I'm waiting for the spin on this one, so I can hook up a generator.

You know, if you had two yuccas right next to each other they would look like giant radioactive Boobies!

eh, I don't like this one. Yucca Mountian is the only viable plan for dealing with Nuclear Waste that I've seen. Otherwise it just gets stacked where ever it's made.

Maybe we should fund some research into finding alternative ways to process the waste.

NIMBY

Storing waste at Yucca mountain ensures our nations ability to continue to develop nuclear power systems adding much needed stability in the energy markets.

Too bad cry babies in Nevada keep getting in the way.

I like the new plan alot better.Frak Mitch

Wow, a politician being political.
New boss... Old boss...

No worries - we will power America on unicorn biomethane.

/disappointing
//not surprising

"Yielding to politics rather than science"

There is nothing in the article suggest that Obama is ignoring science.

saintstryfe: eh, I don't like this one. Yucca Mountian is the only viable plan for dealing with Nuclear Waste that I've seen. Otherwise it just gets stacked where ever it's made.

Maybe we should fund some research into finding alternative ways to process the waste.

We have alternative ways of turning it back into usable fuel. I believe the stat is something like 5% of the energy potential is used in a fuel rod before it has to be reprocessed. But international treaties for weapons proliferation ban that type of reprocessing because it can also yield weapons grade plutonium.

I hope Obama got something really good from Harry in exchange for this one. Because it's a bad call, on the face of it.

saintstryfe: Yucca Mountian is the only viable plan for dealing with Nuclear Waste that I've seen. Otherwise it just gets stacked where ever it's made.

Agreed. It's the least bad idea. It sounds like the President is trying to micromanage every aspect of our society. I hope he doesn't forget his primary focus and strong suit is foreign policy, not waste disposal and subsidizing mortgages.

I seem to remember that he very clearly said throughout the campaign that he opposed Yucca Mountain. So excuse me if I don't see that he "yielded" or "reversed" anything.

That's some bullshiat. Yucca's the only long term solution we have. Obama's making a mistake here.

/now I need to buy a granola bar to top up my LibPoints^TM

Yucca mountain. You mean the place with a ton of fissures that would virtually guarantee that nuclear waste would seep into the groundwater and surrounding environment? Damn that Obama and his science-hating ways!!

saintstryfe: eh, I don't like this one. Yucca Mountian is the only viable plan for dealing with Nuclear Waste that I've seen. Otherwise it just gets stacked where ever it's made.

Maybe we should fund some research into finding alternative ways to process the waste.

100,000,000 roentgens this.

Use it to generate more power.

Living somewhat downstream of the Hanford site, the sooner they figure this out the better.

Philip J. Fry: saintstryfe: eh, I don't like this one. Yucca Mountian is the only viable plan for dealing with Nuclear Waste that I've seen. Otherwise it just gets stacked where ever it's made.

Maybe we should fund some research into finding alternative ways to process the waste.

We have alternative ways of turning it back into usable fuel. I believe the stat is something like 5% of the energy potential is used in a fuel rod before it has to be reprocessed. But international treaties for weapons proliferation ban that type of reprocessing because it can also yield weapons grade plutonium.

When have we ever let treaties get in the way?

Edsel: I seem to remember that he very clearly said throughout the campaign that he opposed Yucca Mountain. So excuse me if I don't see that he "yielded" or "reversed" anything.

The plan originally was not Obama's. He's reversing the plan to store waste at Yucca, Obama was not the originator. The headline does not state "Obama is reversing his own plan".

Have any of you ever been to Nevada?

There's a reason they tested nuclear weapons there.

Except for a few populated areas, its a remote, desolate expanse of remote, desolate wasteland.

Where does The One suggest we store the stuff? Crawford, Texas?

Edsel: I seem to remember that he very clearly said throughout the campaign that he opposed Yucca Mountain. So excuse me if I don't see that he "yielded" or "reversed" anything.

"Moronic" and "idiotic" are still okay, though?

Philip J. Fry: saintstryfe: eh, I don't like this one. Yucca Mountian is the only viable plan for dealing with Nuclear Waste that I've seen. Otherwise it just gets stacked where ever it's made.

Maybe we should fund some research into finding alternative ways to process the waste.

We have alternative ways of turning it back into usable fuel. I believe the stat is something like 5% of the energy potential is used in a fuel rod before it has to be reprocessed. But international treaties for weapons proliferation ban that type of reprocessing because it can also yield weapons grade plutonium.

More like we did it voluntarily (Carter, I believe).

