Friday, March 06, 2009
Obama Has A New Plan to Stash Nuclear Waste
Energy secretary Steven Chu gives some details about alternatives to the Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste site.
By Kevin Bullis
The Obama administration may be drawing up plans to store nuclear waste at multiple sites around the country, instead of in a central depository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
As I noted last week, Obama's budget cuts money to the controversial Yucca Mountain site. Earlier this week, in a U.S. Senate hearing, energy secretary Steven Chu confirmed that the administration no longer considers the site an option. Concerns have been raised about the safety of the site, which apparently was chosen without much careful study. However, the government has an obligation to do something with the waste. The government has collected tens of billions of dollars to create a permanent facility to store waste, one that by law was supposed to be ready by 1998. Instead, utilities have had to pay to store the waste themselves.
Now more details are coming out about what the Obama administration plans to do.
From Energy Washington Week (subscription required):
The Obama administration is crafting an alternative nuclear waste storage program that relies on a mixture of interim and multiple longer-term storage facilities, but no "permanent" waste facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, according to DOE Secretary Steven Chu. The prospects of such a plan--to be developed within a year--raises a host of concerns that states and others are voicing over the legality of such a move and what it means for the multibillion-dollar nuclear-waste fund, say stakeholders . . .
Details of the administration's plan are still forthcoming, but Chu said it would make use of available and new interim storage sites and a process of solidifying waste that he says NRC approves as safe. DOE may pair the interim facilities, which would be scattered throughout states and regions, with multiple longer-term facilities.
According to the Washington Post, "About $7.7 billion has been sunk into the project since its inception."
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Each day this heat is exhausted to the atmosphere, contributing to global warming, the equivalent of 16,438,356 barrels of oil is lost permanently and the U.S. exports another $657,534,247 overseas to pay for its foreign oil.
Lord Oxburgh, one of the world’s leading geologists and former British chairman of Shell, has said of this solution to the spent fuel problem, “I have often myself wondered whether it would be feasible to harness the heat generated by sequestered nuclear materials. I suspect that the major problems might well be political rather than technological.”
What is the political calculus that makes burning $657,534,247 a day PC?
NuclearHydro...
03/07/2009
Posts:4
----------------------------------------
option trading l
jacob hiller
jack33
07/21/2009
Posts:1
johngilda87
09/04/2009
Posts:1
VegasTerp
03/08/2009
Posts:1
I am incensed that the administration can flush
what I thought was a 13 Billion $ investment of taxpayer dollars down the drain so easily.
Just what is the problem with Yucca mountain?...you might think that after spending that much cash there would be some tangible evidence as the project's goodness or badness.
I haven't heard any explanation from the administration as to what the problems supposedly
are beyond that of 'safety concerns'. I'm sorry
but that isn't good enough. I want real reasons.
Weren't the waste materials to also be enclosed in
molten glass to keep them intact?
If this is just politics then I am beyond angry with all these new leader team people.
We do see that the administration doesn't like oil, coal or nuclear and these are the 3 abundant energy sources that we depend on.
Solar and alternative fuels may be neat but they
not cost effective, minuscule in capacity and have no near term chance of fulfilling our energy needs.
I think reality needs to set in on the DC crowd.
devassocx
03/09/2009
Posts:54
Some say small, many many geological papers disagree as to the size and danger.
100,000 years plus is hard to predict.
It is the single safest place in US control.
No earthquakes, floods etc.
The real danger is the trains that carry the trash to the site.
You have to drive through some liberal's district to get there. They will halt the train.
The spent fuel is only as small part of the trash.
It should be reprocessed.
Most of the trash is low level: used parts, hazmat suits, tools with too much exposure.
Not useable for power creation.
Not a great danger for a town when the train goes by. Just trash for a deep land fill.
Obama's meduim term solution is just pushing it off on our children, just like the stimulus pushes the cost onto our children.
SirLanse
03/09/2009
Posts:43
Yucca Mountain is only the first necessary repository under the existing plans. It would only be able to hold the waste that has thus far been produced. The Dept. of Energy believes we would ultimately need four such facilities. Can you imagine the politics and angst in choosing three more Yucca Mountains?
I think the need is clear for more innovative thinking about the long-term storage of nuclear waste. I hope that Pres. Obama has been impressed by a workable solution rather than political expediency. My feeling is that he is moving in the right direction.
MakeSense
03/21/2009
Posts:93
Soarhead
garysoaring
03/09/2009
Posts:12
However, in the regulatory atmosphere post-Chernobyl+3MileIsland it will be a decade(s) before the technology it proven enough, and ~2 more decades before an industrial reactor can be built. It simply takes that long to navigate the bureacracy and complete all the environmental and design studies to get the approval to build a nuclear power plant.
seyao
03/09/2009
Posts:1
Our new Energy Department head has less experience than I do with nuclear waste disposal and storage, and should NOT be making these decisions with BHO. And I'd love to learn how I can use spent fuel to heat my home and power my business(ahem)....something tells me it's another tall tale spun by the Gore-ites, just like global warming and carbon capture.
Pjazzz
03/09/2009
Posts:14
RD
03/10/2009
Posts:114
narasisridha...
03/12/2009
Posts:1
441541-001
B130
DV9000
441427-001
inspiron 6000
dv6000
satellite 2410
johnsunvalle...
03/12/2009
Posts:5
Erik Bradsha...
03/14/2009
Posts:2
Henlay
08/31/2009
Posts:1
Newtonez
04/13/2009
Posts:1
Logo Design Service | Louisiana Logo Design | Georgia Logo Design
james090073
06/03/2009
Posts:2
Thanks,
SEO
asmi123
08/10/2009
Posts:1
Custom Logo Design
Frank123
06/20/2009
Posts:1
inxus
10/06/2009
Posts:1
blog85475
07/09/2009
Posts:1
Make friends
Free Dating online
Make friends online
Make new friends
Free dating
marcars
07/30/2009
Posts:1
supernoodles
08/24/2009
Posts:1