What Does the U.S. Do with Nuclear Waste?

[debs]

Plans to store the majority of our nation ’s spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste at a central repository underneath Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert 80 miles from Las Vegas were first hatched in the mid-1980s. But the project has languished primarily due to opposition from Nevadans...

What Does the U.S. Do with Nuclear Waste?: Scientific American

[flashgordon]

This, despite the opposition of not only Nevadans, but also Tribes and environmentalists. Currently the spent rods from nuclear submarines are stored up in Washington and they have no plans of moving these if Yucca goes through.

[hefler]

That really is the key. If the fuel can be turned into something useful then it turns nuclear right on its head.

[prashamk]

Options for Nuclear Waste

As far as nuclear goes, 97% of the spent nuclear fuel can and should be recycled (however the recycling facilities are a constant target of Greenpeace and others, who obstruct their construction as much as possible - which boggles my mind to no end); the remaining 3 percent are fission products, which:

1) if considered as a waste, need to be shielded from environment for only few hundred years, which is trivial

2) are all rare materials with unique properties, in another words all can be reused in industry/medicine - however this needs large scale reprocessing to make it economical

3) an example -Rhutenium - trades for about 10x the gold price.

To summarize - with closed nuclear cycle, which is a necessary to make nuclear power sustainable, there are barely any wastes at all. But this would add to already high cost of installation of nuclear plants

[prashamk]

According to me the major problem with nuclear power is

1) It huge upfront cost. Recently an official of a reputed financial body reported current cost of new nuclear power is around USD 6500 kwh. It huge. America uses about 1 twh energy every year.

2) Security issues. It can't be handed over to every country around the world.

3) 5-15 years time is required to build each reactor.


I don't really think that safety is huge concern anymore.

[prashamk]

Originally Posted by forfismum

4 years to build an existing design. The planning [zoning] laws have been changed in the UK to allow for windfactories to be built almost anywhere.The same rule should apply to all power plants.Especially those that work when required.

Recently a shopping complex was built near my office. I have never seen a complex of say around 4000 Sq. Mts built in mere 5 months from start to finish.

I fully agree with you that with developed technologies, building Nuclear Reactors at much faster rates is possible. But then is anyone doing it? Or has done it?

Originally Posted by forfismum

Most of the cost is due to the belt and braces approach to safety issues. The French have been very successful with their nuclear program as they have taken a pragmatic and non-hysterical approach to nuclear.

Please elaborate.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by prashamk

According to me the major problem with nuclear power is

1) It huge upfront cost. Recently an official of a reputed financial body reported current cost of new nuclear power is around USD 6500 kwh. It huge. America uses about 1 twh energy every year.

2) Security issues. It can't be handed over to every country around the world.

3) 5-15 years time is required to build each reactor.


I don't really think that safety is huge concern anymore.

America uses approximately 1 Terrawatt...that is not the same as 1 Terrawatt-hour/year.

The world, apparently, uses approximately 3!

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by forfismum

Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can't Oui?

Does 911 mean anything to you?!?

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by prashamk

Options for Nuclear Waste

As far as nuclear goes, 97% of the spent nuclear fuel can and should be recycled (however the recycling facilities are a constant target of Greenpeace and others, who obstruct their construction as much as possible - which boggles my mind to no end); the remaining 3 percent are fission products, which:

1) if considered as a waste, need to be shielded from environment for only few hundred years, which is trivial

2) are all rare materials with unique properties, in another words all can be reused in industry/medicine - however this needs large scale reprocessing to make it economical

3) an example -Rhutenium - trades for about 10x the gold price.

To summarize - with closed nuclear cycle, which is a necessary to make nuclear power sustainable, there are barely any wastes at all. But this would add to already high cost of installation of nuclear plants

Does 9-11 mean anything to you?!?

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by forfismum

That's been the case all along but once folks [ maliciously ] linked bombs and power together common sense went out the window.
Thats why we will end up with very expensive power generation.Thousands of non-productive windmills being built to keep the gobshites quiet and the same amount of back up to keep the lights on and society functioning.

Are you maliciously trying to unlink them?!?

You are so addicted to Energy you have no qualms about imperiling the human family it would seem.