Power the entire U.S. for a century with... Nuclear Waste?

[Missourian]

"There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years, and doing so could help solve the thorny and politically fraught problem of managing spent nuclear waste."

The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized

The technology to turn nuclear waste into energy, known as a nuclear fast reactor, has existed for decades. Now, it's getting a second look.

www.cnbc.com

We've had the technology for 70 years... Why are we not doing this?

Cheap clean energy from nuclear waste seems like a no-brainer.

 

[flacaltenn]

"There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years, and doing so could help solve the thorny and politically fraught problem of managing spent nuclear waste."

The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized

The technology to turn nuclear waste into energy, known as a nuclear fast reactor, has existed for decades. Now, it's getting a second look.

www.cnbc.com

We've had the technology for 70 years... Why are we not doing this?

Cheap clean energy from nuclear waste seems like a no-brainer.

Because we're stupid. And because the left is more afraid of nuclear power plants than they are of global warming. Because we could FIX carbon emissions with a TOTALLY RELIABLE source in a matter of years -- IF WE WANTED TO.

The argument AGAINST reprocessing the fuel is that the waste from this can easily be converted to weapons grade material and STOLEN. Seems strange to me, since France which powers more than 1/2 its grid from nuclear has been reprocessing for about 3 or 5 decades. AND NEUTRALIZING the waste in leaded glass before burial..

Just heard Gretchen Witless up in Mich was closing another nuclear plant. Leaving the former "auto manufacturing" state the #1 candidate for rolling black-outs this summer. I think ALL of the American public is gonna be FAR LESS INTERESTED in fantasies about "alternatives", once they get a load of what TOO much UNRELIABLE on the grid can do. Including stacks of body bags that might cause the news to pay attention.

 

[MisterBeale]

Sam Brinton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EXC: Top New Biden Staffer Defended Underage, Gay Prostitution Website Raided By Feds in Jaw-Dropping 2015 Article. - The National Pulse

A recent, high-level hire at the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy defended a controversial gay prostitution website with a track record of allowing children to be promoted for sexual services on the platform, The National Pulse can reveal.The revelations, from unearthed op-ed...

thenationalpulse.com

 

[MisterBeale]

"There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years, and doing so could help solve the thorny and politically fraught problem of managing spent nuclear waste."

The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized

The technology to turn nuclear waste into energy, known as a nuclear fast reactor, has existed for decades. Now, it's getting a second look.

www.cnbc.com

We've had the technology for 70 years... Why are we not doing this?

Cheap clean energy from nuclear waste seems like a no-brainer.

The only link in the wiki stub that one cannot access, would seem to answer that question. Perhaps you could write to Sam, and he could take a break for his LGBTQ activism, and actually do the job that the POTUS gave him?



"In 2016, Brinton was a senior policy analyst for the Bipartisan Policy Center, lobbying for updated regulations so nuclear waste can be used to power advanced nuclear reactors.[11]"

Sam Brinton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Des Moines Register from Des Moines, Iowa · Page A13​

The Des Moines Register from Des Moines, Iowa on January 10, 2016 · Page A13

Sunday, January 10, 2016 ster.com|MetroEditionSunday,January10,2016| Page 13A ENERGY Thursday, January 14 5OF THE WORST WAYS YOU EXPAND YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT 1 Fail to switch to more energy-efficient LED bulbs from incandescent b ulbs. 2 Ignore energy and money savers like programmable...

www.newspapers.com

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Analysis and Optimization with the Code for Advanced Fuel Cycles Assessment (CAFCA)​

Transactions -- ANS / Publications / Transactions

www.ans.org

 

[Woodznutz]

In the broad sense very few things that are good for us make economic sense*.

*Economic sense: The rich getting richer.

 

[jwoodie]

In the broad sense very few things that are good for us make economic sense*.

*Economic sense: The rich getting richer.

Does this mean you are completely unable to understand the OP?

