OT: Hey Nevada people. Yucca Mt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hollowdweller

Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Messages
13,182
Listening to somebody talk about it on TV now. How do you all feel about it?
I saw Bush on TV saying it was a good idea and safe. While I am leery of nuclear power we have got to get away from coal and oil and nuclear seems to be part of the equation. It's a major source of energy in France, and to my knowledge they have never had any problems with waste. What is the feeling out there?
 
I worked in nuclear power for 11 years. I'm a supporter, but I think it would require strict oversight to prevent a repeat of the debacle that robbed the American public and killed the U.S. industry in the 1980s.
 
Raghorn, I've heard Antis say that Nuclear power isn't even cost effective. Is there any truth to this?

>>>>>


Hollow, is Yucca the place the Gov wants to dump the waste? Nevadians are against that, apparently. They're rather sensitive on this subject after all the nuclear testing done in decades past.



munk
 
munk said:
Raghorn, I've heard Antis say that Nuclear power isn't even cost effective. Is there any truth to this?

>>>>>


Hollow, is Yucca the place the Gov wants to dump the waste? Nevadians are against that, apparently. They're rather sensitive on this subject after all the nuclear testing done in decades past.



munk
Click to expand...

It's not very cost effective if done safely, but our energy demand will continue to increase along with the population, and we will have to provide it. Cities must have power. And there is still no definitive answer for high-level waste disposal.

I think the Yucca Mountain project is viable, but then again it's not in my backyard. I have, however, lived and worked on the Hanford nuclear reservation, which is the most cantaminated site in America.

Whether nuclear, solar, hydro, coal, wind or otherwise, there is NO single solution. The solution is a combination of all of the above, employing each in the context where it makes the most sense.
 
What's INEEL?

It's called the 'site' out there. First atomic generated electricity in the States. And they had a hell of an accident. It was bad. Ambulance comes out to haul away victims and all emergency staff are radiation poisened. There is a road that is poisened and not used, along with an ambulance...

The "site' restricts access to prime desert volcanic features. There is one mesa I really wanted to climb but no go. I called and asked.


munk
 
INEEL is the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory. Used to just be called INEL; they added the "environmental" back in the 90s for some reason.

The accident occurred at the Stationary Low Power Plant No. 1 reactor site. It was a very bad one, although only four people died due to the remote location. Try a google search on SL-1, it should turn up a hit or two. It remains the worst nuclear accident in US history.
 
hollowdweller said:
Listening to somebody talk about it on TV now. How do you all feel about it?
Click to expand...
hollowdweller said:
I saw Bush on TV saying it was a good idea and safe. While I am leery of nuclear power we have got to get away from coal and oil and nuclear seems to be part of the equation. It's a major source of energy in France, and to my knowledge they have never had any problems with waste. What is the feeling out there?
Click to expand...




There are multiple safe options for the disposal of radioactive waste. Yucca mountain is a good option. The spent fuel from a reactor is really very valuable and contains a lot of potential energy. It is stupid of us to be lableing this material as "waste" instead of reprocessing and using it.



munk said:
Raghorn, I've heard Antis say that Nuclear power isn't even cost effective. Is there any truth to this?
Click to expand...
munk said:
munk
Click to expand...




Nuclear power is not cost effective because it is burdened with nonsensical regulations. Commercial nuclear power generation in the US has proven itself to be quite safe. I do not believe that you will find a single fatality related to it. (The SP-1 incident in which a tech was pinned to the ceiling by a control rod and two additional people killed was a military experimental reactor.) The safety record of commercial nuclear power is much better than coal plants, hydroelectric, etc.



There are no documented health effects for low doses of ionizing radiation. (less than 10 REM) However, our regulations are based on a highly questionable "linear no-threshold" hypothesis that assumes detrimental effects no matter how low the radiation dose. Anything can be harmful in high enough doses. You can be killed by large doses of salt, vitamin D, or even water. Most people agree that it would be ridiculous to say that since one death will result if one person drinks 10 gallons of water, then if 100 people each drink 1/10 gallon of water one death will also result. This type of linear relationship is exactly what is assumed by our regulators for radiation, and it results in ultra-conservative controls, which are also ultra-expensive.



Everything has risks associated with it. When we exaggerate the risk of one option and ignore the risks of other more familiar options we do not make good decisions, and end up accepting more total risk to society than is necessary.



By the way, I am a certified health physicist (radiation safety specialist). I work in the aerospace industry and am not associated with the nuclear power industry.
 
Thanks, Howard, well spoken! I like to discuss the topic of risk assessment but tire quickly of writing about it. I used to be a certified HP myself, until Uncle Sam informed my colleagues and me that he was no longer in need of our services. Even guys who refuel reactors understand that the most risk-fraught activity we perform every day is to drive to and from work.
 
Nevada people have seen the government pull the stealth fighter wing out of the state due to it's intransigence on this issue. The feds have repeatedly refused to look elsewhere.

