NRC wants waste stored for century

NRC wants waste stored for century

There are 40 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Jan 4, 2011, titled NRC wants waste stored for century. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has written a revision of the Waste Confidence Decision which could allow spent fuel and high-level waste to be stored at nuclear facilities for more than 120 years.

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

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#1 Jan 4, 2011
This will serve to give NRC more unwanted attention as the public continues to be confronted with their sketchy practices, policies & procedures.

The more the pronuclear claque opens their mouths, the more absurd the pseudoscience they're so famous for & resulting inaccuracies, erroneous info & flawed logic become. Those w/mere common sense now see the parade of distortions & continuing circus this has become w/ongoing news reports putting spotlight on this.

The 'renaissance' will continue to make little if any progress as states continue to recognize the nuclear industry for the sham it is & the charlatans who represent it.

It's just fine w/me.
This Vermonter

Barnet, VT

#2 Jan 4, 2011
With the price of energy on a steep incline, long term storage will not be an issue. The price point will determine policy and it will become lucrative to reprocess the fuel. The term will not be nuclear waste however but rather potential energy.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#3 Jan 4, 2011
This Vermonter wrote:
With the price of energy on a steep incline, long term storage will not be an issue. The price point will determine policy and it will become lucrative to reprocess the fuel. The term will not be nuclear waste however but rather potential energy.
please clue me into anywhere that has a successful recycling program....
I will warn you that it is a loaded request...
This Vermonter

Barnet, VT

#4 Jan 4, 2011
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
please clue me into anywhere that has a successful recycling program....
I will warn you that it is a loaded request...
Are you stating that ingenuity and technological development have ceased? Are you one of those folks who believe that the moon landing was faked?
This Vermonter

Barnet, VT

#5 Jan 4, 2011
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html

It's coming
This Vermonter

Barnet, VT

#6 Jan 4, 2011
An advantage of MOX is that the fissile concentration of the fuel can be increased easily by adding a bit more plutonium, whereas enriching uranium to higher levels of U-235 is relatively expensive. As reactor operators seek to burn fuel harder and longer, increasing burnup from around 30,000 MW days per tonne a few years ago to over 50,000 MWd/t now, MOX use becomes more attractive.

Reprocessing to separate plutonium for recycle as MOX becomes more economic as uranium prices rise. MOX use also becomes more attractive as the need to reduce the volume of spent fuel increase. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html
estanson

Windsor, VT

#7 Jan 4, 2011
This Vermonter wrote:
<quoted text>Are you stating that ingenuity and technological development have ceased? Are you one of those folks who believe that the moon landing was faked?
you mean you believe we really landed on the moon?
Its just going to take us until 2025 to be able to return?

anyhew, back to the topic...

so we are to expect great technological developments with nuke waste?(but not in renewables i am sure)

By the time we figure that one out we wont need nukes at all..
estanson

Windsor, VT

#8 Jan 4, 2011
This Vermonter wrote:
An advantage of MOX is that the fissile concentration of the fuel can be increased easily by adding a bit more plutonium, whereas enriching uranium to higher levels of U-235 is relatively expensive. As reactor operators seek to burn fuel harder and longer, increasing burnup from around 30,000 MW days per tonne a few years ago to over 50,000 MWd/t now, MOX use becomes more attractive.
Reprocessing to separate plutonium for recycle as MOX becomes more economic as uranium prices rise. MOX use also becomes more attractive as the need to reduce the volume of spent fuel increase. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html
this is nothing more than proposing we use ethanol to cut gasoline...
its better for the env...ooops....
Blorg

Las Vegas, NV

#9 Jan 4, 2011
Correction: When a disposal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was proposed in the mid-1980s, it was estimated that it would be opened in 1998
This Vermonter

Barnet, VT

#10 Jan 4, 2011
Blorg wrote:
Correction: When a disposal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was proposed in the mid-1980s, it was estimated that it would be opened in 1998
Then the politics of fear got in the way.....

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#11 Jan 4, 2011
This Vermonter wrote:
With the price of energy on a steep incline, long term storage will not be an issue. The price point will determine policy and it will become lucrative to reprocess the fuel. The term will not be nuclear waste however but rather potential energy.
Another complete lie. You're full of them! Energy price is not on a 'steep incline'.

Though the price of crude has risen & is expected to do continue, this is not where we get electricity from.

Steep decline due to the price of natural gas which has fallen like a rock.

VT & H-Q are scheduled to sign a contract which stabilizes VTs cost of elec for 26 years.

VT has already locked in prices, signed contracts w/other suppliers & continues to move forward w/plans for their own renewables.

The costliest was, in fact the PPA proposed by Entergy which VT elec utilities as well as legislature *unanimously rejected*.

Reprocessing is not a savings over mined uranium. And, it is not cost effective which is why it is only done in countries which NPPs are state owned.

"Reprocessing nuclear fuel costs
-- significantly more --
than using it once and storing it as waste. It is also controversial because extracted plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons, although China has long had a nuclear arsenal.

U.S. commercial reprocessing of plutonium was halted by then-President Jimmy Carter because of nuclear proliferation worries. Then-President George W. Bush proposed a resumption, but the National Research Council found it not economically justifiable. President Barack Obama scrapped the Bush effort."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/chin...

