As nuclear waste sits idle, federal payouts to Exelon mount

[Fledermaus]

Government has paid out tens of millions of dollars after not living up to promise to store spent fuel

Nuclear plant operators — led by Chicago-based Exelon Corp. — have been successfully suing the federal government to recoup costs associated with removing and babysitting spent fuel the government promised would be taken off their hands 13 years ago.

So far, the government has paid $776 million in claims arising from 74 breach of contract suits, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The government's liability is expected to grow to about $11 billion by 2020, according to a report from the University of Illinois. Legal fees so far have added a third more to settlement costs.

Meanwhile, a fund established in 1982 specifically to pay the costs of removing spent fuel from cooling pools at nuclear plants across the country and storing them at Yucca Mountain in Nevada remains untouched. The $25 billion fund, whose contributions come from utility ratepayers who receive power from nuclear plants, continues to grow.

"You're paying twice if you have power from a nuclear generator," said Rob Thormeyer, director of communications for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which has sued the government to stop the Yucca Mountain-related fees. "Because not only are you paying into this fund, but as a taxpayer, with these lawsuits, you're paying again."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0331-nuclear-fees-20110330,0,7856218.story

[Buzz Clik]

1. Would you sign a petition blocking the rail transport of high level nuclear waste across your state?

Would you actively oppose the construction of a rad waste disposal facility in your state?

[Fledermaus]

2. When I lived in Nevada I did. They want to ship all that stuff through Boulder City

and Las Vegas.

[phantom power]

3. Every year we don't make a decision, the decision defaults to "it sits in holding tanks."

Which for the most part is OK. Unless Murphy hits the trifecta like just happened at Fukushima.

[abqmufc]

5. And every nuclear power plant MUST store the waste on site for 25 years till it is safe to ship.

Thus every state that has a nuclear power plant will always have nuclear waste on site b/c it is not safe to transport for a long time (20 -25 years).

[wtmusic]

6. Can I see a source for your 20-25 year figure?

Thanks.

[abqmufc]

24. Sure, here you are .....

"Fissile Materials in a Glass, Darkly-Techncial and Policy Aspects of the Disposition of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium" Arjun Makhijani, PHD and Annie Makhijani

"The Nuclear Waste Primer - A Handbook for Citizens, Revisited Edition", League of Women Voters

"Plutonium - Deadly Gold of the Nuclear Era" by a special commission of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

"Wetes pe m'e wes (I am of this land) - Wildlife of the Hanford Site" developed by the Nez Perce Tribes' Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Deparment

"If you Poison Us - Uranium and Native Americans" P. Eichstaedt

"DRAFT Environmental Assessment - Lead Test Assembly Irradiation and Analysis Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant, Tennessee and Hanford Site, Richland, Washington" US Department of Energy Richland Operations Office and TVA June 1997.


Let me know if you need more. I can list 100 more books and at least 1000 actual government studies I have on file. All this has been collected via a MA thesis, PhD work, and 20 years of working on nuclear policy and its impacts on Native Americans.

[wtmusic]

28. Nope.

That's not a "source", that's a list.

You can do it like scientists do it, or don't bother: provide a specific quote and a link.

Don't have time to do your work for you.

[abqmufc]

30. Read a fucking book yourself...mate.

I've done the work, a thesis, dissertation, and 20 years experience working on the policy side of nuclear issues. I am not your teacher. Open your brain and read yourself. We all have not enough time, but some of us find time to learn new things despite the excuse you through out.

[wtmusic]

32. Don't get testy.

For me to throw a list of books at you would be arrogant, wouldn't it? You don't know me, and it could be a colossal waste of time.

I don't know you either. Link, please.

[abqmufc]

34. no for you to give me a list of books allows ME to find the answer MYSELF

If I spoon fed you the answer what do you learn? I don't spoon feed any student I've ever taught, I give them the place the answer lies.