It's a stupid-wild-arse-guess, but if they start hauling trainloads of nuclear waste into the state, they'd better get good at welding 50 BMG caliber bullet holes up in their oh-so-safe containers. Or get used to dynamite/diesel- ammonium nitrate explosions blowing up the tracks with locomotives and containers loaded with nuclear waste on them before they make it into Nevada. I don't have nor want a bolt or semi-auto in the caliber, but I just might contribute to the fund for other Nevadans to exhibit their displeasure. Then again, maybe not.
 
The safety or efficiency of nuclear energy is not the issue, although the public may believe it is. When nuclear generation produces the most profit for those in the positions to reap it, nuclear generation is what we will get - like it or not.
 
"...is Yucca the place the Gov wants to dump the waste?"

Yes it is. Since the federal government already owns the land, they'll put it there whether Nevadans like it or not :(

Personally I believe it would be much more useful to place the nuclear repository in Las Vegas. The intersection of Freemont street and Las Vegas blvd would do nicely. Then simply fill in the entire Las Vegas valley with concrete. The fed would be happy and America would lose a social/economic sesspool. Now thats a win win situation :)

You may think I'm joking here, but I'm not. Actually most folks living north of Parhump Nevada would probably agree too! :D
 
Ben Arown-Awile said:
The safety or efficiency of nuclear energy is not the issue, although the public may believe it is. When nuclear generation produces the most profit for those in the positions to reap it, nuclear generation is what we will get - like it or not.
Click to expand...


Well said. This is the ONLY issue that I can think of that I can congratulate the French on. Their country is offically 100% nuclear, which obviously reduces their dependence on foreign oil tremendously. Wouldn't it be great if we could tell the bloated fat bastards in the House of Saud to drink their damn oil, instead of holding it over us like a sword all the time threatening to cut us off?

There is no excuse. We have had 30 years to come up with a sensible power mix of coal, oil, nuclear and solar, and haven't done jack about nuclear because of a few screaming uninformed activists and a bunch of gutless politicians.

Everytime I pay $40 to fill up my tank I get pissed all over again! :mad:

Regards,

Norm
 
Norm, I hate to say this, but until we HAVE TO, Men aren't too good at looking at the future.

You can't discuss sensible energy policy anyway. Notice George Bush can't get his policy voted on? Don't like Bush? Wait until the next President; for whatever reason, he'll have a hard road to hoe also. The environmentalists confuse the issue with unneccesary fear and regulations, the Oil people don't want to disenfranchised, and the Refineries want to be able to afford to build new ones. Er, at least that's what they say. They also seem to love the enormous profits the bottleneck of too few refineries brings. Since the Environmentalists won't allow them to build new ones without some very expensive and pretty fantastic engineering limits, the whole thing is locked up.



munk
 
Here, here, Svashtar!!

About damn time we stopped being subservient to the Saudis, or anybody for that matter. Last time I checked, we still had more resources and just as much ingenuity as any other nation in the world. Why can't the politicians and people get their acts together and make a clean source of energy (or mix of several), in which we can become the world leaders. Let's turn this around! Been saying it for years, and here it is. Both environmentally and economically, we can do ourselves a big favor.

Now, if our "representatives" in Washington can just stop drooling over the oil companies' campaign contributions... :mad:
 
Munk, I think the answer's not in oil regulations. It's in getting the he** away from oil! There is a finite ammt. of the stuff. We rely on the Middle East for it. It's bad for the air we breathe, our kids will breathe, and bad for the scenery I hike to enjoy. There's nothing in it for us!

We can do a lot better than oil.
 
Nam, you don't remove the spoon of food in front of me while promising a better cheaper spoonful later.

No either or stuff. We use what we can as cheaply as we can get it. Alternative sources gradually worked in and surrplanting the old.



munk
 
Hey Rusty!

I don't think a radiation dump rebellion is going to work. ONce it's in, there will be some saber rattling but few incidents. Hey, some 'right winger's' may find themselve right along with the Earth First crowd. Amazing.

If a 50 cal is used to puncture a contaminated waster container we may see a new cry to ban 50 cals.

I have a bumper sticker for Nevada, or a tourist ad in Whacko World:
Nevada: just add water.

Perhaps it should read; just add radiation.

munk
 
munk said:
Nam, you don't remove the spoon of food in front of me while promising a better cheaper spoonful later.

No either or stuff. We use what we can as cheaply as we can get it. Alternative sources gradually worked in and surrplanting the old.



munk
Click to expand...
Hayv! The pollution factor from oil and oil additives has been greatly reduced over the years but more needs to be done yet.
The earth along any roadway where combustion engine powered vehicles traveled was poisoned for years by the addition of lead to gasoline.
Since that has been removed the shoulders along the byways of America have become much healthier.

Edit:
Meant to say that many other measure has improved the quality of air, water and other areas of nature. However we still have a long ways to go.

Howard Wallace said:
There are multiple safe options for the disposal of radioactive waste. Yucca mountain is a good option. The spent fuel from a reactor is really very valuable and contains a lot of potential energy. It is stupid of us to be lableing this material as "waste" instead of reprocessing and using it.
Click to expand...
Howard has spoken well here. I used to know a lot about the hazards of what is called atomic waste but have forgotten much so that leaves me even more ignorant on the subject than I was before.
So the question I have now is... Do we have the technology to convert said material to usable product?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top