There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

[Skull Pilot]

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com

Here is an interesting and informative article that will have the uninformed "green" energy crowd scratching their heads.

And one has to ask the question. If this article is indeed true, why would our president not want to pursue nuclear power plants as perhaps the best and most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer, IMO is, simple pursuing nuclear power would mean less income from the president's pet scam of a cap and trade tax.

White House Buries Yucca," read the headlines last week after Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said the proposed storage of nuclear waste in a Nevada mountain is "no longer an option."

Instead, Mr. Chu told a Senate hearing, the Obama administration will cut all but the most rudimentary funding to Yucca and be content to allow spent fuel rods to sit in storage pools and dry casks at reactor sites "while the administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal."

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a longtime opponent of the repository, was overjoyed. Environmental groups were equally gratified, since they have long seen Yucca Mountain as a choke point for asphyxiating nuclear energy. Greenpeace immediately called for an end to new construction of nuclear power plants, and for all existing reactors to be closed down.

So is this really the death knell for nuclear power? Not at all. The repository at Yucca Mountain was only made necessary by our failure to understand a fundamental fact about nuclear power: There is no such thing as nuclear waste.

A nuclear fuel rod is made up of two types of uranium: U-235, the fissionable isotope whose breakdown provides the energy; and U-238, which does not fission and serves basically as packing material. Uranium-235 makes up only 0.7% of the natural ore. In order to reach "reactor grade," it must be "enriched" up to 3% -- an extremely difficult industrial process. (To become bomb material, it must be enriched to 90%, another ballgame altogether.)

After being loaded in a nuclear reactor, the fuel rods sit for five years before being removed. At this point, about 12 ounces of U-235 will have been completely transformed into energy. But that's enough to power San Francisco for five years. There are no chemical transformations in the process and no carbon-dioxide emissions.

When they emerge, the fuel rods are intensely radioactive -- about twice the exposure you would get standing at ground zero at Hiroshima after the bomb went off. But because the amount of material is so small -- it would fit comfortably in a tractor-trailer -- it can be handled remotely through well established industrial processes. The spent rods are first submerged in storage pools, where a few yards of water block the radioactivity. After a few years, they can be moved to lead-lined casks about the size of a gazebo, where they can sit for the better part of a century until the next step is decided.

So is this material "waste"? Absolutely not. Ninety-five percent of a spent fuel rod is plain old U-238, the nonfissionable variety that exists in granite tabletops, stone buildings and the coal burned in coal plants to generate electricity. Uranium-238 is 1% of the earth's crust. It could be put right back in the ground where it came from.

Of the remaining 5% of a rod, one-fifth is fissionable U-235 -- which can be recycled as fuel. Another one-fifth is plutonium, also recyclable as fuel. Much of the remaining three-fifths has important uses as medical and industrial isotopes. Forty percent of all medical procedures in this country now involve some form of radioactive isotope, and nuclear medicine is a $4 billion business. Unfortunately, we must import all our tracer material from Canada, because all of our isotopes have been headed for Yucca Mountain.

What remains after all this material has been extracted from spent fuel rods are some isotopes for which no important uses have yet been found, but which can be stored for future retrieval. France, which completely reprocesses its recyclable material, stores all the unused remains -- from 30 years of generating 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy -- beneath the floor of a single room at La Hague.

The supposed problem of "nuclear waste" is entirely the result of a the decision in 1976 by President Gerald Ford to suspend reprocessing, which President Jimmy Carter made permanent in 1977. The fear was that agents of foreign powers or terrorists groups would steal plutonium from American plants to manufacture bombs.

That fear has proved to be misguided. If foreign powers want a bomb, they will build their own reactors or enrichment facilities, as North Korea and Iran have done. The task of extracting plutonium from highly radioactive material and fashioning it into a bomb is far beyond the capacities of any terrorist organization.

