there are bigger problems.

And a lack of time to deal with them.

I am pro Fusion research leading to burning of Pb-11 which is a completely different class than the industry is today. However, Guess what? Yep, Even with the US Navy funding one of the concepts. The time to first reactor is still over 5 years.

Ok let me calm down a little here.

Look how about this. The industry cannot afford an incident where people get exposed to high levels of radiation. So it is in their best interest to maintain as much protection over waste as they can. One major spill and the industry is toast.

So as for an answer to the waste issues well other than burning of waste with an electron beam than there are no answers yet.

I guess what I am saying is that. If energy is going to cost insane amounts in the future and the climate is likely to suffer.. Might it be higher priority to discuss ways to fix THAT problem before we tackle the problem with dealing with waste that has to sit for many hundreds of thousands of years?

I guess I have a greater problem with the usual suspects on DU constantly posting news report topics and crap on the Nuke industry. Yes both pro and anti at this rate.

[kristopher]

59. Zack, I lke you.

You are obviously a well intentioned person who is looking for solutions.

IMO though, you need to incorporate the human element better and step back from your frustration.

Simply put, there are only so many of our resources that we can devote to any one problem. Lots of people try to lay claim to having the problems that need to be dealt with most urgently, national defense, war, terrorism, economic growth etc. Each and every one of these groups can demonstrate catastrophic consequences for failing to address their problems.

With all these competing demands, we must accept that there are limits to the resources we are going to get for our concerns. With this next election, we are going to see more resources assigned but even then, there are not going to be enough resources to satisfy everyone that has a solution. I know that a lot of red herrings and political boondoggles are going to eat into the available funding.

What it boils down to is that the more benign alternatives of wind, solar and biofuels are going to be pushed first. All of them have problems, but those problems are mostly of a nature that respond well to increased economic incentives for development - increasing the efficiency of ethanol production, exploiting spilled wind and solar energy, increasing the efficiency of solar and decreasing the costs. All of these problems are responsive to economic policy approaches designed to capture the external costs of fossil fuel.

Nuclear isn't. Nuclear energy's problems are going to be solved only by direct funding of basic research - the kind of approach that yields great bounty, but usually takes a lot of time. The nature of the problems we face is generally understood to be such that we have a few decades to ramp up, but we need to start now.

If that basic research pays off, or if the risk assessment of the problems we face alters, then we will ramp up nuclear sooner.

One issue that I've brought up, but is never addressed is that if we ramp up now, plutonium, not uranium, is going to be the choice of fuel that is selected by economic dynamics. That brings with it an entire host of risks that are never discussed here.

In the end, we are going to need all of these technologies to move into a tomorrow that is they type of world we dream of. All we are really talking about is sequencing, timing and limiting adverse consequences of the decisions we are making today..

[kristopher]

54. What's the basis for these preposterous assertions???

You are doing nothing but engaging in absurd fear mongering.

Which begs the question - WHY?

[losthills]

19. There is no solution to nuclear waste storage.

It keeps accumulating in the communities where it's produced, and no one has a clue what to do with it. Those who would have us produce even more of it float all kinds of pie-in-the-sky fantasies about it, but the reality remains the same: there is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste or to contain it for the lifetime of it's toxicity.

As I said the other day, there is no way that we can even predict what kind of civilization, if any will be in place 500 years from now, or if there will be any responsible party capable of caring for this stuff. In my opinion, continuing to produce tons upon tons of radioactive waste with no plan for it's disposition is a crime against humanity.

[madokie]

21. The voice of reason is heard, thanks

If one wants to get 'pixels all in a wad' around here all one has to do is ask what to do with the very dangerous nuclear waste and all kinds of excuses and obfuscations start coming out of the monitor.
peace

[Dogmudgeon]

25. Or, you could actually research it for yourself

This is a well-studied field. There is more than enough objective, peer-reviewed, audited information about nuclear waste (and all nuclear issues, in fact) to give you a strong background in it without having to get into the complexities of the math or physics. It is well within the grasp of an adult with a high-school education who is willing and able to do a little (about 5-10 hours) reading.

