Although we have given up, the world still needs to solve the nuclear waste problem.
( at least until solar can provide sufficient power).

Waste away: Nuclear power's eternal problem

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e#.VM0md0I_ZRo

… "Yet in all but a handful of countries, attempts to create these storage sites have led to impasse. The US was once a leader in such efforts, but has abandoned plans for what would have been the pioneering Yucca Mountain waste facility in Nevada. Only Finland has a deep store that is approaching completion. The Finnish government is expected to give final approval in the next 12 months, allowing engineers to begin carving out the deep storage chambers. But significant hurdles still face such projects in Finland and in other countries that are on track to build repositories, including Sweden and France”.…

Originally Posted by radind

Although we have given up, the world still needs to solve the nuclear waste problem.
( at least until solar can provide sufficient power).

Russia may be making progress.
http://rt.com/news/188332-mox-nuclear-fuel-production/

A plant in France uses mostly recycled fuel, and Americans are interested.
http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-1...treatment.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Russia may be making progress.
http://rt.com/news/188332-mox-nuclear-fuel-production/

A plant in France uses mostly recycled fuel, and Americans are interested.
http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-1...treatment.html

Good to see some have learned how to deal with or avoid the nuclear waste.

Originally Posted by radind

On the solar front, I think the limitations have been technical/engineering as opposed to politics. As solar power costs are reduced, the economics will dictate solutions.( The politicians can't stop it, unless they pass regulations to forbid it).
This article provides am interesting comparison of the solar with other power sources.

I do think that solar will start to dominate after we have better power storage technology.

Actually, even as we speak, lots and lots and lots of folks are putting solar on their houses. It has the capability right now to have a huge impact in a decentralized way. I have a close friend in Fort Collins, CO who put solar on his house and is generating more than 100% of his own needs. He sells more power back to the power company than he buys during his dark hours.

Of course, he has to buy some power during dark hours to stay powered up 24/7. AND the investment will eventually pay for itself. Granted, the payoff takes some time, but still, it IS economically workable.

Right now. We don't have to wait. (And, yes, I know the plural of anecdote is not data. But I can look around any neighborhood I go into and see solar on some of the roofs.)

Originally Posted by radind

Although we have given up, the world still needs to solve the nuclear waste problem.

It strikes me that the "waste problem" is virtually 100% a NIMBY problem.

Surely technology exists to create materials such as high-grade ceramics to make a container that holds waste. Then take the containers and sit them on the ground out in the middle of nowhere. Put signs up and post guards. Like forever.

Perhaps the Roman Catholic church could franchise brotherhoods and sisterhoods of contemplatives who would be willing to watch these compounds while they work on their mystical experiences.

Originally Posted by TnT

Actually, even as we speak, lots and lots and lots of folks are putting solar on their houses. It has the capability right now to have a huge impact in a decentralized way. I have a close friend in Fort Collins, CO who put solar on his house and is generating more than 100% of his own needs. He sells more power back to the power company than he buys during his dark hours.

Of course, he has to buy some power during dark hours to stay powered up 24/7. AND the investment will eventually pay for itself. Granted, the payoff takes some time, but still, it IS economically workable.

Right now. We don't have to wait. (And, yes, I know the plural of anecdote is not data. But I can look around any neighborhood I go into and see solar on some of the roofs.)

I understand that progress is being made, but there is still a long way to go get solar power above 20% of the total. We will need fossil fuels for as long as I can see.

Originally Posted by TnT

It strikes me that the "waste problem" is virtually 100% a NIMBY problem.

Surely technology exists to create materials such as high-grade ceramics to make a container that holds waste. Then take the containers and sit them on the ground out in the middle of nowhere. Put signs up and post guards. Like forever.

Perhaps the Roman Catholic church could franchise brotherhoods and sisterhoods of contemplatives who would be willing to watch these compounds while they work on their mystical experiences.

Ha ha. Not likely to be an conducive environment for those.

