Skip to main content

CNN Poll On Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
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

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/
May 21, 2005 at 9:25 PM
Anonymous 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.
May 23, 2005 at 12:48 PM
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.
May 23, 2005 at 5:10 PM
Anonymous 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.
May 23, 2005 at 7:14 PM
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...
December 8, 2005 at 5:43 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more