So shed no tears for Yucca Mountain. Instead of ending the nuclear revival, it gives us the chance to correct a historical mistake and follow France's lead in developing complete reprocessing for nuclear material.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting article. I am all for reviving nuclear energy, but in the form of fourth and fifth generation reactors. Three Mile Island was just to close a thing to continue to build that kind of reactor. The other problem with nuclear is the cost.

I think that the nukes will be relegated to the role of ballast for a grid primarily reliant on wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and slow current sources. Even in that role, a goodly number of them will be needed. But not the old designs that can do the China Syndrone. Remember that we were assured that Three Mile Island could not happen. That is what killed the Nuclear Industry.

 

[alan1]

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com

Here is an interesting and informative article that will have the uninformed "green" energy crowd scratching their heads.

And one has to ask the question. If this article is indeed true, why would our president not want to pursue nuclear power plants as perhaps the best and most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer, IMO is, simple pursuing nuclear power would mean less income from the president's pet scam of a cap and trade tax.

An old friend of mine retired from GE about 10 years ago. He was a nuclear engineer for them (hell, he was one of the first nuclear engineers, because when he went to college nuclear engineering didn't even exist). He spent the last 30 years of his career working with France and Japan to develop their nuclear power plants and systems. Nuclear power is the cleanest energy source known to man according to him.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Interesting article. I am all for reviving nuclear energy, but in the form of fourth and fifth generation reactors. Three Mile Island was just to close a thing to continue to build that kind of reactor. The other problem with nuclear is the cost.

I think that the nukes will be relegated to the role of ballast for a grid primarily reliant on wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and slow current sources. Even in that role, a goodly number of them will be needed. But not the old designs that can do the China Syndrone. Remember that we were assured that Three Mile Island could not happen. That is what killed the Nuclear Industry.

Lapses in quality assurance and maintenance, inadequate operator training, lack of communication of important safety information, poor management, and complacency caused the TMI meltdown. Not the design of the reactor. These would cause meltdown of any reactor, no matter the generation or design.

Mindless FEAR and lack of knowledge by the general public, feeding NIMBY is what killed the Nuclear industry in the US mainland, although it thrives in places like France, with reactors older then TMI, and in all of our nuclear powered ships and submarines.

If most folks knew that nuclear power is merely another way to generate heat for boiling water, to make steam to drive turbines, most of the mindless, irrational fear and stigma would dissipate.

I like Toshiba's new "nuclear battery" reactor. It's buried underground, and you pipe water down to it, superheated steam for your turbines comes out. If it melted down, there's no harm because it's buried 500 feet deep and is all lead-lined. These could be used to convert all coal-fired and even natural gas-fired power plants -- therefore no need for new transmission lines and other infrastructure. Every 20 years, you dig 'em up and replace them, Toshiba takes care of the waste. They recycle the waste, recharge the "battery" and send it back to you.

Nuclear is the future of power needs worldwide. THE most efficient, cleanest, most renewable fuel we have.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Skull - thanks for posting this info. I live a stones throw from a nuke plant and knew that Yucca would never happen. The plant here is going to store the spent rods as stated in the article. Why in the world wouldn't Obama want to look into this?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why in the world wouldn't Obama want to look into this?

Obama dismissed nuclear power completely.

Now if the amount of waste is as minuscule as the article states and if France can produce 75+% of its power using 30 year old reactors, why can't we.

As the Marauder stated, there are new generation reactors that are basically plug and play with our existing power grid.

It seems to me that Obama doesn't want to do anything that isn't the most expensive way.
After all if it doesn't cost a lot, how can he justify his expansion of government power and expense?

Would it not be less expensive to use our existing infrastructure than to completely revamp to a wind and solar grid?

Another thing is that the supposedly "educated" green crowd has everyone convinced that nuclear power is worse than an Ebola pandemic and you can bet you will not see any other articles like this in the media.

 

[editec]

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

Oh goodie, there isn't?

Then why don't YOU keep the stuff in your house?

 

[Skull Pilot]

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

Oh goodie, there isn't?