You don't have to take it from me -- you can see for yourself.

Or, you could listen to wild stories that uninformed people make up, like children telling each other scary stories around the campfire.

Nuclear technology has risks and benefits. The risks are significant but controllable, and the benefits can be great. Both are well-known, and neither are the stuff of science fiction.

No pixels in a wad, no excuses and obfuscations -- except from anti-nuclearists who preach peace and love, and practice hostility and ignorance.

--p!

[madokie]

27. why is there still no answer

In other words I'm not smart enough to understand. I knew that was coming, I also had a pretty good idea that my question would not, repeat would, not be answered, as it stands today there is no answer I guess. All I want is answers not trash talk to me. If I was the one advocating making more of it I would definitely become better informed, I'm not. talk to me tell me what we are going to do with the waste.

[Ordr]

28. "why is there still no answer"

I have said that there is no definitive answer yet. Risk is always involved with technology and risk is the consequence of our desire to advance.

[madokie]

30. that is the reason we don't like the idea of using it

when it is all figured out then we can talk about it but not until. Wishing for pie's in the sky solutions is not an answer and so far thats all I'm hearing. wish in one hand, uh, you know the rest so I won't repeat it.

Anyways I about forgot to Welcome you to DU. Welcome to DU Ordr, I can see you'll fit right in
peace

[phantom power]

31. I think that you haven't said what you really mean...

What you really mean is that you want somebody to tell you that they have a way to reduce the risk of nuclear power to zero. Is that what you really mean?

[madokie]

35. not necessarily zero but something better than what I've heard so far

I realize all things has/have risk. hell I might even fall off the durn ladder today and break my fool neck while putting crown molding up in our kitchen and dining room and I'm going to take that chance because I feel the end product will be worth it. In my decision in doing so I'm only putting myself at risk not millions of people, big dif.

Oh, what I really mean is what I asked. What do we do with the waste that will make it safe, or hell kind of safe would be better than whats happening now.
peace

[Ordr]

33. Wish.

that is the reason we don't like the idea of using it
I respect that immensely.

when it is all figured out then we can talk about it but not until
I think that is where we part ways simply because that is how problems either get solved or are agreed upon to be insurmountable.

Wishing for pie's in the sky solutions is not an answer and so far thats all I'm hearing.
My wish is that our research will lead us to a solution. Perhaps I'm clinging to naive idealism regarding this particular subject but I doubt it. (I'm the least idealistic person you'll ever meet, lol. :) )

Anyways I about forgot to Welcome you to DU. Welcome to DU Ordr, I can see you'll fit right in
peace
Thank you very much. I always appreciate a good debate and I look forward to future occasions to do so.

[madokie]

36. I agree with all that,

On the second one there I didn't mean to be closed door even though it sounded like it, my bad. Its just time to put up or you know get on with something else, we all know there has been lots of time for this question to have had a solution brought forth to it.

I say lets put our efforts and money into developing something new rather than keep pounding this dead horse, its not coming back alive and the reason is there is no answer, or it hasn't been found yet, to the most pressing question concerning Nuclear energy production. All discoveries has not been discovered as of yet. I have hope we will and I will continue to give a pat on the back to those who are working on looking. Who knows it may be you or I who makes the discovery.

[Dogmudgeon]

40. Simple answers in a complex world?

That's part of the dilemma right there. Even if nuclear energy didn't exist, our energy, resource, and environmental problems would be every bit as daunting.

Here's my "simplified" answer about spent reactor fuel: store it in reinforced casks and/or in underground storage sites but (NOT Yucca Mountain!), keep meticulous track of it, and re-use it when the technology to harvest the remaining energy becomes profitable. Because the technology already does exist; Canadian CANDU reactors can already use very weakly-enriched nuclear fuel and draw the level down. And keep in mind, by "profitable," I mean in the sense of physics, not finance. If it takes more energy than we can get back, we should switch to figuring ways to cheaply make it inert.

