Stop Wasting Time--Create a Long-Term Solution for Nuclear Waste
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stop-wasting-time-create-a-long-term-solution-for-nuclear-waste/
from the (serious) article:
...The waste, hot from radioactive decay, is held in deep pools of water or in "dry casks" of concrete and steel that sit on reinforced pads. Accidents or terrorist attacks could drain the pools or crack the casks, with the risk that the exposed waste could catch fire, spreading radioactive soot across the surrounding countryside and into food chains in a Chernobyl-like catastrophe....
colorful theatrics, but not happening,....
soot?!?!?,...really?!?!?!,...soot?!?!?!
"The Editors" at Scientific American are shelving the "Scientific" and replacing that with "Hyperbolic",... :-\
I've read some sh**ty articles in my time.......this is in the top 20. I'm always amazed of the very little anti-nukes know about the makeup of spent fuel.
"Needs to be shielded for 1,000,000,000 years!!!!
No, that's natural Uranium.....no shielding required. Same with Plutonium.
Remove the fission products through fuel recycling, shield it for 200-300 years (with a massive difference in overall volume) and you have spent fuel that's "naturally" radioactive.
IDIOTS
Let the terrorists "crack" open a spent fuel cask......see where that gets them.
Modified for language
Guys we must have read seperate articles. Nuclear power needs disposal options to maintain any viability and I didn't read anything that was not accurate even if unlikey.
[coffee]
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 17, 2016, 10:11
Guys we must have read seperate articles. Nuclear power needs disposal options to maintain any viability and I didn't read anything that was not accurate even if unlikey.
[coffee]
the need for comprehensive disposal pathways is understood,...
piss poor articles are still piss poor articles, even when they cheerlead what you know needs to be rectified,...
call it a "Trump" article; the correct message, piss poor delivery,... 8)
Quote from: GLW on Mar 18, 2016, 05:18
the need for comprehensive disposal pathways is understood,...
piss poor articles are still piss poor articles, even when they cheerlead what you know needs to be rectified,...
call it a "Trump" article; the correct message, piss poor delivery,... 8)
Not something said about an article from Scientific American very often, much less an opinion piece from the editorial staff.
::)
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 18, 2016, 09:47
Not something said about an article from Scientific American very often, much less an opinion piece from the editorial staff.
::)
in this case it is deserved,...
SA should know better and self-police better,...
a scientific cheerleader still needs to be "scientific",...
or else you devolve to this:
https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,40193.msg192363.html#msg192363
Quote from: GLW on Mar 18, 2016, 12:28
in this case it is deserved,...
SA should know better and self-police better,...
a scientific cheerleader still needs to be "scientific",...
or else you devolve to this:
https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,40193.msg192363.html#msg192363
We will have to agree to disagree I don't see any misinformation or antinuclear rhetoric.
I'd have to say the third paragraph ruins the article. Honestly, "cracking a cask" show me how the terrorists are going to accomplish that.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573315300929 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573315300929)
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 21, 2016, 01:08
I'd have to say the third paragraph ruins the article. Honestly, "cracking a cask" show me how the terrorists are going to accomplish that.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573315300929 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573315300929)
They collapsed two separate 110 story buildings with asymmetrical thinking.
[coffee]
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 18, 2016, 12:58
We will have to agree to disagree I don't see any misinformation or antinuclear rhetoric.
Okay, but let us go a little further anyway,...
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 18, 2016, 12:58
We will have to agree to disagree I don't see any misinformation....
Wrong,...
..........Experts agree that a geologic repository remains the only viable long-term solution for disposing of the majority of commercial nuclear waste.....No, they do not, there are three major divisions of thought:
1 – reprocessing / spent fuel burners
2 – interim comprehensive storage in lieu of undiscovered technology
3 – deep geologic storage
We can discuss these further for the sake of those unfamiliar with the pros and cons of each,...
or not, I already know 'em (the pros and cons), I also already know that terms such as
"only viable long term solution" are grandstanding rhetoric for a specific point of view, which sets the stage for those who dissent to be labelled a "denier",...
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 18, 2016, 12:58
We will have to agree to disagree I don't see any ..... antinuclear rhetoric.
True, yet I did not claim there was anti-nuke in the article, I asserted there was unfounded, irresponsible pro-nuke rhetoric, which disserves our community, and can lend solace and aid to the other side with the wild exaggeration of the
"only viable solution" mantra, to wit:
"Some 70,000 metric tons of it are now stored at 70 sites scattered across 39 states."Not accurate, the article is discussing spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors, when only 34 states have commercial reactors or their spent fuel stored in any of the methods described in this same paragraph, their off by 10%, but boy does it make the numbers bigger and add intensity to the rest of the article's argument in favor of deep burial,...
