Obama and the Politics of Nuclear Waste

Obama’s Nuclear Reservations

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Sounds reasonable enough. Except that sound science already comes down firmly on the side of Yucca Mountain. "The best option is deep geologic isolation," says Per Peterson, a UC Berkeley professor who specializes in radioactive-waste management. "It's based on 50 years of research and development, and a very broad, widespread and strong consensus that it can provide appropriate and safe disposal of waste." Good luck finding a nuclear-waste expert who'll tell you Obama's stopgap solution—let it pile up and deal with it later —has anything to do with "sound science." Sound politics is more like it.

« Prev Page

For those considering the possibility of disposal of high level nuclear waste by space disposal.

The cost of putting a single pound of anything into a low level earth orbit is approximately $15,000. To put it into perspective that's approximately the cost of one pound of pure gold! That low level earth orbit is only stable for a few years before the drag on the upper atmosphere causes the object to fall back to earth, probably to land in YOUR backyard. To launch that same pound with escape velocity is much, much, much more expensive. If you think the stimulus package is expensive try multiplying the mass of the current waste deposits + the mass of any supporting materials (enclosures, shielding, etc) times $15,000+. There's not enough gold in Fort Knox to pay for it all. A much more reasonable solution would be to pursue a sub-seabed disposal for non-recyclable high level waste. There are places on the ocean floor that have been stable for many millions of years and lay under at least three miles of water. This could be done by encasing the waste in an appropriate container and simply tossing it over the side of the transport ship. The container would travel several miles to the ocean floor where it would imbed itself several hundred feet in the sediment. The vacuum in the wake of the container would even seal the hole. In the extremely unlikely event of a rupture the sediment would bind up most of the material such that it would only migrate a short distance and be unlikely to reach the surface. Even if it did it's still VERY heavy and would remain safe at the bottom of the ocean for as far as we are concerned for the rest of forever. As far as terrorism is concerned I'd love to see any organization try to recover such a container. The oceans are a very big place and it's hard to find anything on the floor, much less beneath it. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but I'd prefer terrorists to waste their time, money and effort trying to recover such a container from under the ocean floor than trying to get weaponized anthrax or sarin.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: cyrusp @ 04/23/2009 1:45:38 AM

The thing that bugs me the most when people talk about nuclear waste is that they don't bother to compare it to waste produced by other power sources... coal generates about a thousand times more waste per year in slag than nuclear, and it is just as toxic, full of heavy metals, arsenic and other stuff. And that doesn't even include the toxic gases released into the atmosphere, as well as the greenhouse gases. Why don't we require the same level of waste containment for coal that we do for nuclear?
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: JasperD @ 02/22/2009 3:18:32 PM

For those considering the possibility of disposal of high level nuclear waste by space disposal.

The cost of putting a single pound of anything into a low level earth orbit is approximately $15,000. To put it into perspective that's approximately the cost of one pound of pure gold! That low level earth orbit is only stable for a few years before the drag on the upper atmosphere causes the object to fall back to earth, probably to land in YOUR backyard. To launch that same pound with escape velocity is much, much, much more expensive. If you think the stimulus package is expensive try multiplying the mass of the current waste deposits + the mass of any supporting materials (enclosures, shielding, etc) times $15,000+. There's not enough gold in Fort Knox to pay for it all. A much more reasonable solution would be to pursue a sub-seabed disposal for non-recyclable high level waste. There are places on the ocean floor that have been stable for many millions of years and lay under at least three miles of water. This could be done by encasing the waste in an appropriate container and simply tossing it over the side of the transport ship. The container would travel several miles to the ocean floor where it would imbed itself several hundred feet in the sediment. The vacuum in the wake of the container would even seal the hole. In the extremely unlikely event of a rupture the sediment would bind up most of the material such that it would only migrate a short distance and be unlikely to reach the surface. Even if it did it's still VERY heavy and would remain safe at the bottom of the ocean for as far as we are concerned for the rest of forever. As far as terrorism is concerned I'd love to see any organization try to recover such a container. The oceans are a very big place and it's hard to find anything on the floor, much less beneath it. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but I'd prefer terrorists to waste their time, money and effort trying to recover such a container from under the ocean floor than trying to get weaponized anthrax or sarin.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: gilbzink @ 12/14/2008 11:45:55 AM

Gilbert Zinke12/14/2008
About the article on nuclear power. The writer forgot to research the most importnat piont ,That is that over 90 percent of the nuclear waste is reclyled and is the cleanest power on the planet. and proable the safetest .