No, production and storage of nuc waste is unconscionable. We have no right to leave such crap around for thousands of years. And today there is no "nowhere." If it can't be recycled, it should not be produced. We can ramp up clean energy instead now. No, we can't cut ourselves off from fossil fuels just yet, but they need to be phased out. The only barriers to the speed of the phase out are political/ideological. I liked your other post above this one better, TnT

I don't mean that the phase out can be instantaneous, but whether it takes 10 or 40+ years depends on our willingness to do it. We need to face up to the task, and not make excuses or be cynical. It is a great adventure, better than going to the Moon. And if we phase fossil fuels out now, we leave a good legacy for the future. We'll have fossil fuels for later, if we can clean them up (big IF), and if we need to warm the planet; and meanwhile we'll have less global warming and pollution (and nuc waste) in the next two centuries.

The value of life is not just that we enjoy the experience of the cosmos looking at itself, and then vanish. It is that, but also what we create for the future, and what we remember; from life to life, beyond our current life. Are we homo sapiens, or homo estupidos?

Originally Posted by radind

I understand that progress is being made, but there is still a long way to go get solar power above 20% of the total. We will need fossil fuels for as long as I can see.

I think you can see farther than 10 or 20 years. You're not a boomer or silent.

I am a late silent.
Unfortunately, it will take more than 20 years.

The anti-nuclear movement has been THE biggest setback for the environment. Germany actually went from Nuclear BACK TO FOSSIL FUELS because of the anti-nuclear idiots. Even the people who have legitimate worries about meltdowns and waste are missing the point, if dealing with nuclear waste and worrying about meltdowns is the price we pay for making sure that no more coal or natural gas is burned to create electricity, then so be it, the well-being of the planet as a whole is more important than the well-being of the few who just have a RISK of being affected by nuclear waste or a meltdown. Being against nuclear energy is the ultimate act of selfish NIMBYism.

Originally Posted by radind

It is time to push nuclear until solar is fully developed.

To make this happen, we have the fossil-fuel crowd to shout down and the anti-anything-not-ideal crowd to either placate or steamroll. Is there time to do the politics and still get the power on-line in time, without sacrificing safety?

Credit where it's due; the climate experts are weighing-in to support nuclear. I hope that's enough, because the degree of opposition is strong.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Perhaps, if the builders would have developed a way to recycle the waste, and somehow updated the plants overall to make them safe. But what guarantee do we have that they would have done this, or been able to?

One disasterous and non-renewable form of energy production replacing another is not a remedy.

The problem was that we have not been developing and building solar. The Republicans starting with Mr. RR delayed this for 30 years, and still want to delay it.

Nuclear waste is a loss, but it's not a disaster. Since the PTB in Nevada killed storage there, New Mexico has stepped-up and offered what should be a better choice, assuming the storage is not intended to be a future source of recycled fuel. Storage in salt domes is self correcting. The salt subsumes the stored material, and it's gone forever ... at least as close to forever as humans need to worry. Of course, once stored it's gone for good, so forget reuse on any level.

Originally Posted by radind

I diasgree with your assessment on solar power. In my opinion , the technology is just now emerging to level to provide significant power. This technology continues to improve. it appears to me that the limitations have been technical/engineering issues and not politics.
On the nuclear front, it is probably too late for us to make much use of nuclear. We have been out of the game too long and there are too many obstacles.
Just have to wait for solar.

No, the industry is still there. All the plants in service need to be serviced and upgraded until they hit EOL. Some of the companies have been looking at the Next-Gen reactor program as a reentry to the construction of new generation capacity. Some of it is commercial and some is in government labs, like INL. We'll see if produces any fruit.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, the industry is still there. All the plants in service need to be serviced and upgraded until they hit EOL. Some of the companies have been looking at the Next-Gen reactor program as a reentry to the construction of new generation capacity. Some of it is commercial and some is in government labs, like INL. We'll see if produces any fruit.

Probably technically feasible, but politically it seems to me that nuclear is a lost cause.
-Too bad for the environment.

May just be a downturn in the economy.

Dig This: China Cuts Coal Production


http://www.scientificamerican.com/po...medium=twitter
… "The country dug up 3.7 billion metric tons of the dirty black rock in 2013. But last year that figure appears to have dropped to 3.5 billion metric tons. And coal imports fell by more than 10 percent.”…

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Nuclear waste is a loss, but it's not a disaster. Since the PTB in Nevada killed storage there, New Mexico has stepped-up and offered what should be a better choice, assuming the storage is not intended to be a future source of recycled fuel. Storage in salt domes is self correcting. The salt subsumes the stored material, and it's gone forever ... at least as close to forever as humans need to worry. Of course, once stored it's gone for good, so forget reuse on any level.