Sure I can give the direct page and quote...but then are you going to believe it? Probably not, most humans (especially on this site) fail to believe it until they see it. To me I'd much rather someone give me a list of sources so that I can find out the answer myself. BTW the sources I listed are easily found via a web search. That web search will give you a synopsis of the book to see if it is truthful or not, it would take a total of 10 minutes to verify the sources. Maybe another 2 hours to skim them to see if my statements are true.

Yeah I know I must a fucking whack job to actually want to do the work them self.

You see me as arrogant I see you as lazy....oih well life will go on.

[wtmusic]

36. If you were a teacher, you'd understand how research works.

When you make a claim, it's you're responsibility to back it up. Specifically.

I don't think you're a whackjob, I think you can't back up your claim and are trying to change the subject.

"Sure I can give the direct page and quote..." OK, humor me then, and we're done with it. :shrug:

[abqmufc]

39. Thanks yeah I get it, you also ignore my claim.

Plutonium -Deadly Gold
Chapter 3 - Radioactive Wastes from Plutonium Production page 61 -63 are the specific pages, this is from page 62- "highly enriched levels of plutonium 239 are still (after 20 years) unsafe to transport to any long term storage facility like Yucca Mtn." This referencing waste found at Hanford.
Chapter 6 Long-term Management of High-Level Wastes. page 112 The Nature of the Hazard. "In some instances highly enriched radionuclide waste (such as weapons grade uranium, plutonium and in some cases, MOX fuel for power plants) is not safe for long distance transport nor repository storage for 20 to 25 years."

I won't take the time to cite each book I've listed.

As a TA in college (PhD and MA program) I did challenge students to look up the answer, I never gave it to them. Yes I did expect them to cite their research....but we are not in an academic setting here in D-undergournd. From what I've seen on D-undergrond nobody believes anyone else's data or studies which are provided anyway. Everyone just wants to argue their own point/ideology (which I then wonder why do I keep my account here as i see it as a waste of time). Maybe you are the one exception to what I've concluded after nearly 4 years of being on this site. If so I apologize, but I suspect you'll come back and tell me those citations are wrong or the methodology is wrong. In reality we won' t know (who is right or wrong) till it is too late and with nuclear too late means complete ecological destruction of ecosystems. And that is why we have the nuclear debate.

For me I'm focused solely on wind, solar and wave and excited at the findings in this 2007 report by IEER which states we can be coal and nuclear free toady in the US for all energy needs. Solar, wind, and wave can today provide all the power we need.
That report is here: http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf

You may note the author of this report is also an author of one of the books I listed.

[Throckmorton]

19. Actually it is 7 years N/T.

[abqmufc]

25. see references (above post) which beg to differ.

Thanks, let me know if you'd like more references, here is the direct link to the list I've provided of sources that argue 20-25 years.

thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=284826&mesg_id=285029

[Throckmorton]

27. We routinely move fuel that is 7 years old

Into dry cask storage.

[wtmusic]

29. Oh shit, a real expert *listen for pin drop*

When I toured San Onofre last year, they told me 7 years too.

[abqmufc]

31. That is not driving it 1000s of miles now is it?

That is taking from an on site storage pond to an onsite cask. Driving highly enriched nuclear waste across country to Yucca requires more time for stabilization. If you like the proof read the books I've listed. If you don't want to, that is fine to.

[wtmusic]

33. All of my books say all of your books are wrong.

Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity Scott W. Heaberlin
WHY vs WHY Nuclear Power Barry Brook
The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power: Economic, Medical, and Political Considerations Robert C. Morris

Now neither of us has learned a damn thing.

[abqmufc]

35. and hence why we have the debate.

Life goes on......people also say coal is clean too. I heard that notion for the past 4 years on the Hill and by Senior EPA officials, and both sides have the "science" to prove their case on clean coal.

