Obama’s Nuclear Reservations

The following experts say that Yucca Mountain is a safe place to store nuclear waste:

Richard A. Muller, ???Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines??? (2008), a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley.
Gwyneth Cravens, ???Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Power??? (2007), former associate editor of Harper???s Magazine, and writer for the New York Times, The Washington Post and other publications.
William Tucker, author of ???Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Energy Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey??? (2008), writer of numerous articles published in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Spectator and the Weekly Standard.

A reason of delay may be that we may need to reprocess the spent fuel from the nuclear power plants, which would vastly increase the supply of the uranium we will need to fuel the nuclear plants of the future to minimize global warming. Without question, nuclear power will need to be the primary source of base power in the future, to enable the variable sources of wind, solar and geothermal energy to power our homes, businesses and industry.

Rick Olson, Saline, Michigan

Mini Nuclear Reactors to Power Remote Areas
Using technology originally developed by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, Hyperion Power Generation is creating mini nuclear fission reactors that will provide electricity and hot water to remote locations, nearly all outside the United States.

Eric Bland, Discovery News 21 November 2008

The true problem with nuclear waste is the fact that it is concentrated - spread that same material out over 1000's of miles - say dispersed in the blacktop and concrete bridges across our nations highways in very small amounts in a new infrastructure rebuilding program for our country - you would get irradiated more 5 min outside on a sunny day.than from this dispersed waste.

The end of the article is great. It shows that there is no logical scientific solution to nuclear waste issue and any suggestion to solve that issue pretends to be scientific but rather politic.
Ozgur Gurbuz
Istanbul-Turkey

The way to solve the problem of Nuclear waste is very simple.... but more creative than the models we currently use. The answer is to mix spent fuel in CONCRETE. in mixing bowl, Inside a containment structure. By DILUTING the material even to the extreme, and shaping the concrete into blocks, you have neutralized the waste into low-level wastes that will be chemically stable for up to tens of thousands of years, once stored properly with the aid of a thin, "cover layer" of block You would lay the blocks out in a dry desert canyon and never harm the environment - even if the climate eventually changed. The federal government would need to run this project without state interference.

The way to solve the problem of Nuclear waste is very simple.... but more creative than the models we currently use. The answer is to mix spent fuel in CONCRETE. in mixing bowl, Inside a containment structure. By DILUTING the material even to the extreme, and shaping the concrete into blocks, you have neutralized the waste into low-level wastes that will be chemically stable for up to tens of thousands of years, once stored properly with the aid of a thin, "cover layer" of block You would lay the blocks out in a dry desert canyon and never harm the environment - even if the climate eventually changed. The federal government would need to run this project without state interference.

Forgot to include the Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

I had a friend once say in a conversation about storage of nuclear waste (and just plain old garbage in general) that his solution would be to launch it into space. Everyone was aghast....HOW COULD YOU??? As the years have gone on though, I start to wonder......why not?

The universe is so enormous, that we cannot even begin to comprehend just how big it is. If the universe was a big sandy beach in Miami, the earth would be no more than one grain of sand in that beach. We are talking massive!

So, seriously, why not?

Just more of the same. Talk increasing energy production but do nothing! Boy how many million saw this coming?

This is likely to be among the first topics where we will see political hypocrisy out of the Obama administration. He's playing a political game of 3-card Monty with our nation's energy security.

One card is the reduction of carbon emissions, which all the Dems put high on their list. Unfortunately for them, there is a mounting stack of studies that conclude that there can be no significant reduction in CO2 emissions without additional nuclear generation.

The second card is nuclear waste. He and his buddy Harry Reid claim not to be opposed to nuclear power in principle, but they are "concerned" about the issue of how to deal with waste. Sound science points to the safest solution being a deep and stable geological repository (i.e., Yucca Mountain). I have personally been to Yucca. I've seen it. The 100 miles out of Vegas is some god forsaken uninhabitable territory. The geologist leading my tour group pointed to rock strata that were formed MILLIONS of years ago. Harry isn't concerned with waste. Harry is concerned about Harry. Talks of reprocessing used nuclear fuel can ease the volume of long-term waste, but a repository is still needed. Common sense says that you don't solve a dilemna where intelligent people are debating the science regarding nano-curies in the ground 100 miles into a desert by embracing the WORST of all solutions (i.e., about 60 "mini-repositories" spread throughout the country, some in high populated areas).

The last card in the game is the need for additional electrical generation and the stability of the national energy infrastructure. We're hanging on a thread. A minor grid disturbance in South Florida takes out a couple of plants due to electrical protection schemes and millions of customers are suddenly without power. Nevermind the blackouts in the Mid-West a few years back. Want to throw a large area of the country into turmoil? Take out one of many remote electrical switching stations located around a big city during a hot summer afternoon and watch the grid go down like dominoes. The demand for electricity continues to climb. Conservation helps. Renewable sources are on the rise. However, most reasonable people understand and agree, new nuclear generation is needed in order to meet the growing demand and to bolster the stability of the grid.

As with any game of 3-Card Monty, there is a loser. The loser is the American public. While Obama and Harry play their game of shuffle and delay, the situation only gets worse.

The answer is NOT to slam the door shut to Yucca, as Mr. Reid wishes, thereby leaving the commercial nuclear plants to hold all of the used fuel ad infinitumm, but to implement a policy of used fuel recycling that will dramatically reduce the volume of material going into Yucca. This can be achieved by recycling the used fuel currently being stored at the plants. By recycing or reprocessing fuel, the energy usable materials are separated, recovered and reconstituted into new fuel for nuclear reactors. The small volume of fission products can then be stabilized and disposed. I would suggest the fine article by Clinton Bastin in 21st Century Science and Technology magazine with regard to Reprocessing Spent Nuclear Fuel. I applaud the current programs being supported in the US to evaluate future recycling of nuclear fuel in a manner that makes good science, sense, and addresses key proliferation issues. Should Obama wish to find a solution, he needs to become better informed on this program, because it will not only address one of the most pressing issues of our time, but provide numerous future job opportunities for those interested in science, technology, and plant operations.

Well I have a generally positive attitude regarding Nuclear energy. But there are alternatives no one seems to be considering.
Those offshore oil platforms are huge and power hungry but you may have noticed none of them have extension cords to shore.
The reason is they all have turbines driven by natural gas, Las Vegas never turns off the lights and it is powered by turbines driven by water from nearby Lake Mead.
Perhaps rather than look at large power suppliers such as more San Onofre's; power could be almost be miniaturized by the use of turbines that power smaller areas, Turbines driven by Alcohol, natural gas, methane or any number of non polluting and cheap fuels that are not fossil based. All of which will power a turbine.