Then why don't YOU keep the stuff in your house?

Did you read the article ed or are you merely reacting?

If after 30+ years of using nuclear power, the French, THE FRENCH FOR GOD'S SAKE, haven't produced enough nuclear waste to warrant more than a single room set aside for storage, then why is nuclear "waste" such a problem?

 

[Zoom-boing]

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

Oh goodie, there isn't?

Then why don't YOU keep the stuff in your house?

That's a stupid ass remark. Do you have anything that contradicts the article? Is the article lying about France's use of nuclear power/waste? I always thought the used fuel rods were dangerous; the article indicates that they are far less so than many believe and can be recycled. You don't think this is a good option for Obama to look into?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why in the world wouldn't Obama want to look into this?

Obama dismissed nuclear power completely.

Now if the amount of waste is as minuscule as the article states and if France can produce 75+% of its power using 30 year old reactors, why can't we.

As the Marauder stated, there are new generation reactors that are basically plug and play with our existing power grid.

It seems to me that Obama doesn't want to do anything that isn't the most expensive way.
After all if it doesn't cost a lot, how can he justify his expansion of government power and expense?

Would it not be less expensive to use our existing infrastructure than to completely revamp to a wind and solar grid?

Another thing is that the supposedly "educated" green crowd has everyone convinced that nuclear power is worse than an Ebola pandemic and you can bet you will not see any other articles like this in the media.

You've summed it up in a nutshell, Skull.

 

[auditor0007]

If this is true, then going nuclear makes all the sense in the world. Wind and solar are a long way off, and they are not capable of giving 100% of our power the way our system currently works. Power must be supplied to the grid when it is needed. With wind and power, you get it when it's produced. The problem is you can't tell the wind to blow harder when it's 110 degrees outside, and everyone is maxing out the grid because they're using their air conditioners at the same time. At the same time, when the wind is blowing hardest, you can't just throw the excess energy onto the grid because you'll fry the grid if you give it too much juice at any given time.

In order to adapt to a system based on wind and solar, every home, business, building, would need to be set up with a battery system that is capable of storing excess electricity, so that when the system is fully charged, the excess could be drawn off and stored for use at times when the grid isn't supplying enough electicity as needed.

The first problem is that battery technology isn't even advanced enough yet to make it worth going that route. Secondly, it would take 50 to 100 years before every building was set to go, and last of all, you need to build wind turbines and solar panels all over the place to power the system. Now, we may actually end up heading in that direction at some point, once the technology has advanced some, but we are nowhere near that point currently. So nuclear sounds better by the minute.

 

[Chris]

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

Oh goodie, there isn't?

Then why don't YOU keep the stuff in your house?

There is plenty of nuclear waste...

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[alan1]

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

Oh goodie, there isn't?

Then why don't YOU keep the stuff in your house?

I'll keep the stuff in my house.
It's a sacrifice I am willing to make for the good of society.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

Oh goodie, there isn't?

Then why don't YOU keep the stuff in your house?

There is plenty of nuclear waste...

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh boy Wikipedia now trumps the WSJ as a source.

 

[KittenKoder]

Can't believe Skull came up with something this good ... and something I agree with at the same time!

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Oh goodie, there isn't?

Then why don't YOU keep the stuff in your house?

There is plenty of nuclear waste...

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh boy Wikipedia now trumps the WSJ as a source.

There's no contradiction between the articles. The wikipedia article just goes further in depth. Whether something is waste or not is certainly a matter of perspective. The real waste is in not reusing the nuclear material wherever possible.

During the campaign I was under the impression that Obama was against nuclear power based upon a probably irrational fear of meltdowns moreso than waste per se. He kept making vague statements about safety. Opposition in general isn't about there being too much waste to deal with, but rather that the waste would not be managed perfectly and could contaminate, say, a water supply, raising the incidence of cancer in an area.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is plenty of nuclear waste...

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh boy Wikipedia now trumps the WSJ as a source.