I won't argue, it is a heated debate that many "experts" don't agree on. Those "experts" in the nuclear field making money off of nuclear science, energy, and weapons are surely going to support the science that says its safe. Those like myself who see the impacts on Native Americans and the American Southwest (to name one spot) due to the nuclear era are going to side with the science and info that says it is unsafe. We will always debate this b/c our science and political decision making are driven by economics, and there is a lot of money at risk here. It is not like DOD and DOE are going to admit Hanford, LANL, Sandia, Labs, Yucca are all flawed, that is billions of dollars and thousands of jobs at risk.

What also matters is what waste we are talking about. For me, I include all nuclear waste when I talk about transport and long-term storage. Yucca isn't just for nuclear power plants and their waste, it is for all high-level nuclear waste, including Plutonium 239 found at Hanford, which I know for a fact takes a lot longer than common uranium rods used in most power plants to become safe for transport.

[Statistical]

45. Plutonium has a huge half life. Your claim is utter junk and doesn't even pass common sense.

The difference between 7 years and 25 years is a rounding error in Pu-239 decay.

P-239 has a half life of 24,200 years.

So after 7 years (0.5^(7/24000) 0.002% of Pu-239 will have decayed to a stable isotope. 99.998% will remained. The activity and thermal output would have declined by 0.002%.

After 25 years (0.5^25/24000) 0.007% of Pu-239 will have decayed (an additional 0.005%). 99.993% will still remain. By waiting 18 more years activity will be reduced a staggering 0.005%.

Also Pu-239 is rather easy to transport. It is an alpha emitter with a long half life and a heavy isotope which makes containment easy compared to say volatile, short half life gamma emitters. You could hold a lump of Pu-239 in your hands with no ill effect. It wouldn't even be hot to the touch (slightly warmer than surrounding air temp).

[PamW]

47. Learn some high school science

What also matters is what waste we are talking about. For me, I include all nuclear waste when I talk about transport and long-term storage. Yucca isn't just for nuclear power plants and their waste, it is for all high-level nuclear waste, including Plutonium 239 found at Hanford, which I know for a fact takes a lot longer than common uranium rods used in most power plants to become safe for transport.
====================================

Plutonium-239 is safe for transport when we isolate it from spent fuel.

I know the 24,000 year half-life sounds ominous, but that just means that Pu-239
decays SLOWLY. Therefore, it doesn't produce much heat, and doesn't need to be
actively cooled.

Think about it!! There's Pu-239 as a constituent of our nuclear weapons sitting
in subs. Do you think that each warhead has a little cooling system? NOPE!!
You can hold Pu-239 in your hand and it will feel just mildly warm.

That in fact is what Joseph Stalin did with the core of the "Joe 1" bomb - the
Soviet Union's first nuclear weapon, a copy of the USA's Trinity device.

The time needed for fuel to cool down in spent fuel pools is 7 years not 25 years.
The references that say otherwise are all CRAP - they are the propaganda of the
anti-nuke groups that want to exaggerate the problem.

Gee - I really wish more people would take physics in high school so they would
be "immunized" against all the lies and falsehoods that they
anti-nuke movement feeds to the gullible.

PamW

[Statistical]

44. No it doesn't. The rate of activity decay slows as time progresses.

The difference in activity output (both radiation and thermal) between 7 years and 25 years is negligible. Hell the difference between 7 years and 100 years is negligble.

The DOD routinely ships spent warship reactor fuel across the country and there sure as hell don't wait 25 years. After ~5 years fuel can be dry casked. Sometimes companies wait longer but activity won't decrease by any significant amount between 7 years and 25 years.

[Buzz Clik]

8. And, so it goes. All that waste sits, and the feds are paying out all that money.

And we know who to thank.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PamW]

48. Thank the anti-nukes.

And we know who to thank.
---------------------------

Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 which stated that the
Yucca mountain repository would be the disposition of spent fuel.

The nuclear industry is taxed and pays into the "Nuclear Waste Fund" So far,
the Government has collected $35 Billion - $10 Billion was spent on Yucca,
and $25 billion is the current balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund.

As per the 1987 Act, Yucca was supposed to be ready in 1998. It wasn't due
to all the obstruction.

