Nuclear waste piles up with no disposal plan

[ensho]

http://www.app.com/article/20100915/NEWS/9150349/Nuclear-waste-piles-up-with-no-disposal-plan


-snip-

After axing a multibillion-dollar plan to bury the waste beneath Yucca Mountain, Nev., President Barack Obama has asked an expert panel to recommend alternatives.

But the panel's report isn't due until January 2012. And the group's recommendations aren't binding on the White House or Congress.

In short, the country's political leaders are no closer to a safe, permanent disposal plan for nuclear waste than they were a generation ago, when nuclear power became widespread and the Cold War was in full swing.

-snip-

"The country at large is beset by a whole host of problems, so it's not surprising that they aren't paying attention to this," said nuclear expert Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "Everybody realizes that the collapse of the Yucca Mountain program means many years of on-site storage with no end in sight. Even the people who want nuclear power don't want waste in their backyards.

-snip-

In addition to the commercial waste, about 91 million gallons of high-level liquid waste is stored at South Carolina's Savannah River Site, Washington state's Hanford Site and the Idaho National Laboratory. That waste comes from making fuel for nuclear weapons during the Cold War era.

-long snip-
-------------------------------


nobody has a plan. guess they will make a plan after there is a deadly accident. but nuke accidents are forever.

poor Savanna. a lovely city having to live with a deadly and growing neighbor.

Savanna's just waiting for a hurricane to upset everything. sooner or later it will.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Which is fine, the current system is working.

Better to go with the current system, then rush into a long term plan that later proves inadequate.

[ensho]

2. the current system is that everyone keeps their own waste anyway

they can and hope for the best.

that's not much of a system.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Yes, and it's working.

Have you got a better idea? Besides your no nukes, more coal stance?

[ensho]

4. I never said I wanted more coal. I want less coal. don't be telling lies

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. You said you want no nukes. Same thing.

Regardless, you're dodging the question.

[ensho]

6. its not the same thing - you sound stupid

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Says the person always posting those "nuke events" threads.

Still dodging, btw.

[kristopher]

10. You are simply being a "denialist"

Anyone who doesn't recognize the failures associated with nuclear power, such as the global failure to find a solution for wastes, is clearly a fanatic not worth talking to.

A new Yucca Mountain every 2 years

The renewable option: Is it real?
SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land. Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW. Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW. Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture). Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

The nuclear option: size of the challenges
• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren


From MIT:

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. I'm being a realist.

Dozens of nuke plants are going up all over the world, and that's far better more coal plants producing the same amount of electricity.

What are you planning to do with the waste?

[kristopher]

20. No you aren't, you are being gullible.

There IS no satisfactory way to deal with the waste, that is the stupidity of the technology.

Both coal AND nuclear are undesirable sources of energy because of their external costs.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. If they're undesirable and not cost effective....

why are so many countries building so many nukes?

[kristopher]

24. New renewable installation dwarfs new nuclear.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. So why isn't it replacing it completely?

[kristopher]

28. It will.

[madokie]

12. You sound stupid making that statement

The poster wasn't dodging any question rather it seems that you are. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. So what are your plans for dealing with nuclear waste?

:hi:

[madokie]

14. I've been against nuclear power for most of my life

I was asking the questions about what they were going to do with the waste back in the sixties and guess what I was lied to, told bullshit, that they were working on that right now, and that they expected a solution any time and on and on. Been 50 years and still they have no plan. In the mean time we need to stop considering building more nuclear power plants until that day arrives where they have a solution. Start spending the money and time thats being wasted on alternate energy. if President Carter was listened to and his advice taken we wouldn't be where we are today. Its not my place to come up with a plan its my place to demand that a viable plan is devised and developed.

I'm still being lied to today so don't even try to turn this back on me or lie to me some more. mk :-)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. That's a dodge.