There's no contradiction between the articles. The wikipedia article just goes further in depth. Whether something is waste or not is certainly a matter of perspective. The real waste is in not reusing the nuclear material wherever possible.

During the campaign I was under the impression that Obama was against nuclear power based upon a probably irrational fear of meltdowns moreso than waste per se. He kept making vague statements about safety. Opposition in general isn't about there being too much waste to deal with, but rather that the waste would not be managed perfectly and could contaminate, say, a water supply, raising the incidence of cancer in an area.

There hasn't been nuclear incident, or meltdown, in more than 2 decades. And that Obama wants to make that a deciding factor shows that he is uninformed.

If fear is the deciding factor in a choice, any choice, then we should all be afraid of cars. After all a car is nothing but a bomb on wheels. How about being afraid of flying? Certainly, planes and cars have a much worse track record than nuclear power plants when it comes to loss of life.

And France has been using nuclear power for more than thirty tears. They seem to have no problem with handling waste. After all if 30 years of nuclear waste that is not recyclable can be store under the floor of one room we can certainly find a spot to safely store our nuclear waste.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Oh boy Wikipedia now trumps the WSJ as a source.

There's no contradiction between the articles. The wikipedia article just goes further in depth. Whether something is waste or not is certainly a matter of perspective. The real waste is in not reusing the nuclear material wherever possible.

During the campaign I was under the impression that Obama was against nuclear power based upon a probably irrational fear of meltdowns moreso than waste per se. He kept making vague statements about safety. Opposition in general isn't about there being too much waste to deal with, but rather that the waste would not be managed perfectly and could contaminate, say, a water supply, raising the incidence of cancer in an area.

There hasn't been nuclear incident, or meltdown, in more than 2 decades. And that Obama wants to make that a deciding factor shows that he is uninformed.

If fear is the deciding factor in a choice, any choice, then we should all be afraid of cars. After all a car is nothing but a bomb on wheels. How about being afraid of flying? Certainly, planes and cars have a much worse track record than nuclear power plants when it comes to loss of life.

And France has been using nuclear power for more than thirty tears. They seem to have no problem with handling waste. After all if 30 years of nuclear waste that is not recyclable can be store under the floor of one room we can certainly find a spot to safely store our nuclear waste.

I don't disagree. I mostly wanted to clarify the position of the opposition. Obama's most irrational position, at least from my perspective, is his fear of nuclear power. Every energy option has advantages and disadvantages. Hydroelectric dams can fail and kill thousands of people even if the energy is the cleanest out there. We'll need improvements in battery technology if we're going to get the most out of the variable/unpredictable ones (wind, solar). The fact of the matter is we need a balanced approach if we're going to achieve energy independence anytime soon and nuclear absolutely should be a part of that.

 

[garyd]

To power the US with solar and wind primarily (unless some one comes up with a super conductor that is no more than ten percent more expensive than copper and stable at teperatures up to 50C Geothermal is going to be restrricted to places where a ready source of such eneregy already exists) you are talking about using far more acres per killowat genrated than we currently do. Not to mention which both are far better small scale ventures than large scale ones.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If we are to go solar wouldn't it behoove us to use U.S. companies to do this, rather than once again becoming dependent on foreign entities?

U.S. Companies Left Out of LIPA Solar Project

No "Green" In Green Business For U.S. Companies

LARCHMONT, N.Y., March 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- This past week, the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) announced the companies selected to develop one of the largest solar power projects in U.S. history - a 50 megawatt photovoltaic solar power installation constructed and operated on municipal, school and private properties across Long Island. Of the 28 companies that provided bids, every firm selected by LIPA to participate in this important U.S. initiative is foreign-owned. LIPA expects to begin negotiations with the developers on the 20-year contract terms, with deliveries to begin by June 1, 2009. The project's solar energy will be produced by the chosen developers and will be introduced onto the LIPA grid and purchased by LIPA.

U.S. Companies Left Out of LIPA Solar Project