Skip to main content

No Love from the L.A. Times

lat_logo_inner Here’s what you get for patting yourself on the back too much, courtesy of the Los Angeles Times:

When it comes to highly radioactive nuclear waste, pretty much everybody is a NIMBY. Setting aside the fact that scientists have yet to develop the technology to safely store this waste for the thousands of years it takes to decay, there's the fact that it has to be transported to the disposal site -- mostly by train -- creating the opportunity for spills. Even if the nuclear dump isn't in your backyard, the train tracks might be, and the closer you live to the center of it all, the greater the danger. Little wonder that Nevadans aren't excited by the prospect of a glow-in-the-dark desert.

Ulp! We’d note that nuclear “waste” moves around on trains now without spilling. It’s not put in open barrels, after all. See here for more.

Pro-nuclear activists, whose ranks are growing as the nation looks for non-carbon-emitting sources of energy, needn't fret too much about Obama's proposal, which tables but doesn't end the debate about Yucca Mountain. Yet the move probably would delay some pending applications for construction of nuclear plants, and may even stop some. That's all for the good. Nuclear power is much too risky and expensive to be seen as a reasonable solution to climate change.

We haven’t seen any signs of plants being delayed, but it could of course happen.

We generally think of the L.A. Times as being a fairly conservative paper for its location, so this surprised us a bit. California is next to Nevada, so maybe they have some NIMBY issues of their own. Or maybe they just think what they think.

It would’ve been nice to get a clean sweep of major newspaper editorials on the Yucca Mountain decision and since we suggested that happened, it wouldn’t be honest to let this one slide by. To quote W.C. Fields, Drat!

Comments

There are a lot of good scientific solutions for the relatively tiny amount of waste produced at US nuclear reactor sites. I of course prefer reprocessing the spent fuel in order to generate more clean energy.

But the LA Times seems a bit arrogant, IMO, to be in a State that not only produces its own nuclear electricity but also imports even more nuclear electricity from Arizona:-)

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
Jason Ribeiro said…
You may not get love from the LA Times, but the latest Gallop poll shows the public warming up to nuclear energy more and more.

The LA Times article sounds just like the many canned anti-nuclear posts we all see pasted onto anything nuclear on the web.

They do make a noteworthy point with the statement:

"If we can't dump the waste in a nuclear test zone, where can we? That, in a nutshell, is the problem with nuclear power."

Anytime a "nutshell" statement is false, we should all pay attention. The antis still want to frame the waste problem around nuclear's neck, whether Yucca sinks or floats. The more education the public gets surrounding nuclear by-products the better. The antis can be allowed to frame the non-issue as an issue.
Anonymous said…
This is just speculation but I think in the near future there will be some way to deactivate the non-usable radioactive waste.

I'm just speculating but is it possible speed up the decay rate with anti-pions?
Adam said…
Anon:
Most research efforts to alter the time-frame of radioactive decay have been through transmutation, principally by neutron irradiation. This method is particularly attractive because we already have large sources of neutrons (ie reactors) which already generate useful products (eg electricity, heat, medical isotopes). An accelerator, on the other hand, would perhaps introduce a great deal more expense, which is a tough sell given how comparatively cheap it is to do short-term storage.

I suppose we could destroy waste using anti-particles as well, but again we lack a large, cheap source of such material.

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 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.

Lohud.com, 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…