The figures being cited here, of 50,000 year storage requirements for spent fuel, are just not true. And the longer the half-life, the less radiation is emitted at any given time. The storage requirements for spent fuel are as brief as 300 years, though I would count on 2000 years as being a better choice. The stuff does, in fact, decay. And if we keep it underground and difficult-to-reach without technological means (elevators, for instance), if our civilization tanks, the risks will be minimized. But then again, if we muddle through, today's trash will be tomorrow's treasure.

Consider a couple of things:

1. The Earth itself contains radioactive material (mostly Uranium and Thorium) at an average concentration of about 10-15 parts per million (PPM);

2. Mineral phosphates mined from phosphorus flats is usually about five times as radioactive as that, yet it's one of the largest sources of phosphorous fertilizer in the world, with thousands of tons being used to grow food each year;

3. Seawater comes in at 13 PPM, excluding the radioactive iodine in seawater;

4. Coal and oil burning release an average of 12-20 PPM of Uranium and Thorium. That's about 10-20 tons per year per coal plant, and it all goes into the atmosphere. And the ever-more-popular "brown coal" can contain 50 PPM or more, depending on the source. Recently, a truckload of coal ash set off radiation meters in NYC;

5. There are worse toxins than Uranium or Plutonium, like Cadmium and Mercury and Arsenic. Manufacturing cadmium-tellurium photovoltaic cells in sufficient quantities to provide primary "base-load" energy will require ramping up cadmium use over 1000-fold. Almost all toxic chemical waste goes back into the ecosystem quickly, and the amounts are already huge. And these toxic metals never decay.

So put it into perspective. First, there is a natural background level of radioactivity, and it's not trivial. And we are quickly poisoning our species and our planet; nuclear reactor waste is a much smaller risk than most toxic metals. And we haven't even looked at things like carbon dioxide or acid rain. None of these materials are trivial, but ONLY nuclear reactor waste is required to be 100% safe. I'd be far happier if ALL toxic wastes were made even 90% safe, whether or not nuclear material was counted.

At this point, anti-nuclearists think they have a "gotcha" -- that I am somehow excusing nuclear risks based on comparison with other classes of risks. But what I'm doing is comparing similar practices and finding that we will fail in our attempt to reduce all toxic waste if we concentrate on a very small but very "exciting" part of it. The only way to justify such a single-minded approach would be to believe that nuclear waste has some special property that makes it demonic in some way. But that's superstition -- there are no radiation demons. Meanwhile, toxic loading continues, often unregulated, from many sources. Only nuclear toxins are tightly controlled.

We need an international, across-the-board, "least-regret" approach to toxic waste policy.

Nuclear arms proliferation is a valid issue, but any nation or powerful group with the ability to enrich yellowcake to the concentrations required to make a bomb would have no trouble buying or mining uranium as ore, and in a few years, extracting it from seawater. Stopping proliferation will require a separate effort and it's not related to internationally-monitored civil nuclear power generation.

I advocate aggressive R&D in all phases of nuclear energy technology. We can't just pile uranium together and hope it gets warm -- it's an intense and demanding technology. But the rewards are great. That is the "math" we have to look at.

And don't sell yourself short. If you can use a computer, you can understand the basics of most nuclear issues. The math may be a royal bitch, but it's optional for understanding the concepts, and the concepts are pretty simple, like in so much of physics. If you look around and keep a healthy skepticism about EVERYTHING you read, you won't go wrong.

I hope I have presented some of the points in an understandable, hostility-free way. Once again, let me say, do not depend on me or anyone else to convince you, and even if you do form a strong opinion, be willing to examine even that. Good luck!

--p!

[Ordr]

41. Brilliant.

That was an excellent post filled with the information I wish I knew off hand to use during a debate. Thank you for taking the time to post it. :)

[Finishline42]

52. Waste not the only issue with Nuclear power

Besides waste, shoddy workmanship in the construction of the plants. Marble Hill in Indiana was stopped as a result and converted a conventional electric power plant. 60 Minutes did a story on the falsified certifications of piping engineers, one of the most critical jobs, in the Michigan plants.

There was a story posted on DU about the problems in Northern Ohio and acid damage to the lid of the containment structure. Forced the NRC to tighten inspections requirements. As a result the nuclear industry has proved to be their own worst enemy.

