From today's Washington Post:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Used Fuel, Energy, Technology, Electricity, Yucca Mountain, Nevada
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.Thanks to our friend Norris McDonald for the pointer.
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.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Used Fuel, Energy, Technology, Electricity, Yucca Mountain, Nevada
Comments
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?
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.