Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nukes no Nukes?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nukes no Nukes?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29534497/

    Thoughts, comments?


    Looks like there going to put a stop the the Yucca Nuclear waste site. Steven Chu our Energy Secretary wants to close the site and keep nuclear waste were its at now on site with the power plants, untill we can come up with a better idea. Which I guess is ok but whats the new plan?

  • #2
    Re: Nukes no Nukes?

    26 years and 10 billion building a hole in the desert gone.

    It’ll turn into the ultimate game of NIMBY for the new site(s).


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Nukes no Nukes?

      This issue is one reason I can't be a democrat.

      I say finish it and start storing the stuff. Big wussies.
      Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
      - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
      - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
      - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
      - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
      - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
      - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Nukes no Nukes?

        So instead of one major site it’s being stored piecemeal across the country.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ations_USA.jpg


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Nukes no Nukes?

          I dont get whats wrong with this current site? Did they even mention its faults other than saying "we can do better"?
          __________________
          |TG|||---DoRo---||

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Nukes no Nukes?

            Oh, for Christ's sake... $10+ billion dollars and 20+ YEARS developing this solution and suddenly its not acceptable anymore? "We can do better" is the only reason that's supplied?

            Bull****.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Nukes no Nukes?

              I'm not a nuclear physicist by any means, but there could be promising solutions such as this around the corner:

              Nuclear Fusion-Fission Hybrid Could Destroy Nuclear Waste And Contribute to Carbon-Free Energy Future

              +1 shameless plug for my alma mater :row__523:

              The article describes a mechanism to dispose existing nuclear waste to create energy.

              I don't have an opinion yet on the matter yet since I don't know enough about it. There are just too many unknowns.



              TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Nukes no Nukes?

                Originally posted by tau_neutrino View Post
                I'm not a nuclear physicist by any means, but there could be promising solutions such as this around the corner:

                Nuclear Fusion-Fission Hybrid Could Destroy Nuclear Waste And Contribute to Carbon-Free Energy Future

                +1 shameless plug for my alma mater :row__523:

                The article describes a mechanism to dispose existing nuclear waste to create energy.

                I don't have an opinion yet on the matter yet since I don't know enough about it. There are just too many unknowns.
                I have always felt that yucca mnt was good enough to store the stuff until a better solution was found. It would give decades and even centuries to come up with a better solution.

                Risks? Of course. But the risks are smaller than what the risks are now with each plant controlling it's used nuclear material.
                Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
                - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
                - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
                - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
                - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
                - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
                - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Nukes no Nukes?

                  What are the main risks supposed to be anyway? I thought it was in transporting the stuff from across the country.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Nukes no Nukes?

                    Originally posted by sordavie View Post
                    What are the main risks supposed to be anyway? I thought it was in transporting the stuff from across the country.
                    Transportation is a bothersome thing but nuclear material is regularly transported across the country. So I think it could be overcome.

                    I think the main fear is that an earthquake will hit of sufficient size to destroy the containers and then release the material into the ground water.

                    I don't want to be blithe about the risk. It is real and has to be considered. But consider the current risk. We have nuclear material at dozens of sites around America with little to no protection. The risk isn't nuclear weapons but using the material itself to terrorize the population.

                    The chances of a quake big enough and happening in the correct place are, I think, smaller than the chances of a major meteor strike. And even then the containers, which are very tough, would have to fail.

                    Sometimes caution is more dangerous than risk.
                    Last edited by El_Gringo_Grande; 03-06-2009, 11:32 PM.
                    Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
                    - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
                    - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
                    - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
                    - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
                    - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
                    - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Nukes no Nukes?

                      Most frustratingly is the waste of more than a few billion dollars. Where in the world is more cash going to come from? More foreign lending? Spendspendspendspendspendspend.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Nukes no Nukes?

                        Originally posted by El_Gringo_Grande View Post
                        I have always felt that yucca mnt was good enough to store the stuff until a better solution was found. It would give decades and even centuries to come up with a better solution.
                        Originally posted by El_Gringo_Grande View Post
                        Transportation is a bothersome thing but nuclear material is regularly transported across the country. So I think it could be overcome.

                        I think the main fear is that an earthquake will hit of sufficient size to destroy the containers and then release the material into the ground water.

                        I don't want to be blithe about the risk. It is real and has to be considered. But consider the current risk. We have nuclear material at dozens of sites around America with little to no protection. The risk isn't nuclear weapons but using the material itself to terrorize the population.

                        The chances of a quake big enough and happening in the correct place are, I think, smaller than the chances of a major meteor strike. And even then the containers, which are very tough, would have to fail.

                        Sometimes caution is more dangerous than risk.
                        I think the this is by far the biggest mistakes I've seen in a long time... I agree that there is no perfect answer, but also I agree that Yucca Mtn was the best option until a better solution is found.

                        They spent YEARS testing to make sure Yucca was going to work, and to close it now is just nuts. I know there are different technologies in the works. Maybe in 100 - 200 years we will have a better answer, but for now Yucca was a good choice.

                        ~ Draken

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Nukes no Nukes?

                          Originally posted by DrakenViator
                          I think the this is by far the biggest mistakes I've seen in a long time... I agree that there is no perfect answer, but also I agree that Yucca Mtn was the best option until a better solution is found.

                          They spent YEARS testing to make sure Yucca was going to work, and to close it now is just nuts. I know there are different technologies in the works. Maybe in 100 - 200 years we will have a better answer, but for now Yucca was a good choice.
                          Well, I think the most important thing to consider is the costs of moving forward. How much would it cost to continue the project? Could the project be resumed at a later date if needed? Would it be able to open quickly enough to serve a meaningful purpose before it would become obsolete?

                          Seeing as this project was started in 1987, and has cost an upwards of 10 billion dollars, we can estimate that it takes about 1 billion dollars per year to construct this facility.

                          However, the project has been delayed multiple times before, and current predictions as to the completion of the facility have been set to about 2020 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...78110433_x.htm).

                          Therefore, assuming that the cost of construction continues to be 1 billion dollars a year, it would take another 10 billion dollars to finish construction.

                          Currently, dry-cask storage would probably suffice for the next 100 years, so what is the point of building this facility now?

                          If the project could be resumed at a time when it is sorely needed, then I would support Mr. Chu's reasoning. However, if not, then Mr. Chu is gambling with science.

                          But I suppose that is the theme of Obama's campaign: hope. In this case, hope that science and technology will be able to create a cheap, efficient way to store, eliminate, or obviate the need for nuclear waste.

                          Being of the younger generation, I'll go with hope.
                          He was told that he should not kill, and he did not kill, until he got into the Army. Then he was told to kill, and he killed.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Nukes no Nukes?

                            No, the adminstration is basically shutting down a solution without any real other alternative to storing this waste. Dry-cask storage space is running out. That's not hope, that's stupidity.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Nukes no Nukes?

                              Originally posted by Gillespie View Post
                              Dry-cask storage space is running out. That's not hope, that's stupidity.
                              Sources please.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X