Skip to main content

Washington Post Endorses New Nuclear Build and "Foolproof Plan" for Used Fuel

From today's Washington Post:
Nuclear power can produce electricity without generating the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Industry spokesmen claim nuclear power plants can do so cheaply and efficiently, even taking subsidies into account, and, if properly monitored, safely; Chernobyl-style accidents can be avoided. Given the environmental and geopolitical disadvantages of dependence on oil, gas and coal, these arguments are persuasive.

But the Energy Department must prove early on that it has a politically and technically viable plan for storing the deadly radioactive waste that nuclear power plants produce. That has been a smoldering problem for the agency, which for years has tried to build a permanent waste storage site inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain. All the while, nuclear waste continues to pile up on sites next to reactors, in many cases close to population centers.


The federal government needs a foolproof plan to dispose properly of the waste. Otherwise, Americans won't have confidence in nuclear power.
Thanks to our friend Norris McDonald for the pointer.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,


Randal Leavitt said…
First things first. People have to understand that slightly used fission fuel is not waste. It is not dangerous, it is easily managed, and there is not much of it. Knowing the truth goes a long way toward making the correct decisions about what to do with this stuff. It should be stuffed back into a fast reactor and burned for another hundred years before being transmutated and spread around the community to raise the background radiation level enough to significantly improve our health.
Kirk Sorensen said…
It is important to understand that spent fuel from conventional nuclear power plants consists of three broad classes of material: unburned uranium, fission products, and transuranic actinides.

Due to their short half-lives, the fission products produce the overwhelming amount of the radioactivity in the fuel for the first 300 years or so. After that, they have decayed away significantly and the transuranics -- the products of "imcomplete combustion", so to speak, are the dominant radioactive term.

They are also the substances that dictate the lifetime of the repository, since the unburned uranium has an enormous half-life and very low radioactivity.

It is worth considering the value of a fuel cycle that does not produce transuranics, and a waste stream that keeps all unburned fuel and actinides out of the waste altogether.
mr. X said…
there can be no "fool proof plan" for used fuel. the reality is Nuclear power is to dangerous to be next "super fuel" after oil.
Anonymous said…
I just can't allow such an overly simplistic, second-grade comment to go unanswered.

mr. x, nothing is foolproof. Not solar, not wind, not horse and buggy, certainly not coal-- how many miners do we bury every year? How much sulfur, mercury, and CO do we breathe every year?

Any examination of the big picture includes a realistic look at cost/benefit, and a rational look at risks and precautions.

In the equation of energy security, providing power for exploding populations and development in the third world, and reducing greenhouse emissions, nuclear MUST play a role. And yes, so must clean coal, solar, and wind.

mr. x, a comment like that is the equivalent of scrawling a message on a bathroom stall.

>>It is worth considering the value of a fuel cycle that does not produce transuranics, and a waste stream that keeps all unburned fuel and actinides out of the waste altogether.

Like the IFR?
Kirk Sorensen said…
That is one example, but I think thorium cycles offer better safety and performance, primarily because they can operate in a thermal-spectrum, allowing them to operate in their most reactive configuration. This reduces the fissile inventory in the core and reprocessing holdup by a factor of 5-10 over a fast-spectrum reactor, improving the economic competitiveness of the reactor.
Anonymous said…
It is wholly inaccurate and misleading to refer to spent nuclear fuel as "radioactive sludge." The editor correctly pointed out that the progress of Yucca Mountain has hit roadblocks--but could it be that the number one roadblock is misplaced public fear due to misunderstanding of the nature (and physical state) of nuclear fuel? This confusion is widespread and is continually fueled by editorials such as this.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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.


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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…