Gone forever? Does the salt transform the nuclear waste into something harmless?

Originally Posted by Odin

The anti-nuclear movement has been THE biggest setback for the environment. Germany actually went from Nuclear BACK TO FOSSIL FUELS because of the anti-nuclear idiots. Even the people who have legitimate worries about meltdowns and waste are missing the point, if dealing with nuclear waste and worrying about meltdowns is the price we pay for making sure that no more coal or natural gas is burned to create electricity, then so be it, the well-being of the planet as a whole is more important than the well-being of the few who just have a RISK of being affected by nuclear waste or a meltdown. Being against nuclear energy is the ultimate act of selfish NIMBYism.

I don't like whole areas being made uninhabitable and poisonous, whether they are in my back yard or not, and whether they are underground or not. We don't need nucs. But if we decide we do, then they need at least to be nucs that recycle all the waste material, and/or they should be upgraded to thorium-based.

Originally Posted by radind

I am a late silent.
Unfortunately, it will take more than 20 years.

If so, the reason will be entirely political.

Good application of solar power.

Drought-Hit Pakistan Turns to Solar Water Treatment

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...medium=twitter

… "Worsening drought has led to over 80 percent of water resources in Pakistan's southern Tharparker district becoming unfit for people to drink, a new study says.
That has led to plans by the Sindh provincial government to invest 5.4 billion Pakistani rupees ($53 million) in installing 750 solar-powered reverse osmosis water purification plants across the sprawling desert district, to help get safe drinking water to the region’s over 1.5 million people.”…

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ha ha. Not likely to be an conducive environment for those.

No, production and storage of nuc waste is unconscionable. We have no right to leave such crap around for thousands of years. And today there is no "nowhere." If it can't be recycled, it should not be produced. We can ramp up clean energy instead now. No, we can't cut ourselves off from fossil fuels just yet, but they need to be phased out. The only barriers to the speed of the phase out are political/ideological. I liked your other post above this one better, TnT

1. Especially when the stuff is spewed like now.
2. NIMBYISM at its finest. It's sort of like a bunch of NIMBY's squcking right here in Oklahoma about a windfarm fucking up the view! I man really, ummm OK.

* dodo award for NIMBYS



We're already spewing radiation everywhere now, Eric. Fossil fuels and coal especially are filthy.
http://ecopoliticalecon.com/category/fossil-fuels/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

At least with nuc plants, the stuff isn't spewed out all over the place and can be contained like TnT says. So there you have iti, hands down. NIMBYISM = mass radioactive fallout via fossil fuels!

I don't mean that the phase out can be instantaneous, but whether it takes 10 or 40+ years depends on our willingness to do it. We need to face up to the task, and not make excuses or by cynical. It is a great adventure, better than going to the Moon. And if we phase fossil fuels out now, we leave a good legacy for the future. We'll have fossil fuels for later, if we can clean them up (big IF), and if we need to warm the planet; and meanwhile we'll have less global warming and pollution (and nuc waste) in the next two centuries.

Nuclear energy is the clear choice, unless one's mind is deluded. We've lived just fine after all of those above ground nuclear tests that ended in 1962. I also have radioactive minerals in my mineral collection. There is no hazard in handling a sample of uraninite.

The value of life is not just that we enjoy the experience the cosmos looking at itself, and then vanish. It is that, but also what we create for the future, and what we remember; from life to life, beyond our current life. Are we homo sapiens, or homo estupidos?

Perfect! Awesome! NIMBY's = homo estupidos or even homo dodoium

In thorium I trust, for it giveth the power and the light.

http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...oon-contribute

Originally Posted by Odin

The anti-nuclear movement has been THE biggest setback for the environment.

I think you're absolutely right. It got politicized and fear-mongered to death.

I would challenge an anti-nuker to tell me within a reasonable estimate the total volume of nuclear waste in, say, cubic meters, that a nuclear power plant would generate in its natural lifetime. Then once that's done, look at it and realize that the volume is vanishingly small compared to the other crap we pour into our environment.

No one ever drills down into the necessary detail before spouting off. Nuclear is actually a PURELY technical problem. Pure technical problems can almost always be solved, technically.

