Editorial: Going nowhere on U.S. nucl...

Editorial: Going nowhere on U.S. nuclear waste

There are 2 comments on the Denver Post story from Aug 16, 2013, titled Editorial: Going nowhere on U.S. nuclear waste. In it, Denver Post reports that:

U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz listens during a congressional hearing regarding disposal of used nuclear fuel and radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain and other facilities.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Denver Post.

Vilhelm

Pittsview, AL

#1 Aug 16, 2013
A basic problem is that the Yucca facility has been evaluated and sold as a "permanent repository" for spent fuel. Instead, it should be engineered so that future generations can retrieve the waste if they have reason to do so. Such reasons may include poor performance of the site as measured over time, or new technologies that make reprocessing more economical and practical. Future generations may also evaluate the actual performance and decide to backfill and close the facility for good. Probably not a good idea to embark on reprocessing at this time. The technology is clumsy and the logistics are a nightmare.
Dan

Upton, NY

#2 Aug 16, 2013
Vilhelm wrote:
A basic problem is that the Yucca facility has been evaluated and sold as a "permanent repository" for spent fuel. Instead, it should be engineered so that future generations can retrieve the waste if they have reason to do so. Such reasons may include poor performance of the site as measured over time, or new technologies that make reprocessing more economical and practical. Future generations may also evaluate the actual performance and decide to backfill and close the facility for good. Probably not a good idea to embark on reprocessing at this time. The technology is clumsy and the logistics are a nightmare.
Yucca is designed for retrieval, but why should we put it there when reprocessing is the best alternative. I agree that current technology while not necessarily clumsy certainly is infrastructure intensive but worth it from the standpoint of the waste remaining only needs about 600 years of radioactive decay as opposed to the tens of thousands required with the Transuranic and plutonium isotopes in used current LWR fuel assemblies. This is another reason anti-nukes don't want reprocessing as it would kill one of their biggest arguments about nuclear power. ANL is currently working on a much more efficient way to recycle spent fuel, see video at http://atomicinsights.com/recycling-used-nucl...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Nuclear Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nuclear power holds key to clean energy in future Thu Solarman 1
News Japan begging for another Fukushima by restarti... Aug 25 gone4lunch 2
News South Africa: 'Nuclear Not Needed and Perfect f... Aug 25 BDV 1
News Japanese reactor radiation detected off B.C. coast Aug 24 thanh 5
News Katie Tubb: Let nuclear industry, not bureaucra... Aug 19 BDV 7
Nuclear Power in Australia Aug 17 Nuke 1
News Ha Noi: Framework needed for Vietnam nuclear plans (Jul '13) Aug 12 dit me may 7
More from around the web