The nuclear industry won a breach of contract suit in Court several years ago,
and because the Government breached the contract - the nuclear industry can
collect the money it has to spend on fuel disposal that it wouldn't have to
if the Government had kept its part of the bargain.

PamW

[abqmufc]

4. Flagstaff, AZ would see 250 shipments per week and the tracks run down mainstreet.

That is why. My home now, Albuquerque, NM will see as many shipments via train and more than 250 via I-40. Risk assessment models done by the US government and League of Conservation Voters show one accident per 500 shipments. I'd rather not risk a nuclear waste accident in my town per every month b/c Illinois sees the need to have nuclear power plants. Any state that wants nuclear power should have to address the waste within its own state.

[wtmusic]

7. My risk assessment models indicate that figure is ridiculous.

Do 1/500 tanker trucks crash? What about trains?

But I'm sure you have links to back your claim up.

[Buzz Clik]

10. That would be 1/500 tanker trucks crashing every day. Each truck would crash twice in three years.

That's very, very high.

[Fledermaus]

17. Your risk assessment models?

Use nuclear power all of the time, keep building new plants...and someone will always win the jackpot. Its just like the odds of winning a jackpot at a casino. The odds are not in any individuals favor but if enough people keep playing long enough someone will win.

What do you know?

Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island.....apparently the nuclear jackpot pays out about every 25 years.

[wtmusic]

18. If you live long enough, you'll get hit in the head by a meteorite.

Are you wearing your helmet today? That's only slightly less absurd than irrational assessment of the dangers of nuclear power.

If you spent less time poring over breathless palpitations from Arnie Gunderson and Robert Alvarez you might realize that carcinogens from coal combustion you're breathing every day are far more hazardous to your health than airborne radionuclides from Fukushima.

That's a more realistic picture, but you have to want one first.

[abqmufc]

20. I don't doubt your disbelief....

The numbers came from the League of Women Voters who have dedicated a lot of time (decades) on the impacts of nuclear transport. I became familiar with their work in '97 while living in Flagstaff and interning with the Nez Perce Tribe working on Hanford nuclear facility issues pertinent to the Tribe (including transporting of waste through Tribal lands. I completed my MA work on the impacts of the nuclear era on the Nez Perce Tribe and Navajo Nation. Tribal lands are the #1 corridor for shipping waste to Yucca or to WIPP as "its the least populated area" (translation, fuck 'em they are just indians). Flagstaff happens to be right smack dab in the middle of that transport corridor for Yucca and WIPP.

Flagstaff does have one train per every 10 to 15 minutes a day now. We have about one accident every two weeks in or around the town (20 mile radius). Most are related to the following factors: train going to fast/poor tracks; wildlife (elk) on tracks, and sadly more often than not teenage kids (mostly Navajo) who end their lives by standing on the tracks. The four corners region has one of the highest suicide rates for teens in the country. Now would that cause some major nuclear accident? Probably not. But does that negate the potential risk? No. I argue under the precautionary principle ideology that all risk must be factored in, not just the risk that is most likely to happen. Having witnessed, first hand, semi-trucks hauling nuclear waste to WIPP being inspected by Acoma Pueblo government officials when they enter Acoma land I know that those trucks are not always up to safety codes. Those trucks have often been leaking radioactive waste down I-40 for who knows how long. Acoma fought the US government to gain the right (after proper certification was acquired) to have the legal right to inspect and escort all radioactive waste transports through their sovereign land (I-40 West of Albuquerque). No state does this....nobody really inspects those shipments except at point A then final destination.

Take all this potential risk, add in the reality of the impacts the people of the Southwest have seen from the nuclear era (mining and milling of uranium, the development and testing of the nuclear bomb, along with the nations leading nuclear laboratories are based in NM, and that NM has the largest nuclear arsenal in the USA (we'd be the 3rd leading nuclear power if we were our own nation), and of course who can forget the fact they want to store the waste in a dormant volcano, that rest on a fault line) and you can see why "some people" might oppose Yucca Mountain as the long-term storage facility. We've dealt with the nation's fucking nuclear era long enough. How about the New England figure it out this time (or anyplace but my backyard, I have enough friends and family dead from the impacts of the nuclear era in AZ, NM, NV, and WA.