 

[Woodznutz]

Does this mean you are completely unable to understand the OP?

I thought it was the perfect answer to the OP's question, re:

"We've had the technology for 70 years... Why are we not doing this?"

 

[JohnDB]

"There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years, and doing so could help solve the thorny and politically fraught problem of managing spent nuclear waste."

The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized

The technology to turn nuclear waste into energy, known as a nuclear fast reactor, has existed for decades. Now, it's getting a second look.

www.cnbc.com

We've had the technology for 70 years... Why are we not doing this?

Cheap clean energy from nuclear waste seems like a no-brainer.

These reactors have major issues....most of which exist from a safety standpoint.

Most of the nuclear reactors are cooled with water....these fast reactors use liquid metals such as lead to cool the interiors to safe levels. That in itself presents challenges.

Also once turned on these fast reactors are almost impossible to stop and shut down. They certainly cost a fortune to maintain during shutdowns for maintenance....making them a black hole for money.

All existing nuclear power plants create what is known as a brown site. Acres of land unusable in the future for anyone or anything. These fast reactors are no different except that they will still be burning long after the need for their electricity is gone. Still needing maintenance to avoid a nuclear meltdown.

 

[krichton]

Because we're stupid. And because the left is more afraid of nuclear power plants than they are of global warming. Because we could FIX carbon emissions with a TOTALLY RELIABLE source in a matter of years -- IF WE WANTED TO.

The argument AGAINST reprocessing the fuel is that the waste from this can easily be converted to weapons grade material and STOLEN. Seems strange to me, since France which powers more than 1/2 its grid from nuclear has been reprocessing for about 3 or 5 decades. AND NEUTRALIZING the waste in leaded glass before burial..

Just heard Gretchen Witless up in Mich was closing another nuclear plant. Leaving the former "auto manufacturing" state the #1 candidate for rolling black-outs this summer. I think ALL of the American public is gonna be FAR LESS INTERESTED in fantasies about "alternatives", once they get a load of what TOO much UNRELIABLE on the grid can do. Including stacks of body bags that might cause the news to pay attention.

France completed construction on their first breeder plant in 1986 and decommissioned it in 1997. It was in service one year more than it took to build. The main argument against reprocessing fuel is that it's not economically feasible, not that there will be fear it'll be stolen for weapons. That's complete nonsense, as is your claim that France has been reprocessing fuel for 5 decades. How can they reprocess fuel for that long when their one fast reactor was only in commission for 11 years? Countries that are building these reactors have created a moneypit. They also have a higher probability for accidents. Do we really need nuclear power plants to be more dangerous?!

I don't think you have any idea how many nuclear reactors we would need to completely do away with fossil fuels. We would need to build hundreds of nuclear reactors, costing many billions each and wait up to 10 years from construction to completion on each one. A matter of years you say? France, a country that is just 80% the size of texas has a an unbelievable 56 reactors and they are still nowhere near free of fossil fuels.

 

[Doc7505]

There's a solution to the nuclear waste problem, ​

one we've known about for decades​

Video: There's a solution to the nuclear waste problem, one we've known about for decades

hotair.com

27 May 2023 ~~ By John Sexton

Way back in October 2021, Vox released a video about nuclear power featuring Cleo Abrams. The gist of the video was that New York’s then-recent decision to shut down Indian Point nuclear reactor was a bad idea. As Abrams pointed out in a 10-minute clip, shutting down nuclear reactors is completely counter-productive, especially for anyone who believes climate change is a problem that has to be dealt with immediately.
What happened when NY shut down Indian Point? The state suddenly lost a major source of electric power which was soon replaced by power created by burning more natural gas. As Abrams pointed out there’s no explanation for the push to shut down perfectly good nuclear power plants except for decades of lingering and largely irrational fear, an unfortunate leftover from the 1970s which the left has never quite relinquished.
Cleo Abrams doesn’t work for Vox anymore but she is still making videos. This week I came across one which feels like a follow up to that one from 2021. It’s titled, “The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste” and once again it’s an argument that one of the big problems people point to with nuclear power is largely a problem because of how we’ve approached it. In fact, there is a solution for nuclear waste which we’ve know about for many decades. Here’s the clip, which is about 14 minutes long, and then I’ll have a bit more commentary below.

