Discussions

[1] 2 3 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article GE Hitachi's Answer to Nuclear Waste.

• 
  sndream
  

  Posts:
  9

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/17/2010 09:16 AM

  Real problem

  The real problem is transportation between separation site and the power plant.  I am not sure whether it's feasible for each power plant to have its own dedicated separation facility.
  
  But I don't see any additional security risk for US since they already have plies of plutonium for their nuclear weapon.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    Kevin Bullis
    

    Posts:
    126

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/17/2010 10:45 AM

    Re: Real problem

    The plan is to co-locate the separation facilities and the sodium reactors, which would solve this problem.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    B Mused
    

    Posts:
    3

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/22/2010 01:38 PM

    Re: Real problem

    Just what aspect of transportation do you see as "the real problem?" That it can't be done? It has been done for over 30 years. That it is "unsafe?" See a report called "Going the Distance" by the National Research Council in 2006.
    Is it because there are perceptions of risk among a generally uninformed public? That should be something that can be eased through education from objective trusted sources, like the NRC. Instead, we have had distorted exploitation by political figures of the Baltimore tunnel fire about six years ago--which did not involve nuclear material-- with great hysteria conjuring up "what if there had been nuclear waste in the fire?"

    Rate this comment:
• 
  aunderdown
  

  Posts:
  45

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/17/2010 10:21 AM

  Capturing Nuclear Waste's Energy Content

  The Canadian reactors mentioned in the article use heavy water as the moderator and are called CANDU reactors (as in CANadian DeUterium Oxide Reactor) - a name that evokes an earlier era when people had more confidence in nuclear technology. Today we’ve become much more careful about our use of technology, which is a good thing, unless we carry it to the point of “paralysis by analysis”. I'm thinking, of course, about the hundreds of millions of dollars and countless person-hours spent on the attempts (futile so far) by Canada and the United Stated to find long-term storage by deep burial. I hope we'll have the confidence to implement technologies such as the one described in the article.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    kstauff
    

    Posts:
    129

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/17/2010 04:38 PM

    Re: Capturing Nuclear Waste's Energy Content

    It's $13 billion in the US alone for research and development of the Yucca Mountain site, recently canceled I might add.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  bj
  

  Posts:
  43

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/17/2010 10:39 AM

  I find the timing of this announcement interesting

  One wonders if the Obama Administration was approached and promised future campaign largesse if they cooperated in making TAXPAYER dough available for an energy form that is far from clean, and "affordable" only with HUGE government subsidies.
  
  Do the reading on what the French People think about Nuclear Power. It's not the answer.
  
  Why aren't we spending this dough on real clean energy solutions? That's what We, The People, wanna know.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    mkogrady
    

    Posts:
    286

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/17/2010 11:34 AM

    Re: I find the timing of this announcement interesting

    bj -
    
    Most of our "TAXPAYER dough" is tied up securing middle eastern oil at the cost of a million buckeroo's per soldier (feds costs - not mine).
    
    We need an Middle Eastern Exit Strategy that takes these costs into account when dealing with new ideas and solutions. Nukes are not necessarily new solutions, but the newer generations make it safer overall.
    
    Scale back the military deployments by 20% per year, redirect the TAXPAYER dough to other new domestic energy solutions. Essentially make this a UN issue, not a US issue. It's only "ours" if we intend to continue making it ours directly.
    
    To offset the loss of US military personnel, "invite" China and other nations to the frey to give the radicals something else to think about for a change.
    
    Afterall - China invested $3 Billion to gain a foot hold in Afghanistan and develop Oil Fields there - yet have ZERO foot soldiers on the ground protecting their investment. The US is covering their A$$ (pun intended on $$).

    Rate this comment:
• 
  ronwagn
  

  Posts:
  25

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/17/2010 11:40 AM

  Cost to the Nuclear Industry

  The cost of any and all nuclear waste storage needs to be added, up front, to the cost of the energy sold to the consumer. That means disposal and top grade security protection of the waste for thousands of years. Of course they can't guarantee this, so the point is moot. We need to use safe sources of power such as newly found, and abundant, natural gas.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    spad12
    

    Posts:
    57

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/17/2010 01:26 PM

    Re: Cost to the Nuclear Industry

    It has, and currently is. Your taxes are not going to fund Yucca mountain, or reprocessing facilities, that money comes from the nuclear facility. The fund has collected about $25 billion over the years, $9 billion has been spent on Yucca mountain so far leaving $16 billion to fund projects such as these.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    rlindsl
    

    Posts:
    25

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/18/2010 12:53 AM

    Re: Cost to the Nuclear Industry

    Yeah just like the environmental costs of coal, the national security related costs of petroleum, the endangered species cost of hydro-power, and the tax subsidies of renewable energy...

    Rate this comment:

[1] 2 3 Next »