Goshdarnitsomuch.

I had hoped that having a real scientist in charge of DOE could solve this crap.

Doesn't look like it.

Three-step solution:

1. California legalizes drugs, prostitution, and gambling, so that new tax revenues can partially fill the budget deficit.
2. Californians stay home to party.
3. Senator Harry Reid decides that Yucca Mountain might make money, after half of Nevada's economy disappears.

Snarfangel: Three-step solution:

1. California legalizes drugs, prostitution, and gambling, so that new tax revenues can partially fill the budget deficit.
2. Californians stay home to party.
3. Senator Harry Reid decides that Yucca Mountain might make money, after half of Nevada's economy disappears.

1. Reprocess the waste instead of burying it
2. ????
3. Profit!

"Explore alternatives"? You mean a farking mountain in the middle of the desert located on a far edge of a bombing range is not acceptable? Cripes, we have farking tours going to "the most bombed place on Earth" which is located in the Nevada Test Site.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Goshdarnitsomuch.

Words right out of my mouth.

Why not store it at Yucca while looking into alternatives?

We need to go nuclear, big time.

Mustard mustard mustard.

It's on a farking fault line!

Yes, because the radioactive waste won't leak into the groundwater there. Oh wait, it still will. Nuclear reactors are not acceptable in any form because of their waste.

GAT_00: Yes, because the radioactive waste won't leak into the groundwater there. Oh wait, it still will. Nuclear reactors are not acceptable in any form because of their waste.

Better to burn coal all day, I'm sure.

OBAMA! GET OVER THIS ANTI-NUKE THING!

That's the main problem I have with hippies. The god damn anti-nuclear power sentiment. It's stuck around too, unlike the good ideas the hippies had.

More Nukes, Less Kooks. It's the only way, now. Coal emits all kinds of nasty crap everywhere

well...what is the solution that countries who have moved more towards a nuclear based grid source use?

serious/non-snark - does france find an isolated place, dig a hole, and throw it in?

we don't have to approach this like it's the first time it's being done, but i'm not familiar enough w/ the circumstances of those that have gone where we haven't to say this is good, bad, or ugly.

weiserfireman: I had hoped that having a real scientist in charge of DOE could solve this crap.

Doesn't look like it.

Except, correct me If I'm wrong but aren't most European Nuclear reactors breeder types that don't have these nuclear waste disposal problems?

Lundah: Snarfangel: Three-step solution:

1. California legalizes drugs, prostitution, and gambling, so that new tax revenues can partially fill the budget deficit.
2. Californians stay home to party.
3. Senator Harry Reid decides that Yucca Mountain might make money, after half of Nevada's economy disappears.

1. Reprocess the waste instead of burying it
2. ????
3. Profit!


Not all of it can be completely reprocessed. No matter how good the technology gets, there will still have to be some long term storage for leftovers.

GAT_00: Yes, because the radioactive waste won't leak into the groundwater there. Oh wait, it still will. Nuclear reactors are not acceptable in any form because of their waste.

Because burning coal is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much cleaner. It never emits any radioactive isotopes or other nasty things into the atmosphere.

Magorn: weiserfireman: I had hoped that having a real scientist in charge of DOE could solve this crap.

Doesn't look like it.

Except, correct me If I'm wrong but aren't most European Nuclear reactors breeder types that don't have these nuclear waste disposal problems?

All that means is that we should be building those all over the place in order to supplant our old ones. Since we aren't doing that. . .

heap: well...what is the solution that countries who have moved more towards a nuclear based grid source use?

serious/non-snark - does france find an isolated place, dig a hole, and throw it in?

we don't have to approach this like it's the first time it's being done, but i'm not familiar enough w/ the circumstances of those that have gone where we haven't to say this is good, bad, or ugly.

I think they're doing something similar to what we're doing right now, on an individual country basis, like our individual state basis. Yucca Mtn is/was a good idea because of its over-engineered status and remoteness.

Nuclear is no longer a feasible option; we need too much energy an we have too little uranium. Estimates for the United States energy consumption in 2050--based on current trends--are somewhere around 50 TWatts of power annually. At that rate on consumption, terrestrial supplies of fissionable material will be exhausted in 10 years--and that assumes that we're only using nuclear for 20% of our energy needs. On top of that, to get to those kind of output levels we'd need to build a power plant every 1.6 days for the next 40 years.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full

Lewis, Nathan S. and Nocera, Daniel G. PNAS October 24, 2006 vol. 103 no. 43 15729-15735

Darn. When will that space elevator get here?