The drought conditions in the SE forced the temporary shutdown of a nuclear plant in Alabama last summer, and endanger others if it continues.

But back to the waste issue, Europe is facing bigger problems on waste than we are. Unlike the US which hasn't built a new plant in decades, Europe continued to build with France now almost totally powered by Nuclear. Europe has 193 to the US 104. They have not agreed on a solution either.

[kristopher]

55. You've got it backwards

Here is a perfect sample of what predominates on this forum:

"We don't have any fucking time anymore to be talking about this crap! We got maybe 5 years before massive amounts of people will no longer be able to power their homes or cars. Maybe 5 years if we are luckly that the climate change can be reversed."

That is pure reactionary bullshit with absolutely no basis in fact. We hear it in various guises over and over and over on this forum as a justification for ignoring the risks associated with nuclear energy at the same time trashing the more benign and viable technologies of solar and wind. This type of argument exists nowhere else in the science, nowhere else in forums for informed debate. It is straight out of the playbook of large industry using green issues to mask their ambitions.

Her question is absolutely legitimate and goes to the heart of the pronuclear bullshit on this forum.

[Zachstar]

58. No what is bullshit is that anyone is talking about the damn nuke industry.

Usually with an Axe to grind.

As for reactionary bullshit I HONESTLY WISH I am totally wrong! Yet what is there to say that I will be!? We are talking possibly 4.5 to 5 USD/Gal here before 09. You think people can afford to do anything when it is at 7-10 USD?

As for the Climate. There are reasons to believe we may already be at the tipping point. However I CHOOSE to give it another 5 years. 5 years is pure hope and not rooted in any kind of science which if certain reports are true then I mise well not even be posting here and just enjoying the way things are now while I can.

Let me assure you that I have only once concern which is the wellbeing of the country going into 2020 and beyond. And going after the existing only major clean energy producing industry when you dont have enough solar and wind technology to cheaply replace it is not the way to help us move forward.

Fund the cheap solar and wind technologies! Get them online! BUY US MORE TIME!

[kristopher]

69. I don't see the fears of nuclear power as having an ax to grind

I'd love it if we could solve our problems so easily, and so would everyone else I believe.

You may not share their view of the risks, but what I see in their view is a reaction to great uncertainty. I know highly qualified, highly successful electrical engineers specializing in grid management who drool at the prospect of nuclear. But they are absolutely opposed because of the waste and plutonium security issues.

The rising price of fossils is your friend, not a sign of impending doom. Higher energy prices wont result in society collapsing, what will happen is that our decision making wil be altered. We will change the way we design our homes and communities, we will make different transportation choices - both personal and public. We can easily halve our energy consumption without adversely affecting our level of happiness.

As for climate change, there are a lot of variation in predictors, but like ny other public policy decision we have to go with the best information we have. That means the outliers aren't what dictates allocation of resources. So while there are some scenarios that show dramatic change in the near term (and they could be right) there is no basis for panicking over their existence. If we don't use that approach in decision-making, do you have any idea how screwed up we would become trying to deal with every low probability threat that is out there?

"By means of meditation we can teach our minds to be calm and balanced; within this calmness is a richness and a potential, an inner knowledge which can render our lives boundlessly satisfying and meaningful. While the mind may be what traps us in unhealthy patterns of stress and imbalance, it is also the mind which can free us. Through meditation, we can tap the healing qualities of mind." - Tarthang Tulku

[hunter]

42. Nuclear waste is boring, sorta like this thread. It just sits there.

There are any number of places we could put it.

At the moment we put it in big containers on site, like these:



Compared to coal wastes, the problem is almost trivial. We dump millions of tons of very toxic crap that has a half life forever right out into the open air and water, and we are supposed to worry our silly selves to the point of inaction about nuclear waste? That's just mad.

Coal is probably going to kill off people by the billions. We could bury nuclear waste almost anywhere and it wouldn't be anywhere near so deadly.

It's called FUD -- Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. The question itself is bullshit.

[madokie]

45. If its a problem for us now can you imagine what it would be like with hundreds more reactors

figure out what to do with the waste and I'm all for it, sorta, as long as one isn't in located in my backyard that is, yours but not mine.

