A loose end in nuke issue: spent fuel

A loose end in nuke issue: spent fuel

There are 25 comments on the The Morning Call story from Jun 10, 2009, titled A loose end in nuke issue: spent fuel. In it, The Morning Call reports that:

At the end of March 1979, the story of the newborn cat with two heads spread through the Susquehanna Valley like wildfire.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Morning Call.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Al Miles

Slatington, PA

#1 Jun 10, 2009
A search of "Whats new in nuclear waste processing" neted 112,000 related posting. Research is taking place everywhere to solve this problem. The best solution is the reprocessing for reuse as only one percent of the fuel available in used in the first use. As in everything else in our society, when new fuel becomes more expensive than reprocessing we will recycle old fuel. Too bad Nevada, you just killed your next "gold rush". As for nuclear material that cannot be recycled, within fifty years we will develope methods to safely launch it into space and send it to that great nuclear furnace in the sky. No, it won't add to global warming by overheating the sun, but meanwhile, it will help to reduce the growth of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Gary

Schnecksville, PA

#2 Jun 10, 2009
Both
harry Reid and Obama are a disaster for America.
We're going to be paying for their folly for years to come.
Gary

Schnecksville, PA

#3 Jun 10, 2009
Al Miles wrote:
A search of "Whats new in nuclear waste processing" neted 112,000 related posting. Research is taking place everywhere to solve this problem. The best solution is the reprocessing for reuse as only one percent of the fuel available in used in the first use. As in everything else in our society, when new fuel becomes more expensive than reprocessing we will recycle old fuel. Too bad Nevada, you just killed your next "gold rush". As for nuclear material that cannot be recycled, within fifty years we will develope methods to safely launch it into space and send it to that great nuclear furnace in the sky. No, it won't add to global warming by overheating the sun, but meanwhile, it will help to reduce the growth of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Sending it into space sounds,on the surface, like a good idea. What would be the result though if the rocket failed on takeoff? This stuff would be sprayed over a very large area.
Reprocessing is the answer, the French already do it.
humbug

United States

#4 Jun 10, 2009
I see nothing wrong in putting back in the ground where it came from. I am more concerned with all the granite countertops that is the rage these days and the amount of radiation being put in homes than the waste from plants.
Oh the manufacture of those tops play it. Get someone in and measure it.See for yourself.

Since: Mar 07

Allentown, PA

#7 Jun 10, 2009
The object is to remove unwanted waste and isolate it from the biosphere. The best place to do that is not in anybody's back yard, and where there is essentially no life, and no prospect of it ever returning to the surface.

And that is to bury it in the miles of muck at the bottom of the ocean. The Pacific has thousnds of miles of barren, lifeless, stable ocean bottom where the spent fuel (whole or re-processed) can be entoumbed for thousands of years without bothering anybody.
So Sure

Santa Ana, CA

#8 Jun 10, 2009
The object is to remove unwanted waste...Start w/David 1206
Gary

United States

#9 Jun 10, 2009
David-1206 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Hussein it's fine for the Iranians to have nuclear power.
But not for the United States
Obama is America's enemy no. 1. We just haven't figured it out yet.
That's why everything he wants to do is so rushed. he knows that sooner or later the American public is going to force congress to stop this nonsense.
you notice that his biggest backers are Muslims.
There's a reason for this.
Sober Dude

Allentown, PA

#10 Jun 10, 2009
Harry Reid has said many times that Yucca Mountain will NEVER open.

He (and the good people of the state of Nevada) had no problem with the fat $9B construction project employing all those people.

Perhaps he can get another $9B from the economic stimulus package to tear it apart. Wouldn't that be a great sue of our money?
Gary

Schnecksville, PA

#11 Jun 11, 2009
Peyronie wrote:
The object is to remove unwanted waste and isolate it from the biosphere. The best place to do that is not in anybody's back yard, and where there is essentially no life, and no prospect of it ever returning to the surface.
And that is to bury it in the miles of muck at the bottom of the ocean. The Pacific has thousnds of miles of barren, lifeless, stable ocean bottom where the spent fuel (whole or re-processed) can be entoumbed for thousands of years without bothering anybody.
Who actually owns that Ocean? Are you recommending that we claim it?