But the real issue is that it's just not economical to reprocess. It's much cheaper to just use it once and then chuck the waste.

Here is an idea, put it in a rocket and send it to be stored on the moon. No? OK

Edsel: More like we did it voluntarily (Carter, I believe).

But the real issue is that it's just not economical to reprocess. It's much cheaper to just use it once and then chuck the waste.

I didn't realize it was voluntary. That's retarded.

But we aren't chucking the waste. It's just piling up at the plants in storage tanks taking up space and wasting money. Either bury it in the ground or reprocess it multiple times until the final waste product is no longer highly radioactive.

Ranger Joe: Where does The One suggest we store the stuff? Crawford, Texas?

There's enough waste there already.

Sorta meh. If the lack of any plan keeps us from researching, developing, and building new, far better, reactors, that's a shame. On the other hand, we will be using that 'waste' in time. Just too valuable in energy content. It will be easier if we don't bury it a mile underground. But, unless we go totally donkey-cart powerdown/dieoff, we'll be reprocessing that waste within a century, even if we have to dig a mile under the Nevada desert to get to it.

But, as for Nevadans... Yucca Mountain has been *the* planned and intended waste depository since the early 1980s. Almost 3 out of 4 Nevadans have moved there *since* that time. They kinda should have known that it might, you know, actually happen. And the residents that were there since the 1970s have had ample opportunities to sell and move away if it bothered them that much.

Philip J. Fry: Too bad cry babies in Nevada keep getting in the way.

The chief cry-baby being Harry Reid.

BigDamn: Wow, a politician being political.
New boss... Old boss...

No worries - we will power America on unicorn biomethane.

/disappointing
//not surprising

What politics is he playing? What is his new plan? Why did he switch away from this plan? You obviously have all this information to make such edgy statements.

Not saying Obama isn't wrong on this, but I'll wait to listen to his explanation instead of basing all conclusions on a newsletter Reid sent out to constituents.

Boo! The amount of truly dangerous nuclear waste generated per person over a lifetime is trivial (measured in pounds) compared to the 25 - 30 tons of pollutants each person emits every year from coal. Hell there's even more radioactivity given off by residual uranium in coal plants than nuclear plants give off.

Granted the Yucca solution isn't perfect (nor is nuclear power itself), but it's better than the alternatives we have access to with existing technology.

One of the only things I preferred about McCain over Obama early on was his stance on nuclear power. Obama changed his tune a bit though. I hope he doesn't change back and give up on it entirely. Energy is what ultimately drives the economy, politics, and thus social progress. With enough energy there is almost nothing we can't accomplish.

Fark-the-Fnord: Here is an idea, put it in a rocket and send it to be stored on the moon incinerated in the sun. No? OK

Problem is, there's a chance the rocket would malfunction and explode in the atmosphere. Otherwise yes.

Edsel: I seem to remember that he very clearly said throughout the campaign that he opposed Yucca Mountain. So excuse me if I don't see that he "yielded" or "reversed" anything.

AspectRatio: There is nothing in the article suggest that Obama is ignoring science.

Thank you, these bear repeating.

Corn_Fed: Yucca mountain. You mean the place with a ton of fissures that would virtually guarantee that nuclear waste would seep into the groundwater and surrounding environment? Damn that Obama and his science-hating ways!!


The same Yucca Mountain that it bounded by Quaternary, active faults? Yup, that one.

/On the other hand it *is* on the Nevada Test Site
//And better than the current storage system of in back of the nuke plants in ponds
///But it is not a foolproof solution
////I'd be all for it if there was something (cash) in it for Nevadians.
//Something like 90% of Nevada is federally "owned", and we don't even have our own nuke plant here, why *should* we be taking your waste?
//Toured the facility in 2000, neat hole in the ground

Corn_Fed: Yucca mountain. You mean the place with a ton of fissures that would virtually guarantee that nuclear waste would seep into the groundwater and surrounding environment? Damn that Obama and his science-hating ways!!

I'm not too worried about your uninformed hippie talk. The water table is an average of 1,000 feet under the repository with a layer of bedrock in the way (doe.gov). There is a reason it's called bedrock.

Philip J. Fry: But we aren't chucking the waste. It's just piling up at the plants in storage tanks taking up space and wasting money. Either bury it in the ground or reprocess it multiple times until the final waste product is no longer highly radioactive.

Smithers: Well, sir, where should we dump this batch? The playground?
Burns: No, all those bald children are arousing suspicion. To the park!