"One in three Americans lives within roughly 80 kilometers of a storage site."This is a stand alone statement because it is true, but it is not true for spent fuel from commercial reactors, but the boogey man of proximity is interjected into the rhetoric,...
"The waste, hot from radioactive decay, is held in deep pools of water or in "dry casks" of concrete and steel that sit on reinforced pads. Accidents or terrorist attacks could drain the pools or crack the casks, with the risk that the exposed waste could catch fire, spreading radioactive soot across the surrounding countryside and into food chains in a Chernobyl-like catastrophe."Really!?!?!?!?
I mean REALLY?!?!?!?
Have you ever read or helped to write a SAR or a DSAR?!?!?!
Chernobyl?!?!?!?!?!? Catch fire?!?!?!? Soot in the food chain?!?!?!?
Of course, IF I were an anti-nuke this SA article would give me so much more ammunition for
"SHUT "EM ALL DOWN NOW, WE"RE ALL AT GRAVE RISK!!!!, EVERY DAY LONGER IS A DAY TOO MANY!!!! EVEN THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SAYS SO!!!!"yup, uh hmmm,...
and finally:
"As the years go by and waste is packed into overcrowded pools and pads, that risk will only grow."awwww man?!?!?!
Overcrowded,...the NRC is okay with "overcrowded" SFPs and ISFSIs?!?!?!
Once again:
"SHUT "EM ALL DOWN NOW, WE"RE ALL AT GRAVE RISK!!!!, THEY ARE OVERCROWDING HI LEVEL DANGEROUS SPENT FUEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES INTO POOLS AND OUT ON DRY PADS!!!!EVERY DAY LONGER IS A DAY TOO MANY!!!! EVEN THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SAYS SO!!!!"Yeah,....
[sarcasm] It's a great article, I'm impressed,... [sarcasm]
stupid emoticons
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 01:33
They collapsed two separate 110 story buildings with asymmetrical thinking.
[coffee]
no,...
they collapsed two separate 110 story buildings because planeloads of citizens programmed to be sheep in the face of evil were incapable of self preservative action against a few crazy pucks with box cutters in their hands,...
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 01:33
They collapsed two separate 110 story buildings with asymmetrical thinking.
[coffee]
Yes, and the same method delivered in the correct location could permanently cripple any power plant including nukes. But, show me how it will
Quoteexposed waste could catch fire, spreading radioactive soot across the surrounding countryside and into food chains in a Chernobyl-like catastrophe.
Additionally, whatever the magic bullet is that cracks that cask, could it not also penetrate the "Permanent Long Term Facility" that the Federal Government is "Legally Responsible" for providing that we are still waiting on 30 years later?
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:06
no,...
they collapsed two separate 110 story buildings because planeloads of citizens programmed to be sheep in the face of evil were incapable of self preservative action against a few crazy pucks with box cutters in their hands,...
+K +K [clap]
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:03
Okay, but let us go a little further anyway,...
Wrong,...
..........Experts agree that a geologic repository remains the only viable long-term solution for disposing of the majority of commercial nuclear waste.....
No, they do not, there are three major divisions of thought:
1 – reprocessing / spent fuel burners
2 – interim comprehensive storage in lieu of undiscovered technology
3 – deep geologic storage
We can discuss these further for the sake of those unfamiliar with the pros and cons of each,...
or not, I already know 'em (the pros and cons), I also already know that terms such as "only viable long term solution" are grandstanding rhetoric for a specific point of view, which sets the stage for those who dissent to be labelled a "denier",...
The end game will still be a stable geologic burial unless we want the risk of rockets for off plant disposition.
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:03
True, yet I did not claim there was anti-nuke in the article,
True, yet you are not the only one expressing an opinion on the subject.
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:06
no,...
they collapsed two separate 110 story buildings because planeloads of citizens programmed to be sheep in the face of evil were incapable of self preservative action against a few crazy pucks with box cutters in their hands,...
Yes,...
the conduct of the passengers is only a component in the root cause analysis of the event, the primary cause is the
unconventional thinking of the terrorists essential using box cutters to collapse the buildings.
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 02:20
The end game will still be a stable geologic burial unless we want the risk of rockets for off plant disposition.