I'm really susprised the thread made it as far as it did before the you're crazy type trash talk started.

I still haven't got an answer even though there was one post that did have some good info in it. This is not a subject it seems anyway that can be discussed here with out someone throwing insults around ultimately. that in itself is sad

I'll say something more if we had answers to my question then why would this still be a problem that many of us have? I would be one pissed dude if we were using du munitions while I was in 'Nam, Agent Orange was bad enough for me.

nothing personal to anyone here about this, I just don't buy that this is something we leave to chance and thats what I'm being asked to do. so go on about your day and not worry about me is my advice;-)

[hunter]

60. It's astonishing how people will happily get into a car to drive somewhere...

... and then oppose nuclear power because it is too "dangerous."

Human beings are not rational creatures.

:shrug:

[kestrel91316]

44. kestrel notes with some irony the absence of one NNadir from this thread.........

[Zachstar]

48. WTF does NNadir have anything to do with this?

[GliderGuider]

49. Just that he's usually the first to pile onto a "nucular" thread.

And he so much enjoys reaming people with madokie's concerns...

[madokie]

51. And it always makes things better doesn't it

it doesn't change the facts though does it. Why is this such a touchy subject with the pronuke people anyway answer me that at least ok. politely if possible ;-)

[diane in sf]

53. He tries to ream them because he has no good answer to their concerns,

and all the written abuse and fancy terminology in the world can't change the facts.

[GliderGuider]

56. Nor they for his.

I don't use his vitriol, but I share his despair at the innumeracy and inchoate fear that drives most of the anti-nuclear sentiment I see around me.

[losthills]

61. Fear is a survival mechanism.

All healthy species have it. For instance, most young mammals will instictively recoil from a plastic snake, a baby will not crawl off the edge of a table, horses who have touched a hot wire fence once, won't do so again. Species who don't have a healthy, functioning fear instinct generally don't last long.

Fear of nuclear radiation is healthy and rational. Those of us who realize that are trying to protect the the rest of you from yourselves....

[hunter]

62. Fear is also a tool of political manipulation.

If I can scare the people with a rubber snake I can get what I want.

[losthills]

63. Well, what do you think environmentalists want, then?

What's in it for anyone to block nuclear power?

What's the motivation for anyone to try and "trick" you?

It seems to me that the money and the tricks are all on your side, my friend....

[GliderGuider]

66. Rational fear is a survival mechanism. That's why I used the qualifier "inchoate"

I consider the fear some people have of nuclear power to be formless, generalized, irrational and excessive.

As an example, we face enormous risks driving or riding in automobiles each day. According to the WHO, over a million people a year die in motor vehicle accidents. Why are we not petrified of cars? It's because we understand them, are familiar with them, are cautious around them and accept that their benefit is worth that awful cost. Nuclear power also provides a benefit, but instead of exacting a cost of millions of deaths per year, it merely poses a risk. However, few people truly understand it or even come in contact with it on a daily basis. That's why I judge the fears of nuclear power to be largely irrational. Caution I can understand, fear I can't.

[losthills]

68. This is an example of what happens to true believers....

The dangers of driving automobiles and of producing nuclear waste are nowhere near being on a par, my friend. This comparison is ridiculous in the extreme. I don't think you're applying your intellect to this issue anymore.....

What happened to your "agnosticism?"

[GliderGuider]

70. I'm definitely not your "friend"

In fact I think you're somewhat unhinged. Old buddy, old pal.

[losthills]

71. Thanks...

[GliderGuider]

72. What the heck do you expect?

You've made no effort whatsoever to discuss (or even consider) any of the points I raise, you disrespect and dismiss everyone who refuses to toe your "nuclear power is the worst thing in the world" party line fully and completely. You are the archetype of the unconstructive poster. And you get all sensitive when I take a gentle swipe at you? Be a mensch, participate in the give-and-take, give other peoples' opinions some good-faith consideration, and that won't happen.

[losthills]

73. Don't worry about it, Glider...

I don't have any animosity toward anyone in this forum.