Fark-the-Fnord: Here is an idea, put it in a rocket and send it to be stored on the moon. No? OK

Just better pray nothing happens on the way up, or it'll be raining radioactive waste all over the country.

Wooly Bully: Edsel: I seem to remember that he very clearly said throughout the campaign that he opposed Yucca Mountain. So excuse me if I don't see that he "yielded" or "reversed" anything.

AspectRatio: There is nothing in the article suggest that Obama is ignoring science.

Thank you, these bear repeating.

Weeners does not. The article in no way states Obama is reversing his own plan, just the plan is in place. Nice to see some jump to a defense of an argument that's not there.

Second comment is iffy, as there is no explanation really as to why Obama is against the Yucca storage plan other than rhetoric.

Ranger Joe: Have any of you ever been to Nevada?

There's a reason they tested nuclear weapons there.

Except for a few populated areas, its a remote, desolate expanse of remote, desolate wasteland.

Where does The One suggest we store the stuff? Crawford, Texas?

How about Dallas?

/go 'skins!
//on the other hand, playing against a team of toxic avengers might not be a good thing...

Without Yucca mountains being open we will get no nuclear plants in the US.

Sorry to break it to the dirty hippies but it is the only realiable and signifigant source of non-fossil energy used in a large country.

Damn filter...

Hey, don't store it at McConnell's place!!!! I live only a few miles away from there.

Serious question, and keep in mind I know nothing about waste disposal:

Why can't we drill down deep enough into the mantle that we can just liquefy the radioactive material with molten rock. Surely then it will be disposed of so that there is no damage to the environment.

Nowolvernova: Just better pray nothing happens on the way up, or it'll be raining radioactive waste all over the country.

Not if we launch it out of Florida... then, with prevailing wind patterns, it's somebody else's problem. ;o)

north dakota. just pick a spot & pile it up. no one will ever notice.

bad_ed: Philip J. Fry: Too bad cry babies in Nevada keep getting in the way.

The chief cry-baby being Harry Reid.

Interesting trivia: in the movie Casino, the douchebag Senator (played by Dick Smothers) is a portrayal of Harry Reid.

mynameismark: Serious question, and keep in mind I know nothing about waste disposal:

Why can't we drill down deep enough into the mantle that we can just liquefy the radioactive material with molten rock. Surely then it will be disposed of so that there is no damage to the environment.

It's just too hard to drill that deep. I'm wondering about deeep sea subduction zones myself. Other than the obvious Godzilla problem, I think it would work.

MyRandomName

Read the headline, then re-read what AspectRatio and Edsel wrote. They were accusing the headline, not the article, of inaccuracy.

It's an engineering problem, not science.
wolvernova: Agreed. It's the least bad idea. It sounds like the President is trying to micromanage every aspect of our society.

The problem is that because of the nuclear industry's supposedly "free market" ways (private profit, public risk) all nuclear waste is the government's problem. And only the federal government has the scope to deal with it.

So he isn't micromanaging anything. The DOE is responsible for energy policy and nuclear safety and has been at cabinet level for thirty years. Before that its history goes back to the Manhattan project. Its been on the president's table since then.

This is a bad decision. It is the best solution.

MagusAzod: One of the only things I preferred about McCain over Obama early on was his stance on nuclear power.

Me too.

liam76: Without Yucca mountains being open we will get no nuclear plants in the US.

Sorry to break it to the dirty hippies but it is the only realiable and signifigant source of non-fossil energy used in a large country.

This, but I wouldn't take the dirty hippy angle. This is beyond the scope of patchouli and deadhead stickers. Too much has been done against the establishment of nuclear power by too many parties - it wasn't hippies alone.

mynameismark: Serious question, and keep in mind I know nothing about waste disposal:

Why can't we drill down deep enough into the mantle that we can just liquefy the radioactive material with molten rock. Surely then it will be disposed of so that there is no damage to the environment.

What could drill into molten rock without melting?

Plus the molten rock would be well below any well we have operating on earth now.

mynameismark: Serious question, and keep in mind I know nothing about waste disposal:

Why can't we drill down deep enough into the mantle that we can just liquefy the radioactive material with molten rock. Surely then it will be disposed of so that there is no damage to the environment.

No drill has ever reached that depth. I believe a drill in Russia hit 9 miles, but that still isn't far enough. One option similar to what you suggest is to drop storage containers into the ocean on a subduction plate and letting the plate slip into the mantle eventually consuming the nuclear waste.
/Noaa likes it hot.