​

~Snip~
I don’t know does this feel biased to you? I mean, in the first sentence they accuse Reagan of nuclear weapons proliferation and then they spend the next two graphs quoting a union president from a press conference set up with Ralph Nader. By the way, the story doesn’t redeem itself later on because the whole thing is only 5 paragraphs. So what you see above is nearly all of it.
Anyway, the partisan hackery aspect of the story probably didn’t interest Cleo Abrams but it was of interest to me.


Commentary:
Generation IV reactors will completely nullify any sincere concern about nuclear waste. What is left over amounts to a few pounds and has a half-life of a few decades.

Generation IV Nuclear Reactors: WNA - World Nuclear Association

Generation IV Nuclear Reactor information paper, including the Generation IV Forum. Information from the World Nuclear Association, the global private-sector organization providing information on nuclear power, nuclear energy, and the use of nuclear energy in meeting the needs of the world's...

world-nuclear.org

The technology works, they can reprocess all the stored fuel that is currently in Yucca Mountain and reprocess it to near nothing. That’s what makes Generation IV so vital for the nuclear industry.
Japan as already implemented the construction of the Gen IV power plants.
Democrats are so enamored with Solar and Wind power they can't see the forest for the trees.
Then aain you can’t have a neo-feudalist Maoist/Marxist society with cheap, abundant energy.
Of course, our EPA will resist and throw every barrier they can come up with to stop the reinvestment in modification of existing plants and building of new.
The solution for nuclear waste has been known since the 1980s, but politicians especially Democrats and have thwarted the solution at every turn, eventually demanding scientists accurately predict the stored radiation waste safety for the next one million years.
I;ve been a proponent of nuclear power and for decades have absorbed as much information on the subject as a lay person is able. That said there are big drawbacks with waste. Many smart people say Thorium reactors are the solution to the waste problem as a thorium reactor will burn waste fuel down to a small percentage.
Problems is, there are no working Thorium reactors. It’s all theory. If this country had spent the money we have on the unworkable green energy programs on reactor technology we very well have been the world leaders in a technology that leaves very little waste but produces massive amounts of energy to power the future.
Instead, fearmongering Maoist/Marxist Democrat Communists have led the sheep down a garden path of unworkable green energy that will end in the destruction of our quality of life. It’s all going according to plan. They fill their pockets while subjugating us to satisfy their power fetish.

 

[elektra]

All existing nuclear power plants create what is known as a brown site. Acres of land unusable in the future for anyone or anything.

Brown sites? Bullshit. You do not know what you are talking about.
This is the site of one of the oldest nuclear power plants in the usa, which was decommissioned and remediated. A couple of acres? Ten acres? I wish I could have that land to put a house up on it.

 

[elektra]

These reactors have major issues....most of which exist from a safety standpoint.

Most of the nuclear reactors are cooled with water....these fast reactors use liquid metals such as lead to cool the interiors to safe levels. That in itself presents challenges.

First off, you are speaking of Breeder reactors, which of course, have been and are using water a coolant.

And lead, of course, would make a reactor pretty safe, seeings how Gamma rays will be absorbed and Neutron radiation will bounce off of it. Virtually no radiation escapes.

Last I checked, there have been no design failures of any commercial nuclear power plant.

 

[elektra]

These fast reactors are no different except that they will still be burning long after the need for their electricity is gone.

so much of what you post is pure bullshit

Why would the need for electricity disappear? Do you proof read what you write. It makes no sense and shows at best, you are simply writing, your emotions.