Lundah: Snarfangel: Three-step solution:

1. California legalizes drugs, prostitution, and gambling, so that new tax revenues can partially fill the budget deficit.
2. Californians stay home to party.
3. Senator Harry Reid decides that Yucca Mountain might make money, after half of Nevada's economy disappears.

1. Reprocess the waste instead of burying it
2. ????
3. Profit!

If you can tell us how to do #1 to nuclear waste, there's a Nobel Prize in Chemistry with your name on it.

I think you mean France not Europe submitter. Europe as a whole is more like 30% nuclear.

And no, most European reactors are not breeders, they're PWRs and BWRs, just like in the USA. The only notable exception is in the UK (gas cooled apart from 1 PWR), but they're going with PWRs in the future.

Um, if we're going to explore new nuclear waste disposal options, why not do what those nuke-happy Europeans are doing? Or are they dumping it all in the North Sea?

Alternatives like, you know, burying the waste on the moon, or fireing it into the sun.

NIMBY gag me with a spoon

We've never actually stored anything there yet.

Why would we fund it?

heap: well...what is the solution that countries who have moved more towards a nuclear based grid source use?

serious/non-snark - does france find an isolated place, dig a hole, and throw it in?

France reprocesses some of its nuclear waste, some of that by sending it Russia to do it for them. It also ships some waste out of the country for the receiver to deal with. And some of the waste it just buries on its own. Like in Champagne. Drink up!

Lundah: Snarfangel: Three-step solution:

1. California legalizes drugs, prostitution, and gambling, so that new tax revenues can partially fill the budget deficit.
2. Californians stay home to party.
3. Senator Harry Reid decides that Yucca Mountain might make money, after half of Nevada's economy disappears.

1. Reprocess the waste instead of burying it Violate international nuclear treaties
2. Remove the incentive for any other country to maintain nuclear treaties.
3. Profit!

Old King Cole (Coal).

Lost Thought 00: Lundah: Snarfangel: Three-step solution:

1. California legalizes drugs, prostitution, and gambling, so that new tax revenues can partially fill the budget deficit.
2. Californians stay home to party.
3. Senator Harry Reid decides that Yucca Mountain might make money, after half of Nevada's economy disappears.

1. Reprocess the waste instead of burying it Violate international nuclear treaties
2. Remove the incentive for any other country to maintain nuclear treaties.
3. Profit!

How about is nuclear treaties prevent us from using such a ridiculously useful power source we renegotiate?

Rising Ape: I think you mean France not Europe submitter. Europe as a whole is more like 30% nuclear.

This is what I came here to say. They don't have good disposal options either.

Mistah Scrotie: Lewis, Nathan S. and Nocera, Daniel G. PNAS October 24, 2006 vol. 103 no. 43 15729-15735

Also good points. I am not that ascared of waste, and used to be pro-nuke, but the options aren't as good as they once looked.

Mistah Scrotie: Nuclear is no longer a feasible option; we need too much energy an we have too little uranium. Estimates for the United States energy consumption in 2050--based on current trends--are somewhere around 50 TWatts of power annually. At that rate on consumption, terrestrial supplies of fissionable material will be exhausted in 10 years--and that assumes that we're only using nuclear for 20% of our energy needs. On top of that, to get to those kind of output levels we'd need to build a power plant every 1.6 days for the next 40 years.

Ohshiat. And here I've been thinking all along that we'd eventually figure out nuclear waste and it would be the backbone of the new energy. As in, it would be the coal of today, supplemented by wind/solar/water/whatever.

If that's true, then we really do have a quandary.

heap: well...what is the solution that countries who have moved more towards a nuclear based grid source use?

Somalia

Mistah Scrotie: Nuclear is no longer a feasible option; we need too much energy an we have too little uranium. Estimates for the United States energy consumption in 2050--based on current trends--are somewhere around 50 TWatts of power annually. At that rate on consumption, terrestrial supplies of fissionable material will be exhausted in 10 years--and that assumes that we're only using nuclear for 20% of our energy needs. On top of that, to get to those kind of output levels we'd need to build a power plant every 1.6 days for the next 40 years.

That's why I advocate doing nothing. Everything on the Earth if finite and why bother doing anything.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Better to burn coal all day, I'm sure.

Actually it is - but not with traditional combustion.
Gasification, preferably the subterranean kind. (in situ)

actually moon dust will solve all our energy needs.

Windmills, Solar, Coal and what have you is not enough never will be enough.

Helium 3 is the future.

IlGreven: 1. Reprocess the waste instead of burying it
2. ????
3. Profit!

If you can tell us how to do #1 to nuclear waste, there's a Nobel Prize in Chemistry with your name on it.