Not getting anywhere but by all means keep trying!
estanson

Windsor, VT

#12 Jan 4, 2011
This Vermonter wrote:
<quoted text>Then the politics of fear got in the way.....
is that like saying Vermont will become a dark and barren wasteland if VY shuts down?
Thomas

Bernardston, MA

#13 Jan 4, 2011
northstardust wrote:
<quoted text>
Another complete lie. You're full of them! Energy price is not on a 'steep incline'.
Though the price of crude has risen & is expected to do continue, this is not where we get electricity from.
Steep decline due to the price of natural gas which has fallen like a rock.
VT & H-Q are scheduled to sign a contract which stabilizes VTs cost of elec for 26 years.
VT has already locked in prices, signed contracts w/other suppliers & continues to move forward w/plans for their own renewables.
The costliest was, in fact the PPA proposed by Entergy which VT elec utilities as well as legislature *unanimously rejected*.
Reprocessing is not a savings over mined uranium. And, it is not cost effective which is why it is only done in countries which NPPs are state owned.
"Reprocessing nuclear fuel costs
-- significantly more --
than using it once and storing it as waste. It is also controversial because extracted plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons, although China has long had a nuclear arsenal.
U.S. commercial reprocessing of plutonium was halted by then-President Jimmy Carter because of nuclear proliferation worries. Then-President George W. Bush proposed a resumption, but the National Research Council found it not economically justifiable. President Barack Obama scrapped the Bush effort."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/chin...
Not getting anywhere but by all means keep trying!
I don't particularly like nuclear energy, mainly because of the expense of the whole system. But I frankly do not think that storage is the big, bad problem that the reactionaries would have us believe. Another example of liberal inconsistencies and impracticality. Liberals believe in War Tax Resistance, and "free love", while being critical of tax cheating of high income people, and anti-"sexism" divorces where women can freely bail on the husband and sue him for maximum $$$! Talk about irrational....

The problem comes down to energy conservation and compromises on all forms of energy production whether "clean" or "dirty".

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#14 Jan 4, 2011
Your perceptions not based on current information & too general. I am not 'liberal', but independent. The 'war tax resistance' is oldish, I think.

Free love-hey I was a child when I heard about that stuff!

Anti-sexism divorces? You mean in Hollywood? I've never heard of any decision based on that. In VT, assets are divided & split 50/50. There are certain special circumstances,

Don't believe everything you read, just bc they may exist does not mean they amount to anything. The more lengthy, the more costly.

Those of us who do not want storage for an indefinate amount of time are not 'reactionaries'.

Canister designs have found to be flawed. They also emit radioactivity.

Since the NRC exists solely to protect & accomodate industry, not the public, their decisions are a joke & but one more reason NOT to accept nuclear power since it places states under some NRC guidelines.

Waste must be guarded 24/7 into perpetuity. There is a risk of catastrophic occurance. It simply is not worth the risk.
This Vermonter

Barnet, VT

#15 Jan 4, 2011
This Vermonter wrote:
<quoted text>Then the politics of fear got in the way.....
The tail wagging the dog shall we say?
This Vermonter

Barnet, VT

#16 Jan 4, 2011
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
is that like saying Vermont will become a dark and barren wasteland if VY shuts down?
I have not heard that as an official statement before, can you locate the source?
estanson

Windsor, VT

#17 Jan 4, 2011
This Vermonter wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not heard that as an official statement before, can you locate the source?
there is no official candidate or party for the politics of fear...
This Vermonter

Barnet, VT

#18 Jan 4, 2011
I did not invent the term, the Democrats did:
CloseLinkedinDiggFacebookMixxM ySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink Published: July 18, 2007
It had to happen. President Bush’s bungling of the war in Iraq has been the talk of the summer. On Capitol Hill, some of the more reliable Republicans are writing proposals to force Mr. Bush to change course. A showdown vote is looming in the Senate.

Enter, stage right, the fear of terrorism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/opinion/18w...

Or did these folks?

October 31, 2007, 12:32 pm
Climate Change and the ‘Politics of Fear’
By SEWELL CHAN

"The political and literary journal n+1 was the organizer of Tuesday night’s panel discussion on environmentalism. Is the environmental movement, like the war on terror, premised on a “politics of fear”? In other words, does it try to unify people by scaring them with threats to their basic survival?

That was the provocative thesis advanced by Alex Gourevitch, a doctoral candidate in political theory at Columbia University, at a panel discussion on Tuesday evening at the New York Public Library. He was confronted by vigorous dissent from his fellow panelists and from some members of the audience."
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/...

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#19 Jan 4, 2011
There is nothing new under the sun."Fearmongering" is older than dirt. The terminology simply changes.

"Chicken Little" was around long before any current political parties.
Thomas

New Haven, CT

#20 Jan 4, 2011
Too bad I can't edit my post as on other sites. I am not up to date on this issue, I just hope that it gets properly solved.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Vernon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama's Top Ten Lies Last Night/ Clinton's Crim... (Jan '16) Feb 21 Long Island Liberal 7
Review: Biologic Integrative Health - Samantha ... (Feb '10) Jan '17 Wtf dr Moore 64
Melissa Barratt's family and friends... (Aug '11) Jan '17 Long Island Liberal 26
News Man accuses judge of extortion, theft (Apr '09) Dec '16 MADD 32
News Protesters see long road ahead (Dec '14) Mar '15 BDV 14
Entergy Subsidiaries Agree to Buy Union Power S... (Dec '14) Dec '14 ManyKilled By Str... 6
News Vernon's police chief speaks out after departme... (Mar '14) Nov '14 Patty O Furniture 20

Vernon Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Vernon Mortgages