What a ridiculous statement. There is no such "water source", you made that up.
And the SNF is about as lethal as arsenic trioxide after 300yrs. And lower after that. While being in a vitrified ceramic form that is implausible to ever "leak out". There are far larger stores of Arsenic right beside large fresh water lakes, which will sit there forever if they aren't properly disposed of. In a powder form that is easily dissolved in water. Nobody seems to care about those.
Key point is that SNF should always have been reprocessed, pyroprocessing or molten salt processing being ideal. Then you can extract the transuranics which are valuable fuel, the plutonium being worth 14X the price of gold in energy content. The short lived isotopes, most of which are valuable, the rest can easily be dropped down a borehole, after 300yrs they will be almost completely decayed.
Even if what you say is true (I haven't dug into it but I do doubt it), we don't need Yucca. Vitrifying high-level waste and keeping it in various locations is a solution that is already used and works.
In the US, spent fuel is disposed on site in containers. It is not vitrified, that I know of (Fort Calhoun and Cooper I know don't). I think the argument for central disposal isn't so much one of technical need but of economic prudency. The Atomic Energy Act made the US responsible for waste; that provision has not been amended, that I know of. But in storing waste on site for 100 years or so, the utility is made liable for the disposal, not the government.
Perhaps the simplest solution would be to deed over the land used for storage from the utility to the feds, and make them responsible for all future monitoring, maintenance, and actions related to that site. To do so would require substantive congressional and administrative action. Do you really think the current administration or Congress is up for this task? Frankly, I'm not sure they could collectively find their way out of the men's room if you turned off the light.
And where exactly is the "water source" you reference being pumped and used for human consumption. Your work as a CAD designer glosses over the fact that it would take a million or so years for water entering the mountain from the surface to leach completely through mountain to the emplacement zone, then through the waste shielding and waste containers, and then on through several hundred feet of subsurface geology to actually reach that "water source."
The truth you have overlooked is that the NRC staff found that each of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the resources evaluated in this supplement would be SMALL.
It was a political move, made for political purposes only, and was not supported with legitimate engineering reasons not to do it. The essential truth here is that realistic starting point for nuclear waste disposal would be to acknowledge that any course of action will be an imperfect solution. You seem to be hell-bent for a perfect solution. It doesn't exist; no energy source is without risk.
Harry Reid, his minions on the Commission, and Obungler's political shenanigans ("blue ribbon commission") perverted the words of Ed McGaffigan, who at one time was head of the NRC, who said the NRC's mandate was to "provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection, not absolute assurance of perfect protection.”
The Left blames climate change on carbon. I blame the carbon problem on the Left; had they not been so terrified of nuclear power, had they not been so adamant on running the world with windmill, the "carbon" issue of today would be nothing near a crisis they want us to believe. Since 1979, when Carter proclaimed America to be the Saudi Arabia of coal, and when he, his party, and the media terrified America that nuclear power would destroy the world, the US has added 107 GW of coal powered stations. How many tonnes of CO2 is that? What would have happened had that development been for nuclear instead of coal?
If you want to oppose nuclear power, do so on the basis of facts, not myths, hearsay, and or outright lies.
Is anyone aware of a petition or other form that we the voting public can voice our displeasure to the relevant elected leaders about this nomination?
So glad you amplified Ted’s critique. Please write more on nuclear
biden -- business as usual, corrupt and usa is a mess harris, anti-nuclear
As I understand it, if we can get thorium reactors running we can use our existing nuclear waste as fuel for them.
Troll Alert!! DON'T FEED THE TROLL!
Troll Alert!! DON'T FEED THE TROLL!
What a ridiculous statement. There is no such "water source", you made that up.
And the SNF is about as lethal as arsenic trioxide after 300yrs. And lower after that. While being in a vitrified ceramic form that is implausible to ever "leak out". There are far larger stores of Arsenic right beside large fresh water lakes, which will sit there forever if they aren't properly disposed of. In a powder form that is easily dissolved in water. Nobody seems to care about those.
Key point is that SNF should always have been reprocessed, pyroprocessing or molten salt processing being ideal. Then you can extract the transuranics which are valuable fuel, the plutonium being worth 14X the price of gold in energy content. The short lived isotopes, most of which are valuable, the rest can easily be dropped down a borehole, after 300yrs they will be almost completely decayed.
Even if what you say is true (I haven't dug into it but I do doubt it), we don't need Yucca. Vitrifying high-level waste and keeping it in various locations is a solution that is already used and works.
In the US, spent fuel is disposed on site in containers. It is not vitrified, that I know of (Fort Calhoun and Cooper I know don't). I think the argument for central disposal isn't so much one of technical need but of economic prudency. The Atomic Energy Act made the US responsible for waste; that provision has not been amended, that I know of. But in storing waste on site for 100 years or so, the utility is made liable for the disposal, not the government.
Perhaps the simplest solution would be to deed over the land used for storage from the utility to the feds, and make them responsible for all future monitoring, maintenance, and actions related to that site. To do so would require substantive congressional and administrative action. Do you really think the current administration or Congress is up for this task? Frankly, I'm not sure they could collectively find their way out of the men's room if you turned off the light.
And where exactly is the "water source" you reference being pumped and used for human consumption. Your work as a CAD designer glosses over the fact that it would take a million or so years for water entering the mountain from the surface to leach completely through mountain to the emplacement zone, then through the waste shielding and waste containers, and then on through several hundred feet of subsurface geology to actually reach that "water source."
The truth you have overlooked is that the NRC staff found that each of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the resources evaluated in this supplement would be SMALL.
It was a political move, made for political purposes only, and was not supported with legitimate engineering reasons not to do it. The essential truth here is that realistic starting point for nuclear waste disposal would be to acknowledge that any course of action will be an imperfect solution. You seem to be hell-bent for a perfect solution. It doesn't exist; no energy source is without risk.
Harry Reid, his minions on the Commission, and Obungler's political shenanigans ("blue ribbon commission") perverted the words of Ed McGaffigan, who at one time was head of the NRC, who said the NRC's mandate was to "provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection, not absolute assurance of perfect protection.”
The Left blames climate change on carbon. I blame the carbon problem on the Left; had they not been so terrified of nuclear power, had they not been so adamant on running the world with windmill, the "carbon" issue of today would be nothing near a crisis they want us to believe. Since 1979, when Carter proclaimed America to be the Saudi Arabia of coal, and when he, his party, and the media terrified America that nuclear power would destroy the world, the US has added 107 GW of coal powered stations. How many tonnes of CO2 is that? What would have happened had that development been for nuclear instead of coal?
If you want to oppose nuclear power, do so on the basis of facts, not myths, hearsay, and or outright lies.