Seriously? Do even you know what reprocessing is?

I'll give you a hint: It's what Europe and Japan do with their nuclear waste, and while it doesn't completely solve the problem, it goes a long way.
=Smidge=

Consolidating the waste at Yucca Mountain is so much safer than the current system with scores of above-ground, temporary storage locations.

Magorn: weiserfireman: I had hoped that having a real scientist in charge of DOE could solve this crap.

Doesn't look like it.

Except, correct me If I'm wrong but aren't most European Nuclear reactors breeder types that don't have these nuclear waste disposal problems?

You're wrong. Breeder reactors have proven themselves to be too expensive for cost-effective operation. They do still have a few around, but they aren't building any new ones in the near future.

Coal is the problem, nuclear is not the solution. Coal pollution can be cleaned up, albeit with a lot of difficulty. Nuclear pollution sticks around for several thousand years. Both are wrong for the environment. No solar/wind/hydraulic folks out there? Wind farms don't pollute, and solar cells are only mildly toxic to the environment, though both are far from being a "solution". Dams are terrible for the environment on the short term, but all they do is terraform, and mother nature has been doing that for over 4 billion years (or 6000 years, depending on who you ask).

Al!: Coal is the problem, nuclear is not the solution. Coal pollution can be cleaned up, albeit with a lot of difficulty. Nuclear pollution sticks around for several thousand years. Both are wrong for the environment. No solar/wind/hydraulic folks out there? Wind farms don't pollute, and solar cells are only mildly toxic to the environment, though both are far from being a "solution". Dams are terrible for the environment on the short term, but all they do is terraform, and mother nature has been doing that for over 4 billion years (or 6000 years, depending on who you ask).

What is the "solution"? Perpetual motion machine, obviously.

Al!: Coal is the problem, nuclear is not the solution. Coal pollution can be cleaned up, albeit with a lot of difficulty. Nuclear pollution sticks around for several thousand years. Both are wrong for the environment. No solar/wind/hydraulic folks out there? Wind farms don't pollute, and solar cells are only mildly toxic to the environment, though both are far from being a "solution". Dams are terrible for the environment on the short term, but all they do is terraform, and mother nature has been doing that for over 4 billion years (or 6000 years, depending on who you ask).

We can reprocess most of the waste that nuclear power plants generate. The problem is that the hippie no nukers wont have any of it.

Al!, have you ever heard of the term "base load"

i.e. it is cloudy today or the wind isn't blowing today and you still want power.

thenateman: What is the "solution"? Perpetual motion machine, obviously.

Unicorn farts.

The number of people in this thread who are talking out of their ass in sweeping generalizations and with absolute certainty is very amusing.

Zeppelininthesky: We can reprocess most of the waste that nuclear power plants generate. The problem is that the hippie no nukers wont have any of it.

If we're somehow going to reprocess this waste, would it be helpful to have everything at one site rather than scattered around the country?

Zeppelininthesky: We can reprocess most of the waste that nuclear power plants generate. The problem is that the hippie no nukers wont have any of it.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprocessed_fuel_rod

"After 40 years its radioactivity drops by 99.9%, though it still takes over a thousand years for the level of radioactivity to approach that of natural uranium. However the level of transuranic elements, including plutonium-239, remains high for over 100,000 years..."

Reprocessed or not, the pollution created still lingers for centuries and centuries. I don't think any solution can have results that need to be dealt with over such long terms.

Mistah Scrotie: Nuclear is no longer a feasible option; we need too much energy an we have too little uranium. Estimates for the United States energy consumption in 2050--based on current trends--are somewhere around 50 TWatts of power annually. At that rate on consumption, terrestrial supplies of fissionable material will be exhausted in 10 years--and that assumes that we're only using nuclear for 20% of our energy needs. On top of that, to get to those kind of output levels we'd need to build a power plant every 1.6 days for the next 40 years.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/43/15729.full

Lewis, Nathan S. and Nocera, Daniel G. PNAS October 24, 2006 vol. 103 no. 43 15729-15735

Check out thorium. It's three to four times as abundant as uranium in the earth's crust -- we're talking about millions of tons of reserves -- and the supply should last well beyond the time we have practical light fusion reactors.

Lumi: Um, if we're going to explore new nuclear waste disposal options, why not do what those nuke-happy Europeans are doing? Or are they dumping it all in the North Sea?

dumping it off the coast of Somalia.

So again, what's wrong with sending it into the sun? Or hell, just send them to mercury if it would be easier or cheaper. Really, just charge a tax on every kW produced with nuclear power to support the rockets.