I state my opinions, and I usually do it with a sense of humor, and I admit my humor is a little dry... If I disagree with you on nuclear power, it doesn't mean that I don't respect your opinions or listen to them. Nuclear power seems to be the main obsession in this group, and rightfully so because it's a life or death issue. But this is just a discussion group. No policies are going to be changed here. Nothing that's said in this group is worth getting angry about. I've weathered some pretty harsh attacks in this group, and I can dish it out, too. I really like some of the people in this group that I disagree with (but don't tell them that...)

I think that the continued use of nuclear power and nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity, and will eventually be our undoing. Fossil fuels are a separate issue, and one that we can agree on. Renewables, in my opinion are the way to get out of this mess, and it looks to me like they are leading the way right now with little assistance from any government. These are just opinions, and not worth getting angry about.

I can't buy you a beer, but have one on me anyway (if you want to....)

No hard feelings, here.

[GliderGuider]

74. Cool. I can get a bit intense sometimes too.

I have a glass of fine whisky at my elbow. I just raised it for you. That was a very gentlemanly post.

Slainte!

[Nihil]

81. He tries to ream them because most are not interesting in listening.

He goes too far (in my opinion) on most occasions but the frustration
that builds up with the wilfully ignorant (e.g., the thick-as-pigshit
OP writer here who only wants someone to say "Ooh there is no answer!").

When you read such a succession of ignorant posts, it isn't hard to
see why he jumps to the conclusion that *anyone* opposing nuclear power
is equally stupid (they aren't) or equally unwilling to debate reasonably
(they aren't).

:shrug:

[madokie]

82. and you do have an answer, besides of course personal attacks

why of why does this question of nuclear waste make some so testy I wonder. maybe that there is no answer is why

[hunter]

64. Carrie Barefoot Dickerson.

My own adventures in anti-nuclear activism started about the same time, when I was in high school.

I just posted something in my journal for newcomers to E/E:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hunter/34

Maybe it goes some way to explain my attitudes.

:sigh:

[losthills]

67. Good article.

Good writing.

Gracias...

[NNadir]

65. Well, we're going to suck all of the dangerous fossil fuel waste out of your flesh, using

a tweezer, and pull it all out of the air using a big balloon, and out of the water with giant filters and we're going to dump it in your back yard to see if you notice it.

Now, unlike you, I notice that you're very selective in your attention.

As for nuclear fuel, I know all about what to do with it, but, you're nowhere near smart enough to understand what I will say.

[madokie]

75. I wondered if I was going to get you to show on this thread, knowing full well at some point I would

you remind me of my senator who can't and will not answer a question no matter how big nor small, if it will show that there might be a smidgen of untruthfulness to what he has been saying. Tell me and others what do you propose to do with the waste, what we have already and what will be generated in the future. Surely you, with all those typing skills you possess have it in there some simple words like most people can understand as to what to do with the waste. All I hear is you pro nuker folks especially you and a couple others on this board getting all hot under the collar when that one question is asked, always it seems like and its always been the same thing too. My question was a simple one that requires a simple answer not going on some bull about me not being smart enough to understand what you are saying so why bother. Well I was hearing that very same answer way back in the late '60s and early '70s. I couldn't get an answer then, same as now, either. So at some point I just gave up and accepted that maybe you all would show us by actually having a plan and were actually going to do something with the waste. Well it just wasn't to be that you all just needed more space or time at all, it turns out you had no clue then and it appears you have no clue today as to what to do with the waste, otherwise it would be being done today, would it not? Well so much for trusting you pro nuke folks, that mistake won't be happening by me again.

So at some point I trusted you guys would show us by doing and then I got on with my life and never gave it much thought but from time to time I would read about an incident here or another over there, then three mile island started glowing, then Chernobyl hit us like a ton of bricks and viola here I am back today asking the same damn question I was asking years ago, What are we going to do with the waste of nuclear power generation and you know what, I still haven't heard an answer. Oh I hear bullshit, you do understand that simple word don't you, anyways, I had to just turn your personal shit off once before and prolly will have to again as you have no answers for me, all you have is to attack me personally. Well grow up big guy and tell me what the fuck you propose to do with the waste, otherwise, well, you should know what I'm thinking...