[madokie]

40. Something tells me you have no clue what the hell you're talking about

I respect you for getting out there and putting an electric vehicle together but thats as far as it goes because you always make arguments pro nuclear no matter the source or who you're replying too or the links they give. sorry

Can you not at least just read the sources the poster gave you then make a comment or argument?

[wtmusic]

50. I don't ask a lot

I expect that claims of factual information have something to back them up.

When a poster pulls the "book list" crap it's usually with the knowledge that no one will have the time to verify, and the claim is from a practical standpoint worthless. I've read books that have been recommended on DU, but only by people who have a long history of backing up their claims on a regular basis. I trust their recommendation.

"Something tells me you have no clue what the hell you're talking about." Fair enough - can you give me an instance of one time I've cited a statistic or fact and been unable to back it up? :shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

9. I agree about local disposal, although most states aren't particularly suited to house such sites.

My point is that we cannot point fingers at the feds and the nuke operators when we are making every effort possible to block safe disposal.

[wtmusic]

16. The problem with local disposal

is that if people in Vermont do a sloppy job of disposal large areas of Massachusetts can be contaminated.

Best to let the feds handle it.

[abqmufc]

22. And when the dormant volcano known as Yucca Mtn erupts.....

the world goes down. But if that doesn't happen in humanity's time there is the fact Yucca is on a fault line. Finally following your logic (which I agree with), if NV or the private company which will ultimately run Yucca fails then it screws up CA, AZ, NM, NV, UT, and CO. All states listed get drinking water from the Colorado River. Yucca mishaps can directly impact the Colorado River.

I agree with you and there is no answer, thus we must first stop the nuclear era (weapons and power). We must figure out a reasonable solution to the waste that exists today. This must be done with the fullest available support of government, industry, and scientific community working together on the solution. I doubt Yucca is dead, in fact I think Obama tabled it b/c he need to win NV. Yucca is such a heated issue in NV and the 4 corners region that it probably assured his victory in NV, NM, and helped him almost win AZ. Too much time and money has been spent on Yucca to ignore it.

I wonder if Hanford isn't a better solution? Hanford is a nuclear wasteland in WA state. Contain the waste that is already on sight (the most in the country) use Hanford as the NW areas storage facility. Use Yucca for the Southwest storage facility and allow the Midwest and Eastern portion of the country to figure out a regional solution to their waste.

[wtmusic]

23. I believe Hanford was under consideration

in the 1980s but it's more geologically unstable than Yucca.

Yucca's faults have been dormant for 10 million years so in perspective, it's still far better than what we got. It was already approved with "the fullest available support of government, industry, and scientific community working together on the solution" - and politics killed it (the most studied piece of real estate in history).

[abqmufc]

26. Correct, plus political clout of WA over NV at the time

Nobody expected NV to grow like it did a low population density was needed for waste storage. Back when Yucca was considered nobody lived in the southwest but Native Americans and we know how well the feds have treated Tribes. Hanford was frowned upon also b/c of the amount of commercial agriculture that exists around the site (WA apples). I guess they figured we didn't need anymore radiation in our apples than we already get from the waste that has already leeched into the land/water around Hanford.

I wonder want new geologic studies would show for the southwest now versus the 70s and 80s. I know that part of AZ and NM have sunk up to 5 feet due to over drafting groundwater and oil/natural gas extraction. It is almost humorous how the local media and state geologists will confirm NM earthquakes are directly related to the massive extraction of oil and natural gas, yet nobody acts like it's a big deal. NM has a great amount of systemic activity in the North and Southeastern part of the state (all minor so far).

[Statistical]

46. Yucca Mountain or any other deep geological repository wouldn't be run by private company or a state

It would be run by the DOE.