Huh?
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 21, 2016, 02:11
Yes, and the same method delivered in the correct location could permanently cripple any power plant including nukes. But, show me how it will
Additionally, whatever the magic bullet is that cracks that cask, could it not also penetrate the "Permanent Long Term Facility" that the Federal Government is "Legally Responsible" for providing that we are still waiting on 30 years later?
A couple of foot of concrete versus a mile of rock ???
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 21, 2016, 02:25
Huh?
There will still be greater than class C nuclear material that needs to be disposed of in any of those scenarios.
[coffee]
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 02:23
Yes,...
the conduct of the passengers is only a component in the root cause analysis of the event, the primary cause is the unconventional thinking of the terrorists essential using box cutters to collapse the buildings.
that thinking primarily hinged on sheeple as passengers,...
and it primarily failed on Flight 93,...
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:03
"SHUT "EM ALL DOWN NOW, WE"RE ALL AT GRAVE RISK!!!!, THEY ARE OVERCROWDING HI LEVEL DANGEROUS SPENT FUEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES INTO POOLS AND OUT ON DRY PADS!!!!EVERY DAY LONGER IS A DAY TOO MANY!!!! EVEN THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SAYS SO!!!!"
and I thought the article was emphasizing the disposal to keep them open, silly me.
From the article:
"Creating the repository is both scientifically and politically possible. Last year Finland showed this when it approved construction of the Onkalo facility, which is expected to become the first geologic repository for spent fuel when it begins operations in the 2020s."
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:30
that thinking primarily hinged on sheeple as passengers,...
and it primarily failed on Flight 93,...
Passengers who did not know what was happening even those on flight 93 only had limited success. The point is that we may not know what to defend against, conduct of the passengers is irrelevant. The next attack may not involve civilian activity taking that out of the Root Cause Analysis not being a sure barrier to the event.
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 02:25
A couple of foot of concrete versus a mile of rock ???
Well there will be an entrance, correct? How do we know what it will be? Is there an approved design?
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 02:27
There will still be greater than class C nuclear material that needs to be disposed of in any of those scenarios.
[coffee]
I'm still unsure what that has to do with "off plant disposition" as I don't know what that means.
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 02:20
The end game will still be a stable geologic burial unless we want the risk of rockets for off plant disposition.
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 21, 2016, 02:44
I'm still unsure what that has to do with "off plant disposition" as I don't know what that means.
The article is about long term disposal not short term fixes and the failure of our government to meet it's commitment to provide one. Stable geologic storage is the only
long term solution that is universally recognized even reprocessing or "burning" only reduces the quantity.
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 02:40
Passengers who did not know what was happening even those on flight 93 only had limited success. The point is that we may not know what to defend against, conduct of the passengers is irrelevant. The next attack may not involve civilian activity taking that out of the Root Cause Analysis not being a sure barrier to the event.
your rebuttal only reinforces the notion that the terrorist threat is so assymetrical, so unable to be defeated, so unrespective of our barriers, that ALL nuke should be immediately stopped because those bad guys are undefeatable and cannot be stopped from torching the vast acres of spent fuel ISFSI pads, or spilling the vast overcrowded SFPs into our rivers and ecosystems and food chains,...
you win, stop all nuke now,...
actually, in your espoused world view,... the terrorists win,... :P ;) :) 8)
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:03
Have you ever read or helped to write a SAR or a DSAR?!?!?!
I have qualified as a DOE Safety Analyst and QSE. ::)
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:58
your rebuttal only reinforces the notion that the terrorist threat is so assymetrical, so unable to be defeated, so unrespective of our barriers, that ALL nuke should be immediately stopped because those bad guys are undefeatable and cannot be stopped from torching the vast acres of spent fuel ISFSI pads, or spilling the vast overcrowded SFPs into our rivers and ecosystems and food chains,...
you win, stop all nuke now,...
actually, in your espoused world view,... the terrorists win,... :P ;) :) 8)
Now you are just trolling.
[bad mood]
MMebbe,... But just a little,....
ahck, the Yucca scab was pretty well healed over and now you pop this article. I'm going to dream about Harry Reid and all the other Vegas swindlers who played along with the building of Yucca and once it's ready: pull the plug. And then try to resell it as a possible National Lab. The Horror
I say keep the dry cask storage at the secure site and make Uncle Sam pay for it. Eventually the world will become smart (most likely by force) and the next generations reactors will make that "spent" fuel GOLD.
