NukeWorker Forum

News and Discussions => Nuke News => Topic started by: Marlin on Apr 25, 2023, 12:47

Title: 4 Key Updates to the U.S. Department of Energy Consent-Based Siting Process
Post by: Marlin on Apr 25, 2023, 12:47

4 Key Updates to the U.S. Department of Energy Consent-Based Siting Process

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/4-key-updates-us-department-energy-consent-based-siting-process

Title: Re: 4 Key Updates to the U.S. Department of Energy Consent-Based Siting Process
Post by: GLW on Apr 25, 2023, 02:31

.....DOE plans to issue $26 million in awards in 2023 to provide resources for communities interested in learning more about consent-based siting, the management of spent nuclear fuel, and interim storage facility siting considerations.
 
The awards will not represent a commitment to host spent nuclear fuel.....

aka,...

we (DOE) will spread 26 million around to select communities to talk about hosting SNM even though these communities have zero intention of ever hosting SNM,...

but they'll be glad to take a few million each to talk about it,.....

this country is so screwed,.....

Title: Re: 4 Key Updates to the U.S. Department of Energy Consent-Based Siting Process
Post by: Mounder on Apr 26, 2023, 07:25

Can we give Mexico the millions to rent some property directly over the border of CA, AZ or southwestern NM for nuclear waste storage?   Lots of advantages/controls already in place.

Title: Re: 4 Key Updates to the U.S. Department of Energy Consent-Based Siting Process
Post by: Mounder on Apr 26, 2023, 11:38

Is considering Mexico border property for consolidated interim storage crazier than getting some state to approve storage?  I think not.
Out-of-the-box thinking is needed because conventional thinking is lost on this topic.
Interim consolidated storage below Washington DC, because it's not a state?...
Globally using Antartica for below ground storage? 
Set up storage at the Tar Creek Superfund site in Oklahoma.  1200 sq miles of already damaged land with no inhabitants.