I agree regional solution is likely the best we will get in the interim. Still they would still be run by feds. Also there is no need to jump right to deep geological repository. The Dept of Energy is mandated to construct one or more interim spent fuel storage facilities. A larger (likely regional) above ground facility designed to store, monitor, and safeguard dry casked spent fuel for up to a century.

Once we have an "interim" (as in century long) solution. We can take a decade or two to come up with a permanent storage facility.

[abqmufc]

21. and thus most states should not have nuclear power on that premise alone, the rest.......

should not have nuclear power b/c they bear little of the ultimate risk that is never factored into the development of nuclear power. Mainly I refer to the mining and milling of uranium. New Mexico has 50% of the uranium in the USA, 50% of that uranium is on the Navajo Nation's land. Thus my birth state of IL nuclear power plants don't factor in the health impacts to people in the 4 corners region. Neither does the US government, especially since Nixon signed an Executive Order declaring the American Southwest a "national sacrifice area for the nation's energy needs." Little did anyone realize places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Albuquerque and Santa Fe are the fast growing cities in the USA. That is how/why Obama backed off Yucca, he need to win the states of NV and NM to get the White House (and he almost got AZ too).

See this report from 2007 by IEER, "Carbon free Nuclear free A Roadmap to US Energy Policy." It claims we can be off coal and nuclear power today based on the available green energy sources we have today.

http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf

[madokie]

11. Only a fool wouldn't do either

We don't need to be using nuclear energy for anything period. ever and ever is how long some of that shit last.

[Nihil]

12. You (and many others for that matter) still haven't grasped an important point ...

> ever and ever is how long some of that shit last.

The stuff that lasts for "ever and ever" does so because the rate
at which it decays is incredibly low. This isn't the stuff to worry about.
This is simply the man-made equivalent (from a radioactivity perspective)
of granite and other naturally occuring materials that can contain
low-level radiation sources.

The stuff that only lasts for *decades* is the stuff to worry about
as this is emitting at sufficient intensity as to cause real damage.

*THAT* is the dangerous bit of "nuclear waste", not the low level,
long duration components.


(Edited to remove unnecessary snark)

[madokie]

41. How does post 37 square with what you've just said

PM me the removed snark I need the laugh if it brings one :hi:

[wtmusic]

51. 99% of the radiation from Chernobyl is gone

(blue line)



A miniscule percentage will last millions of years. That's not the stuff we need to worry about.

[Buzz Clik]

13. The waste is there, and it is improperly disposed.

Only a fool would sign a petition blocking its proper disposal.

[bananas]

37. Only a fool would advocate improperly disposing this crap.

The waste has to be contained for a million years - so says the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA.
There is no proper disposal technology.

[bananas]

38. Only a fool would advocate generating more waste.

If you are being objective and rational, then you should be opposed to generating any more waste until a proper disposal site is operating and has proven that it will operate properly for a million years.

[madokie]

42. Exactly and its pretty durn simple too

Get all the ducks in a row first then lets have nuclear energy. Can't be done or they'd have done it by now just to get us to shut up so I say shut the fuckers down and let us as a country figure out how we're going to deal with the loss of 20 or so percent of our electrical power. Just think what its going to cost in lives and money just to try to clean these 104 nuke site us where you don't have to have them cordoned off. It was a stupid mistake to start using nuclear energy for this purpose to begin with and continuing to use it isn't going to change that fact.

[jpak]

14. Thanks to Ronald Regan - We the People - own spent nuclear fuel and must pay back the $$$

plant operators paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund - the pot of dough that is supposed to pay for final disposal of OUR (not their) spent fuel.

These lawsuits are reducing the money in that pot - and there are >$50 billion in pending suits.

Guess who pays the difference?

We the People

yup

[madokie]

43. The gipper fucked us more ways than I could count if I counted all day

And I know people who still think he was the bestest, greatest, mount rushmore quality good. :puke:

[DeSwiss]

49. K&R