Since: Mar 07

Allentown, PA

#12 Jun 11, 2009
Gary wrote:
<quoted text>Who actually owns that Ocean? Are you recommending that we claim it?
I suggest we make use of the unused sediments at the bottom. Less than a football field would be needed. Nobody needs to 'own' anything more than that.
Sober Dude

Allentown, PA

#13 Jun 11, 2009
The solution to pollution is dilution.
Gary

Schnecksville, PA

#14 Jun 11, 2009
Peyronie wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest we make use of the unused sediments at the bottom. Less than a football field would be needed. Nobody needs to 'own' anything more than that.
So you just want to dump nuclear trash in international waters and think that's o.k.?
How about used motor oil, you o.k. with that also?
Susanne Vandenbosch

AOL

#16 Jun 11, 2009
Paul Carpenter claims that there is no risk of earthquakes at Yucca Mountain. In 1992 an earthquake damaged a Department of Energy building at the Yucca Mountain repository site in Nevada.
Sober Dude

Allentown, PA

#17 Jun 11, 2009
Susanne Vandenbosch wrote:
Paul Carpenter claims that there is no risk of earthquakes at Yucca Mountain. In 1992 an earthquake damaged a Department of Energy building at the Yucca Mountain repository site in Nevada.
This is SURFACE damage. Although I have no knowledge of quake risk at the site, I do know that building damage is not the same thing.
Gary

Schnecksville, PA

#18 Jun 11, 2009
Peyronie wrote:
<quoted text>
Try using a little brain power. As I said, the material can be easily CONTAINED and ISOLATED, not to mentioned monitored, cooled, and (if necessary) retrievable with a little intelligent design.
How do you get 'dumped' out of that?
Welcome to the world of the EnviroNazis! No logic, just alarmism.
You're the one with the brainless idea.
No body in their right mind would do what you're suggesting.
Just a Customer

Iron Mountain, MI

#19 Jun 11, 2009
You guys know that there is far more energy left in the waste than was used at any nuke plant. We recycle plastics, glass, paper and aluminum. When we started with some of these, the economics didn't favor this recycling. People got smarter. Some of this trash is now a pretty good resource.

Our spent nuclear fuel is actually a resource. It should be treated as such. Brainpower should be applied to determine the best way to recycle the stuff. Maybe MOX fuel is the way to go. Maybe reprocessing and just making all new fuel.

Right now it's sitting outside of about 100 nuclear facilities and within their fuel pools. Seems like a dumb way to store it. We're giving terrorists 100 sites to go after instead of simply consolidating it in one location.

If we stored it under the ocean, this future resource would be difficult to retrieve when the inevitable time comes when we will be using the stuff. Easier to monitor if stored on land.

Since: Mar 07

Emmaus, PA

#20 Jun 11, 2009
Gary wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one with the brainless idea.
No body in their right mind would do what you're suggesting.
So I take it that you are more interested in stopping nuclear power than in solving the problem.

Otherwise, please state your objections like a grownup.
Susanne Vandenbosch

AOL

#21 Jun 11, 2009
Surface buildings will be needed for transfer of spent fuel either from trains or trucks. so it does matter that an earthquake damaged a building in 1992 at the Yucca Mountain site. Later the Hector Mine earthquake knocked an Amtrak train off the tracks. Western Nevada is a seismically active area. Once the spent fuel is deposited in the repository earthquakes are of less concern but the estimates are that it will take 30 years to fill the repository and more if it is enlarged.
Susanne Vandenbosch

AOL

#22 Jun 11, 2009
Gary wrote:
<quoted text>Sending it into space sounds,on the surface, like a good idea. What would be the result though if the rocket failed on takeoff? This stuff would be sprayed over a very large area.
Reprocessing is the answer, the French already do it.
Reprocessing is done by the French, the British and the Japanese. Reprocessing, by itself, does not reduce the radioactivity. It separates the waste into different liquid streams. The French vitrify the waste but this will not isolate the waste indefinitely.They plan to bury some parts in a geological repository.
Solarman

Cathedral City, CA

#23 Jun 12, 2009
Susanne Vandenbosch wrote:
<quoted text>
Reprocessing is done by the French, the British and the Japanese. Reprocessing, by itself, does not reduce the radioactivity. It separates the waste into different liquid streams. The French vitrify the waste but this will not isolate the waste indefinitely.They plan to bury some parts in a geological repository.
There is UREX+1 type reprocessing. This could recycle fuel rods into new sources of fission material. What is not being done, the nuclear plants that are now being proposed are still LWR types. There are better versions of reactors out there that can use up the waste product from the old LWR online now. The generation IV pebble bed reactors are one type, another is referred to as IFR.

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.

PPL Corp Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News City lists possible actions on Americus : The M... (Mar '07) Apr '17 silly rabbit 19
News Firefighters Contain East Allentown Blaze (May '08) Sep '16 silly rabbit 2
News PPL Ceo tells shareholders utility is poised fo... (May '15) May '15 logical 1
News PPL nuclear power plant officials detail licens... (Jul '14) Jul '14 BDV 1
News PPL Corp., Allentown, Announces Layoffs: PPL Co... (Feb '09) Nov '13 Scranton 181
News Trial begins for businessmen accused of stealin... (Jan '13) Jan '13 silly rabbit 1
News Allentown fire station roof ripped off by Sandy... (Oct '12) Oct '12 silly rabbit 1
More from around the web