I would love to be able to embrace the nuclear energy idea but I have one little thing that still, even after all these years, sticks in my crawl. The only thing different today is, then it was face to face asking and today it is keyboard to keyboard and yes I've had to defend myself and others from the very likes of what I find here yesterday and today. Give me a fair shake here and talk to me about what we are going to do with the waste, something viable and not some half cockeyed theory that someone like yourself who appears to have no time for us 'too damn dumb to learn people,' would want us to believe.

Its kind of like, What do we do with the waste hits a nerve with you guys, hell, explain that to me even if you can't explain what to do with the waste, oh never mind. I'm fully convinced that there is no answer to the question about he nuclear waste and what to do with it, as if there was I and there are others wouldn't be here today asking it, again, wouldn't you think?

Now get off your high horse and prove me wrong or at least make an attempt too or you know just keep your keyboard silent, that works for me too as bullshit doesn't stick very well on me to begin with.

Have a great day, enjoy it as I am mine.
Myself, I'm just whistling along and skipping happily down life's path of many crooks and turns where no one or anything, read 'you,' is larger than my will. 'bout yourself...
:puke:

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-33296/EFFECTS.HTM#Today

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2006/chernobyl/

[NNadir]

76. That's a long winded bunch of crap indicating that the only form of energy waste you care about

is so called "nuclear waste."

Simply because you're uneducated, I owe you nothing.

Welcome to the world you created.

[madokie]

80. I suppose there is someone in this world who truly loves you

I couldn't imagine it but who knows. May I ask you for a favor NNadir. When I make a post would you be kind enough to stay out of it completely, as you nor I have any respect for the other.
Peace and have a good day ;-)

[Tikki]

77. My obligatory post...

Step up, be a man...raise your hand proudly if you want a sh** hole
like Hanford in your backyard.


Thank you...

Tikki

[Dogmudgeon]

78. Isn't Hanford a military nuke waste site?

It's not like comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing apples to a toxic waste site.

Established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, it was home to the B-Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world.<1> Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, and in Fat Man, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.

...

The weapons production reactors were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War, but the manufacturing process left behind 53 million U.S. gallons (204,000 m³) of high-level radioactive waste that remains at the site.<5> This represents two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume. (emphasis --p!)<6> Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States<7><8> and is the focus of the world’s largest environmental cleanup.<2> It is also a center for scientific research and development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site">Hanford Site at Wikipedia (Full footnotes included.)

http://www.hanford.gov/">Hanford site home page (DoE)

Background
Located just north of the city of Richland, in the southeastern part of Washington State, the 586-square-mile Hanford Site is managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Hanford was established in secrecy during World War II to produce plutonium for an atomic bomb. Peak nuclear materials production was reached in the 1960s, when eight reactors were in operation. Altogether, Hanford supplied plutonium for the United States nuclear weapons defense for more than four decades. All weapons material production was halted in the late 1980s, and Hanford is now engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup project.

With a workforce of approximately 11,000 and an annual budget of nearly $1.4 billion dollars, Hanford is vigorously pursuing three cleanup outcomes: restoring the Columbia River Corridor, transitioning the central part of the Hanford Site for waste treatment and long-term storage, and putting DOE's assets to work solving regional and global environmental problems.

(More at http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=1117&parent=238">DoE Richland Operations Office)

Hanford is a "dirty" site, but it's not at all like a reactor site in the civil nuclear power industry. This was a HUGE R&D center for the Manhattan Project. Although the cleanup is going well, we are learning about the scope and difficulty of dealing poorly-managed radiation wastes -- and just how much damage has been done. Neither industry nor the anti-nuclear movement will have any reason for gloating or schadenfreude.

It's so easy to look up the real information that relying on rumors and political/industry talking points is no longer necessary. Partisans of any stripe are seldom pleased by reality, but that's their problem.

--p!

[conning]

79. This great fear of nuclear waste

could be put to good use. Store it in places that need to be protected from human overuse (quite a few places). Create exclusion zones of about a 35 mile radius around the storage sites. Might work well for the Amazon.