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 02:50
The article is about long term disposal not short term fixes and the failure of our government to meet it's commitment to provide one. Stable geologic storage is the only long term solution that is universally recognized even reprocessing or "burning" only reduces the quantity.
sew, aye yam guessing that rail gunning it two hour sun gaught taken off yore table...
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 21, 2016, 02:20
The end game will still be a stable geologic burial unless we want the risk of rockets for off plant disposition.
Quote from: SloGlo on Mar 21, 2016, 09:39
sew, aye yam guessing that rail gunning it two hour sun gaught taken off yore table...
No just unlikely. Cost, failure rate, and general public opposition but maybe in a hundred years or so ;)
"Just my opinion I could be wrong." D.M.
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:03
2 – interim comprehensive storage in lieu of undiscovered technology
this is the best current solution because
this:
Quote from: GLW on Mar 21, 2016, 02:03
3 – deep geologic storage
is irreversible,....
Quote from: GLW on Mar 22, 2016, 04:56
this is the best current solution because this:
is irreversible,....
knot if you're elevator runs both up n down.... ;)
Quote from: Bonds 25 on Mar 21, 2016, 09:07
I say keep the dry cask storage at the secure site and make Uncle Sam pay for it. Eventually the world will become smart (most likely by force) and the next generations reactors will make that "spent" fuel GOLD.
I'd bet a box of doughnuts that a long term permanent storage facility built by the Feds isn't accepting commercial spent fuel in my lifetime. Why would they when all sites are either currently storing or planning to build storage at their respective sites, and other entities are offering to build temporary storage at a centralized location?
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 22, 2016, 01:44
I'd bet a box of doughnuts that a long term permanent storage facility built by the Feds isn't accepting commercial spent fuel in my lifetime. Why would they when all sites are either currently storing or planning to build storage at their respective sites, and other entities are offering to build temporary storage at a centralized location?
The current administration running Uncle Sam wants nothing to do with making nuclear viable over the long term.
e.g.
1 - cancelling Yucca Mountain
2 - cancelling by regulation obfuscation fiat Skull Valley ( http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/politics/55513674-90/consortium-friday-license-nrc.html.csp )
cannot wait to see which "Friends of the Court" come out of the weeds for this next, viable, plan:
http://www.holtecinternational.com/2015/04/holtec-partners-with-elea-llc-in-new-mexico-to-build-consolidated-interim-storage-facility/
a box of doughnuts?!?!?
you cannot win a box of doughnuts bet on any viable plan in this country under the current geoacademiapolitical pedagogy,... [coffee]
Quote from: GLW on Mar 22, 2016, 02:19
The current administration running Uncle Sam wants nothing to do with making nuclear viable over the long term.
Current or future administration, the bet is good for the remainder of my lifetime, however long that may be....
Quote from: GLW on Mar 22, 2016, 02:19
a box of doughnuts?!?!?
Hey, regardless of the odds, I can't afford to wager high. I have a family to feed. I guess I could spring for coffee as well.
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 22, 2016, 01:44
I'd bet a box of doughnuts that a long term permanent storage facility built by the Feds isn't accepting commercial spent fuel in my lifetime. Why would they when all sites are either currently storing or planning to build storage at their respective sites, and other entities are offering to build temporary storage at a centralized location?
You may be right but it will not be without consequences:
Government Liabilities
The Department of Energy was required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to begin removing used fuel from reactor sites by 1998. The government's failure to do so has resulted in nearly $2 billion in court-awarded damage settlements being paid from the taxpayer-funded Judgment Fund to compensate energy companies for storing the used fuel onsite. Damages could reach more than $20 billion by 2020 and up to $500 million annually after 2020.
http://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Nuclear-Waste-Management/Disposal
Quote from: Marlin on Mar 22, 2016, 02:42
Damages could reach more than $20 billion by 2020 and up to $500 million annually after 2020.
Add it to the list: http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/03714fa3-e01d-46a1-9c19-299533056741/wastebook---the-farce-awakens.pdf (http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/03714fa3-e01d-46a1-9c19-299533056741/wastebook---the-farce-awakens.pdf)
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 22, 2016, 02:32
......Hey, regardless of the odds, I can't afford to wager high. I have a family to feed. I guess I could spring for coffee as well.
you misunderstand,...
a box of doughnuts is too high a wager,... 8)
but as a long as you are springing for coffee:
(http://www.maunakonacoffee.com/images/nlabel.gif)