🚀 go-pugleaf

Fred McGalliard wrote in message <391C48E0.27163060@boeing.com>...


>Tim. It seems that the question is not can we safely store this junk,
>but when we will decide to allow any one of the proposed schemes to be
>implemented.
There is still a question of how to accomplish this is some quarters.  You
imply that it is merely politics holding us back.  There are other opinions:


http://www.ieer.org/reports/npdb.html
"Management of spent nuclear fuel has become a central concern regarding
nuclear power growth.

The problem of high level nuclear waste has not been resolved anywhere in
the world, after four decades of nuclear electricity generation. The early
confidence that nuclear scientists would somehow solve the waste problem,
just as they had built the atom bomb, has evaporated

In the United States, sound science has been overtaken by political
considerations in the rush to relieve utilities of the liabilities deriving
from the spent fuel accumulating at reactor sites. The Yucca Mountain site
is the only one under investigation. Yet calculations done for this site,
including those by Department of Energy contractors, indicate that radiation
doses could be hundreds or even thousands of times above presently allowable
limits. There is pressure to relax standards and change calculation methods
instead of improving the repository program. "


"we" have rammed a bung up the hole of this particular
>horse, removed it's balls, and refused to feed or water it, hoping
>apparently that it will eventually die.

It is dying .  When was the last order in the US?  In spite of all the happy
talk about "inherently safe reactors"  the people with money aren't lining
up to buy another round of nuke juice.   The _REAL_ nuclear fuel isn't Pu or
uranium.  It's money, lots and lots of money.  Wall street won't give it to
you.  The banks won't give it to you.  The utilities won't give it to you.
As a taxpayer I won't give it to you willingly.  As the current batch of
reactors face decommissioning fund shortfalls the public will be very wary
of nuclear power.  Bad timing that these "stranded costs"  are surfacing
just when the nuke power industry is fighting for air.

I wonder frankly if we have more
>to fear from our grandchildren laughing at us for being so afraid of
>nuclear power that we actually made it worse by failing to safely store
>the waste when we could easily have done so, or if they will curse us
>for the dark and miserable conditions that we leave them in by killing
>this useful power source off.

Pedrhaps they will be thanking us for finally following the advice of the
Paley Commission:

http://www.ieer.org/reports/wind/foreword.html
"In 1952, the Paley Commission, appointed by President Truman, judged the
promise of renewable energy sources to be greater than that of nuclear power
for meeting energy needs and preventing economic dislocations due to
disruptions in foreign oil supply. But shortly thereafter, the US government
chose to ignore that recommendation in favor of pursuing nuclear power,
largely as part of its Cold War propaganda campaign."

Regards, Tim O'Flaherty