Re: Oil-pipeline shutdown in Alaska to choke flow


"Roger Shoaf" <shoaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155257850.429024@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

77,000 tons generated in what amount of time?

It's what Yucca Mountain is studing to store. It's all the hign level waste
expected to go to the Mtn.

You didn't say, but you
suggest that that is the "expected amount". Lets assume for the sake of
discusssion that that is all the waste we have created since the start of
the nuclear age. Let's assume that is 50 years worth of accumulation.

Now that is 1540 tons a year. This is contained and power plant workers
are
working in close proximity and suffer no ill effects from this even though
it is just sitting in big swimming pools.

The pools are only a temporary storage site. Take away the water and you'll
have more deaths than any source you can come up with.


But we don't build anymore nuclear power plants, and we are still burning
coal. That is generating 2772 tons of radioactive waste and killing about
30,000 folks a year.

I did say there are both bad. I believe solar is a much better power source
and even fusion power if 50 years away. We don't put very much money into
research for other projects either. Talk with any physicist and they'll tell
you fusion power is the answer. But it's been the bad rap that fission power
has given the field that's cut off the money. I'm not saying Chernobyl could
happen here because we don't use graphite in our reactors but it sure made
the kooks point. And believe me we escaped TMI by the hair on our chin. And
then comes along DOE and Yucca Mtn. where they violate the laws. You want to
trust a government agency that's going to store high levels of nuclear
material and then close the doors and walk away? I know you're smarter than
that Roger.



The radioactive waste from the burning of coal is not confined, the waste
from the nuclear plants is confined. Even the tragity they had a Three
Mile
Island didn't make any one sick let alone kill them.

We get a heat wave and hundreds of folks die fron getting to hot because
they can't afford air conditioning.

I think you are missing the big picture here. Ther are risks to
everything
in life but generating electricity and dealing with spent nuclear fuel is
way down on the real risks but real high on the emotional fear level.


I think you're hiding from the big picture. Just answer me this. If spent
nuclear fuel is way down on the risk scale then why so much money to study
it and why so much opposition? I've been in the nuclear field too long to
know the risks. I wasn't in the power end but I know what dangers are
involved.






There are several options for disposal. Currently the plan is to
dispose
of
them in a remote site in Nevada.

Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been studied for 20 years at a cost of 8
billion. That's only for the study and not the license process through
the
NRC. Nevada is agaisnt this and it's not as remote as you think.



The better option in my opinion would be
to recycle them back into fuel rods and reuse them. This reduces
tremendously the quantity of waste.

You're simple wrong on this idea. Recycle is an option but it would only
slightly reduce the volume. Just think about that for a moment. We're
dealing with one of the most expensive materials known to man. If recycle
worked as you say don't you think they would use that option instead of
spending billions just to study a site?


France and Japan recycle.

I think we're both wrong on this one. See
http://www.rense.com/general69/doe.htm

We are not allowed to recycle anyway due to the nuclear Non-Proliiferation
treaty of 1968

When you say that the amount is only slightly reduced, what volume
reduction
do you claim?

I don't claim any amount,it's DOE that says it's minimal.



The leftover stuff is a lot hotter than the once used rods, but the
hotter
the stuff, the shorter the time it takes to decay to a level that can
be
disposed of underground.

Not true.

What exactly is untrue about my claim?

You're talking about thermal loading. That is only a spacing issue.


One of the requirements of the study of Yucca Mountain is to know
how the site will change in 10,000 years.

And just what is the result of 10,000 years of burning coal?

What do you belive the problem is with long term storage?

You're kidding right? Yucca Mountain is not a good geological site. I don't
agree with congress breaking their own laws when it comes to EIS's. I think
more methods could be used like partitioning and transmutation. I could go
on and on with problems with Yucca Mtn. and not even talk about the
transporting part.


I don't see what is more expensive than 50 to 100 billion to store the
material. The transportation is going to take 25 to 30 years to get all
of
the high level material to a site where the DOE plans to store and close
the
doors and forget it. It's a dumb move and Nevada does not want the site
there. It would be different if the DOE stored the material then
monitored
it but that's not their plans. And what really gets me is that they
include
in their study that they expect 10 accidents a year in the shipments.


The price for the storage has been paid already. There is a tax paid on
the
electricity generated by the nuclear plants that covers the costs of
disposal.

If you have any doubts about the safty of transportation of the spent fuel
rods, why not check this out: http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=83


Are you kidding, I've been to the public meetings with DOE. They are not the
same DOE that I worked with for years. They don't tell the whole picture and
won't because Congress is behind them. Go to Las Vegas and sit in one of the
city meetings when they talk about the shipping route going through their
town. Or look at the governor and see what they have to say about the
federal government shoving this down their thoats. I know that most of the
studies have been paid by rate payers (that's what they call it) but answer
this. Why should a state be burdened with a hazard when they have no benefit
from it? Why isn't the states that use nuclear power putting the waste in
their backyard?

This site shows the testing done on the transport containers

Movie 1

I've seen them and been to Albuquerque and saw the caskets you saw in the
movies. That's not the problem. There is no moderator around the cask so the
stoppage of neutron radiation is nil. What gives them the right to radiate
the public? BTW, DOE would never answer that written questioned at the
meetings.

Container dropped 30 feet onto a flat, unyielding surface, submerged under
three feet of water for eight hours, dropped 40 inches onto a steel rod
six
inches in diameter, and engulfed in a 1,475 degree fire for 30 minutes.

Movie 2

Container loaded onto a locomotive and crashed at 80 miles per hour into a
700-ton concrete wall backed with 1,700 tons of dirt. Container on a
flatbed tractor-trailer broadsided by a 120-ton locomotive traveling at 80
miles per hour.

Movie 3

Container loaded onto a truck and crashed at 80 miles per hour into a
700-ton concrete wall backed with 1,700 tons of dirt.



I don't mean to slam you here but this is a subject you can not sugar
coat
and the problem is very complex. All this could go away if the research
would go to fusion power but the problems with fission power has turn the
people away from nuclear power. You can find more information just by
searching Yucca Mountain.

I have, and I do not think the hysteria is justified.

--
If you lived there you might think differently. Besides I haven't seen any
hysteria going on except maybe by the green peace nuts. Or the people that
stand out at the gate of the test site. All the public meetings I went to
were very calm. The public has brought up some very good and legal points.
There are rules and laws to follow and Yucca Mtn and the DOE has broken a
few. 8 Billion of the rate payers money could have been spent better in my
opinion.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai
    ... spokesperson slash advocate for nuclear power in Hawaii, ... safe disposal of nuclear waste is a very ... concern, however, reactor designs commonly implemented in the past ...
    (soc.culture.hawaii)
  • Physics Today Letters: Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Containment Standard a Hot Topic
    ... Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Containment Standard a Hot Topic ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: solar cells toxic
    ... How about solar concentrators that just ... >> deal with compared to many types of solar power applications. ... waste could quite easily be fatal. ... it looks like the nuclear ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Nuclear Safety
    ... nuclear system has dire consequences and simply is not an option. ... and control the plant given the total loss of site power. ... realistic plans for handling this waste until it is safe. ... emissions in the energy production, it can be there for a long time. ...
    (sci.engr.safety)
  • Re: New Power Stations
    ... the volume and mass of the waste, is that if one of the chemical ... However the nuclear sciences have moved on quite a bit since you ... The fact is that there are no fuels that can answer the full objections you ... make in regard to nuclear generating power. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)