Skip to main content

CNN Poll On Nuclear Energy

CNN.com is running an online poll on whether or not nuclear energy should be used as a replacement for fossil fuels. Get over there and make your voice be heard.

Thanks to Rod Adams for the heads up.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

nonukes said…
Please tell my grandchildren just where and how the high-level radioactive waste already produced at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants will be safely stored for 100,000-300,000 years
Brian Mays said…
If your grandchildren can read, I suggest that they look at the following site, which contains some useful information:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/
matthew bohun said…
There are a number of options available for long term storage of used fuel in a once through system, see http://www.uic.com.au/nip.htm for a number of briefing papers prepared by the Uranium Infomation Centre in Australia. My preferred option is to reprocess (currently illegal in the USA) to recover the fissile and fertile materials (including U235, U238 and Pu) for recycling as fuel, and isolating the remaining wastes in Synroc®. Pu has a half life of 24,000 years, however if it is recycled, it will be transmuted into other elements by the chain reaction. Waste products from reprocessing have much shorter half-lives and only need to be isolated for approximately 300 years. The toxic waste from the nuclear fuel cycle is far smaller in quantity than the toxic waste from coal fired plants - which is largely unregulated.
Kelly L. Taylor said…
Reprocessing is *not* illegal in the USA. Although President Carter was against it, President Reagan reversed his reprocessing policies. Economics do not currently favor reprocessing in the US; nobody is doing it because there is no profit in it, when compared to the cost of producing fuel via the once-through uranium fuel cycle.
Matthew Bohun said…
I stand corrected re the lawfulness of reprocessing in the US. I am not sure that reprocessing is an economic source of reactor fuel anywhere, however, I believe that other countries pursue reprocessing as a waste minimization strategy. Perhaps the DOE should consider establishing a reprocessing facility to minimize the waste, paid for out of the disposal fund, with sales of mox used to partially offset the cost of reprocessing. The isolated vitrified or synroced waste left over could then be stored at Yucca Mountain.
Kelly L. Taylor said…
Matthew, I owe you an apology. As it turns out, President Clinton reinstated Carter's ban on reprocessing. So in the off-again on-again world of energy 'leadership' it currently is neither economic nor permitted, by effect of executive policy.

Here's one reference.

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=822

I did find others on 'net...

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…