I wouldn't want anyone to have nuc waste in their back yard. When it comes to the Earth, the entire planet is my back yard. I don't want entire states, provinces or countries made uninhabitable for centuries; no thanks.

Solar power is ready to go; it just needs to get built. Nuclear still has a lot of "technical problems." The industry has had a lot of time to solve them. If they do, then it may be a viable bridge fuel in the future.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wouldn't want anyone to have nuc waste in their back yard. When it comes to the Earth, the entire planet is my back yard. I don't want entire states, provinces or countries made uninhabitable for centuries; no thanks.

Solar power is ready to go; it just needs to get built. Nuclear still has a lot of "technical problems." The industry has had a lot of time to solve them. If they do, then it may be a viable bridge fuel in the future.

A recent article on nuclear waste disposal for information.

Turning nuclear waste into glass, February 2015

Vitrification has emerged as the treatment option of choice for the most dangerous radioactive waste. But dealing with the nuclear waste legacy of the Cold War will require state-of-the-art facilities and advanced glass formulations


http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/68/2/10.1063/PT.3.2687?utm_source=Physics+Today&utm_medium=emai l&utm_campaign=5268457_February+2015+Table+of+Cont ents&utm_content=$LINK_KEYWORD$&dm_i=1Y69,34X61,E1 PA8Z,B8OF6,1

… "Since spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors contains about 95% of the original U, several nations—including France, the UK, Russia, and Japan—have adopted the fuel-reprocessing technology developed in weapons programs to recycle the U. The first commercial reprocessing plant in the US, at West Valley, New York, operated from 1966 to 1972 but was deemed uneconomical and shut down. The second, built at Morris, Illinois, was declared inoperable in 1974 due to serious design flaws. Startup testing of a third, much larger plant at Barnwell, South Carolina, was aborted in 1977, when President Jimmy Carter ended all federal support, citing proliferation and security concerns.
Since that time, the US has practiced a so-called once-through policy for commercial spent nuclear fuel. Spent nuclear fuel rods are stored at some 75 reactor sites in 33 states. They were to have been directly disposed in a deep geological repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, but the program lacked state and local support, and the Obama administration effectively canceled the plan in 2009. Other options, such as interim storage, are being evaluated. 8
Recycling spent nuclear fuel may sound attractive, but the technical and economic benefits of nuclear reprocessing are subjects of considerable debate. Once the fuel is dissolved, a host of radionuclides, some of them gaseous, are liberated; most are retained in the resulting waste streams, but others, such as tritium, krypton-85, and xenon-133, are often released into the environment. The economics are critically dependent on the prevailing price of U and on the estimated cost of alternative options, such as direct disposal; strong arguments have been made both for and against reprocessing. 9 Assessments of the merits of nuclear reprocessing will also vary depending on the numerous alternative future fuel-cycle options being considered. 10”…
… "The Vitreous State Laboratory (VSL) at the Catholic University of America was established in 1968 as a center of excellence in glass science and technology with funding from the US Department of Defense. The VSL is home to the largest collection of test melters in the US based on Joule-heated ceramic melter technology.”…
… "The VSL performed melter testing and developed the glass formulation that was used at the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York to convert about 2300 m 3 of HLW to 275 canisters of stable glass from 1999 to 2002. For the Duratek M-Area vitrification facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS), the VSL provided testing and onsite support and developed the glass formulations to vitrify about 2500 m 3 of mixed LAW in the late 1990s. It continues to support ongoing efforts at the SRS to encapsulate HLW in glass and LAW in cement. The VSL has also provided glass-formulation and melter-testing support to the Japanese Rokkasho vitrification facility since 2005, performed vitrification testing for both high- and intermediate-level waste treatment at the Sellafield site in the UK, and in 2013 developed the cement formulation used to immobilize nuclear waste stored at the Separations Process Research Unit facility in Niskayuna, New York.”…

Originally Posted by radind

Probably technically feasible, but politically it seems to me that nuclear is a lost cause.
-Too bad for the environment.

The NIMBY push-back on reactor siting is intense under ideal conditions, so I have to agree. Siting reactors on Federal property is possible, but where? Oak Ridge ... again?

It appears that, barring things get scary, fission is dead n the water.