Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste honeypot

Author Topic: Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste  (Read 5604 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ksheed

  • Very Lite User
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com

cedugger

  • Guest
Re: Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste
« Reply #1 on: Mar 30, 2016, 05:23 »
The author uses "75,000 Tons of Nuclear Waste", but only writes to 1,100 tons of it. Maybe there will be a follow on article for the other 73,900 tons of it!

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5828
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste
« Reply #2 on: Apr 02, 2016, 08:00 »
The author uses "75,000 Tons of Nuclear Waste", but only writes to 1,100 tons of it. Maybe there will be a follow on article for the other 73,900 tons of it!
he does reference the 75k tons at 79 temporary sights on page too.
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Mounder

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
  • Karma: 27
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste
« Reply #3 on: Apr 02, 2016, 09:35 »
I like the "consent" idea from DOE, but I'm sure Nevada consented right up until the first shipment was planned for Yucca.  Better get a rock-solid contract on the front side.

Offline GLW

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5493
  • Karma: 2523
  • caveo proditor,...
Re: Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste
« Reply #4 on: Apr 02, 2016, 11:48 »
I like the "consent" idea from DOE, but I'm sure Nevada consented right up until the first shipment was planned for Yucca.  Better get a rock-solid contract on the front side.

nah, been tried; consent based, privately funded, garbage land not good for anything else and this current administration still got in the way and killed it,...

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/politics/55513674-90/consortium-friday-license-nrc.html.csp

consent siting....those are the words,...

squashing Skull Valley...those are the actions,...

not happening, at least not for awhile longer,...

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste
« Reply #5 on: Apr 06, 2016, 01:25 »
I like the "consent" idea from DOE, but I'm sure Nevada consented right up until the first shipment was planned for Yucca.  Better get a rock-solid contract on the front side. 

NV consented until HR's backers pushed HR to be anti.  The locals wanted and still want Yucca.  But, LV reelected HR, and He backed the current POTUS only after getting a promise from him. 
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

rlbinc

  • Guest
Re: Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste
« Reply #6 on: Apr 06, 2016, 07:03 »
Nevada Test Site area has no better use.
The term "waste" fails to recognize the energy content of the material.
With new (and some not so new) reactor concepts, this shifts magically from a liability to an asset.
With no reprocessing, spent PWR fuel was loaded into a CANDU reactor in the DUPIC experiment.
In my opinion, if I had a few acres of dry casks, I'd build my next reactor capable of utilizing the source.

Offline GLW

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5493
  • Karma: 2523
  • caveo proditor,...
Re: Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste
« Reply #7 on: Apr 06, 2016, 08:34 »
Nevada Test Site area has no better use.
The term "waste" fails to recognize the energy content of the material.
With new (and some not so new) reactor concepts, this shifts magically from a liability to an asset.
With no reprocessing, spent PWR fuel was loaded into a CANDU reactor in the DUPIC experiment.
In my opinion, if I had a few acres of dry casks, I'd build my next reactor capable of utilizing the source.


well, there you go again, being all logical, demonstrating intelligently applied creativity and other nonesuch,...


been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 17156
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Free To A Good Home: 75,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste
« Reply #8 on: Apr 06, 2016, 10:31 »
Nevada Test Site area has no better use.
The term "waste" fails to recognize the energy content of the material.
With new (and some not so new) reactor concepts, this shifts magically from a liability to an asset.
With no reprocessing, spent PWR fuel was loaded into a CANDU reactor in the DUPIC experiment.
In my opinion, if I had a few acres of dry casks, I'd build my next reactor capable of utilizing the source.


   I had not heard of the DUPIC experiment before, after a little searching it would appear that the reprocessing technology for the feed material came from Korea. MOX fuel is the only repossessing I am aware of in the US and that is not looking good. I like the idea of a pyroprocessing  but I am not sure that it would be economical for a single nuclear site. One of the reasons a reprosessing plant has not been built since Reagan rescinded Carters ban is cost.

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?