Nuclear bill advances in state House

Nuclear bill advances in state House

There are 50 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Mar 27, 2009, titled Nuclear bill advances in state House. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

The Vermont House has voted to advance a bill that would require the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's owners to pay more than $350 million into a fund for dismantling the plant when it shuts down.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Green Up VT

Holden, ME

#41 Mar 30, 2009
Ken wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting other countries know of and are actually using safe storage practices &/or reuse of nuclear waste? If that is the case, and quite frankly I doubt it, then why indeed does this country not follow suit?
Please detail.
Thanks
http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/n-c-13.htm
Green Up VT

Holden, ME

#42 Mar 30, 2009
Didn't come up, must have made a typo. Go to:
Chemcases.com General Chemistry Case Studies Nuclear Chemistry Recycling Spent Reactor Fuel by Dr. Frank Settle
IEP

Holden, ME

#43 Mar 30, 2009
Ken wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting other countries know of and are actually using safe storage practices &/or reuse of nuclear waste? If that is the case, and quite frankly I doubt it, then why indeed does this country not follow suit?
Please detail.
Thanks
COGEMA La Hague(France, mixed oxide or MOX fuel. Any more questions Ken?
Ken

Putney, VT

#44 Mar 30, 2009
IEP wrote:
<quoted text>
COGEMA La Hague(France, mixed oxide or MOX fuel. Any more questions Ken?
Thank you for your reply. Yes, France, UK, Japan & Russia reuse some of the spent fuel, however you will see below that is far from a satisfactory process. As always, bottom line profit structure carries so much more weight than responsible stewardship practices.

The research, development and commercial demonstration of advanced nuclear fuel-cycle technologies will take several decades and billions of dollars to complete.

For economic reasons, the United States does not recycle reactor fuel and uses and stores what is called an “open” fuel. A “closed” fuel could reduce the volume, heat and radiotoxicity of nuclear waste byproducts requiring disposal but could NOT and would not eliminate it. The resulting toxic waste will still need to be dealt with.
In the current commercial reactor fuel cycle, reactor fuel is used once and then removed from the reactor for “disposal” in a repository. However, in some other nations such as France, Japan and the United Kingdom, the reactor fuel is recycled and reused. Ultimately, the remaining byproducts then must be sent to a repository for disposal. Even the countries trying to utilize the most from this infinitely toxic waste have no safe solution for the final waste product. They are using more of the spent fuel than the United States does but it most certainly is not a “clean” plan even then.

Advanced fuel-cycle technologies cannot eliminate all, or even most, of the byproducts in used nuclear fuel. Furthermore, the systems eventually developed likely will not have the capacity to recycle all commercial used fuel ever generated. This does not sound like a safe and secure system even after the decades of research that are necessary.

Today’s reprocessing technology—known as PUREX—makes it possible to recycle and reuse ONLY uranium and plutonium from used nuclear fuel. The remainder of the isotopes are mixed with glass for disposal as high-level waste in a process known as vitrification. The advanced process would separate uranium, plutonium and other elements—which still contain usable amounts of energy—from the radioactive waste comprising long-lived and short-lived radioisotopes that have no energy value.
The uranium and plutonium separated from used reactor fuel by PUREX reprocessing can be recycled as mixed oxide fuel. France and the United Kingdom currently use this process, and Japan has built a facility that will use it in the future. PUREX raises many serious concerns because it produces a PURE PLUTONIUM byproduct that must be stored under strict security and safeguards as provided in internationally agreed protocols.

Advanced reprocessing, such as UREX+, would use recycling processes that do not produce pure plutonium. UREX+ extracts the uranium from used fuel, leaving the remaining plutonium with other radioactive materials. As with PUREX technology, UREX+ produces HIGH-LEVEL radioactive waste that requires disposal. UREX+ has only been demonstrated in laboratory conditions and is many years, likely decades, away from reality - if it ever develops.

A new generation of reactors would need to be developed to use uranium, plutonium and other elements made available by advanced reprocessing and convert them to shorter-lived, less toxic materials while extracting useful energy. These reactors are also decades away from commercial development and would NOT remove all of the toxic nuclear waste, it would only reduce it.
I still do not see where any of this advanced technology is “green”, although it is a step in the right direction to reduce CURRENT nuclear waste. There is not sufficient technology in place to warrant generation of more nuclear waste, here or anywhere else on this planet.
IEP

Holden, ME

#45 Mar 30, 2009
Frankly, I don't see any good reason to delay this any longer. Energy independence, growth, reliability demand that we develope these technologies simultaneously. It is irresponsible to base an energy policy on the beliefe that Americans would willing to revert back to being a lesser developed Nation. That ideology might hold water in Windahm County, but reality is not based in VT.
storm warning

Fond Du Lac, WI

#47 Jan 4, 2010
Nuclear BS

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#50 Jan 5, 2010
Anti-Nuke kooks running the world again. With the Democrats shutting down all new construction for decades and Obama swearing to decimate the coal industry I wonder what the plan is. Do they have one we can afford? I doubt it. I can't wait until I hear Democrats whining about the shy high electric bill.
Steve

Walpole, NH

#51 Jan 5, 2010
YA,

-Ban Mining, Let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark!
Ken

Newfane, VT

#53 Jan 14, 2010
Auto Mechanic, how long have you worked for VY? What would anyone in SC know about the threats of safety & welfare in Vermont?

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "kooks" or political parties. It is about the future of our land and the lives and safety of our children and their future generations.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#54 Jan 14, 2010
It has nothing to do with Vermont. Nuclear plants start-up's have been voted out by Democratic votes for decades. Try and see the bigger picture.

Let's give all control to GE.
http://tdworld.com/test_monitor_control/highl...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Orleans Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Two arraigned in I-91 heroin bust (Oct '14) May '16 Anonymous 9
Leads For Home Security Alarm Systems (Oct '12) May '16 patrickjones 6
News Tesla Green Mountain Power parternship brings r... (May '16) May '16 Solarman 1
News Police: Man found with 1,428 bags of heroin in ... (Mar '16) Apr '16 markey fife 2
News Bizarre car theft in Bennington (Jun '13) Jun '13 Elmer 2
News Vermont farmer uses tractor to smash 7 police c... (Aug '12) Aug '12 Eighthman 17
News Truck carrying turbine for Vermont project tips... (Jul '12) Aug '12 jonp 7

Orleans Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orleans Mortgages