It's like the RW dodge of "abstinence" when asked about solutions for the problems of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

[madokie]

18. Thats a misdirection if ever I read one

I'm not dodging your question I told you what and where I'm coming from, deal with it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. You didn't answer my question.

You're just avoiding it.

[madokie]

22. I've better things to do than argue on the internet with a argumentative person

Its not my place to come up with a solution its my place to ask the question as to what they plan to do with that waste and I do that and will continue to do that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Taking your ball and going home?

OK.

[kristopher]

25. Your question is idiotic as there IS no good way to deal with the waste.

That reflects poorly on the nuclear industry, it does not mean the present system is "working" as a solution to disposal of nuclear waste.

[kristopher]

8. Thanks for sharing the nuclear industry's false claim that it is either nukes or coal.

The reality is that renewables can do the job BETTER and CHEAPER than either coal or nuclear. Do you know what the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency does? It is the agency responsible for ensuring the safety and RELIABILITY of the nation's electric supply. http://www.ferc.gov/


April 22, 2009
Energy Regulatory Chief Says New Coal, Nuclear Plants May Be Unnecessary
By NOELLE STRAUB AND PETER BEHR, Greenwire

No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission said today.

"We may not need any, ever," Jon Wellinghoff told reporters at a U.S. Energy Association forum.
The FERC chairman's comments go beyond those of other Obama administration officials, who have strongly endorsed
greater efficiency and renewables deployment but also say nuclear and fossil energies will continue playing a major role.
Wellinghoff's view also goes beyond the consensus outlook in the electric power industry about future sources of electricity.
The industry has assumed that more baseload generation would provide part of an increasing demand for power, along
with a rapid deployment of renewable generation, smart grid technologies and demand reduction strategies.
Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Electricity Industry Center, expressed skepticism about the feasibility
of relying so heavily on renewable energy. "I don't think we're where Chairman Wellinghoff would like us to be," Apt said.
"You need firm power to fill in when the wind doesn't blow. There is just no getting around that."
Some combination of more gas- or coal-fired generation, or nuclear power, will be needed, he said. "Demand response can
provide a significant buffering of the power fluctuations coming from wind. Interacting widely scattered wind farms cannot
provide smooth power." ...

[ensho]

9. thank you for this info

nt

[MadHound]

30. The current system is leaking, badly, throughout the country

Indian Point, Callaway County, plants across the country are seeing leaks of radioactive material out of their containment pools and into the surrounding earth and ground water.

The current system hasn't been working "fine" for a long, long while. Which is one of the big reasons we need to stop going down the nuclear path, and instead focus on renewables.

[anarch]

11. maybe we should just dump it all in the Gulf of Mexico

because shit, why not? We dumped all that oil in there and everything is just fine now.

[madokie]

16. Maybe it'll eat the oil that settled to the bottom even

a double good win. :rofl:

[kristopher]

27. But the French have solved the waste problem, haven't they?

No, they haven't. This series of articles reveals the vast disparity between what the French nuclear industry has been claiming regarding recycling and what the reality is. Essentially the claims that have been made are that they've solved the waste problem with recycling when in reality they have been running a Ponzi scheme where the waste is just reclassified and left sitting in parking lots (seriously!).

1) France: Official plan admits problems with management of uranium and plutonium
http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/09/france_official_plan_admi.html

2) Report: Long-term plans to develop an FBR based plutonium economy in France is not demonstrated
http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/09/report_long-term_plans_to.html

3) Fuel "recycling" a myth, a French report involuntarily demonstrates
http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/09/fuel_recycling_a_myth_a_f.html

4) Less than 4% of French nuclear fuel "recycled", NGOs calculate
http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/09/less_than_4_of_french_nuc.html

[blueworld]

29. Extra thanks for these links. It's become a family argument! n/t

[closeupready]

32. That's what they keep their colonies for. And what Tibet is ultimately for, IMO.

n/t

[closeupready]

31. Gee. Maybe we could reduce our demand.

Naaah - that would never work! :sarcasm: