vtsnowedin wrote:Why do I see a government pushing ahead a timeline on a nuclear fueled project as a idea that could go terribly wrong?
Because you don't know any better!
vtsnowedin wrote:Why do I see a government pushing ahead a timeline on a nuclear fueled project as a idea that could go terribly wrong?
Tanada wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:Why do I see a government pushing ahead a timeline on a nuclear fueled project as a idea that could go terribly wrong?
You live in a litigious culture where lawyers run the government?
Newfie wrote:VT,
All the road branches ahead of us have horrible traits, some more certain than others. There is no good way out at this point. Nuclear has its issues for sure. Yet it seems to be the least bad path.
vtsnowedin wrote:Newfie wrote:VT,
All the road branches ahead of us have horrible traits, some more certain than others. There is no good way out at this point. Nuclear has its issues for sure. Yet it seems to be the least bad path.
Oh I'm all for building new state of the art Nuclear plants. But is has been pointed out we can not build enough of them to solve our energy problem. I do object to politicians making decisions about how to build them as those decisions should be left to the Scientists and engineers that know what it actually takes to do it right.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
vtsnowedin wrote:I consider my last post cautious not sarcastic. But you post is most informative and I have little to disagree with it.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:I consider my last post cautious not sarcastic. But you post is most informative and I have little to disagree with it.
Sorry VY my first response was about living in a lawyer run litigious society which was rather sarcastic, I was talking about my response, not your comment.
Tanada wrote:The Chinese are planning to skip the 50 year lag the USA chose to follow. Once they get factories set up to mass produce modular reactors .
C8 wrote:
The 50 year lag was caused by liberal anti-nuke activists (funded by FF companies) and celebrities. Democrats are essentially the blame for the mass CO2 emissions that followed from them stopping clean nuclear power.
vtsnowedin wrote:C8 wrote:
The 50 year lag was caused by liberal anti-nuke activists (funded by FF companies) and celebrities. Democrats are essentially the blame for the mass CO2 emissions that followed from them stopping clean nuclear power.
I don't know about that conspiracy theory of the fossil fuel companies funding the anti nuke activist.It might be true, but I suspect the truth lies more in them defending their own products openly and above board with out any underhanded funding of opposition parties.
I suppose someone will write a book about it someday and include what ever facts and figures they can dig up researching the topic.
Sponsored in the public interest by the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island...
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
vtsnowedin wrote:As I suggested ,openly and above board. And there was no electric powered car alternative back then. Still isn't much of an electric powered airline industry.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Nuclear Waste Disposal: Actions Needed to Enable DOE Decision That Could Save Tens of Billions of Dollars
Fast Facts
The Department of Energy manages 54 million gallons of nuclear and hazardous waste at its Hanford site in Washington state. DOE has treatment options for some of its low-activity waste:
Vitrify it—immobilize it in glass (current plan)
Grout it—immobilize it in a concrete-like mixture (potential option)
Grouting the waste could save billions of dollars, and several facilities could dispose of it. But DOE faces legal challenges if it tries to dispose of grouted waste.
We recommended that DOE look at disposal options for grouted waste and suggested that Congress consider clarifying DOE's authority to manage and dispose of low-activity waste.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Several potential options exist for disposing of grouted supplemental low-activity waste (LAW) from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford site. (Grout immobilizes waste in a concrete-like mixture.) Specifically, two commercial and two federal facilities present minimal technical challenges to accepting grouted LAW. The commercial facilities—Clive Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in Utah and Waste Control Specialists in Texas—are licensed to receive similar waste. The federal facilities—Hanford's Integrated Disposal Facility and the Nevada National Security Site—face regulatory constraints and other challenges to disposing of grouted supplemental LAW.
Disposal costs and health and environmental risks vary among the four potential disposal facilities, but disposing of Hanford's supplemental LAW as grouted waste could cost billions less than disposing of it as vitrified waste, which is DOE's current plan. (Vitrification immobilizes the waste in glass.) DOE estimated that vitrification and disposal of the waste would cost between $21 billion and $37 billion. GAO estimated grouting and disposal would cost between $11 billion and $13 billion (see figure) and may be faster. DOE has begun exploring how to dispose of grouted Hanford waste, but it has not analyzed a range of options as GAO and DOE best practices recommend. As a result, DOE is likely missing opportunities to reduce risks, expedite treatment, and save tens of billions of dollars.
DOE faces legal challenges in selecting a disposal site if it grouts supplemental LAW. For example, before DOE can consider alternatives to vitrification, it must show it can manage Hanford's tank waste as a waste type other than high-level waste (HLW) because it is currently required to vitrify at least a portion of the HLW. DOE is testing alternative treatment and disposal options, but DOE officials told GAO that if they continue with the testing, they expect the effort to be the subject of litigation. Clarifying DOE's authority to manage Hanford's supplemental LAW as low-level waste and transport it outside Washington State for disposal could help save tens of billions of dollars by allowing DOE to pursue less expensive disposal options.
Why GAO Did This Study
DOE oversees the treatment and disposal of 54 million gallons of nuclear and hazardous waste at the Hanford site in Washington State. Hanford's tank waste is currently managed as HLW; however, more than 90 percent of the waste's volume has low levels of radioactivity. DOE plans to vitrify a portion of Hanford's LAW, but it has not made a decision on how to treat and dispose of the roughly 40 percent referred to as supplemental LAW. In May 2017, GAO found that grouting supplemental LAW could save tens of billions of dollars and reduce certain risks compared to vitrification. However, little is known about disposal options for grouted LAW.
GAO examined (1) what potential disposal options exist for grouted supplemental LAW, (2) what is known about the costs and environmental risks of potential disposal facilities and the extent to which DOE has assessed them, and (3) the challenges DOE faces in selecting a disposal method. GAO reviewed technical reports on DOE's waste disposal strategies at Hanford, compared DOE's approach to best practices, and interviewed DOE officials and disposal facility representatives.
Skip to Recommendations
Recommendations
Congress should consider clarifying two issues, including DOE's authority to manage and dispose of the tank waste as other than HLW, consistent with existing regulatory authorities. GAO also recommends that DOE expand the potential disposal options it assesses to include all facilities that could receive grouted supplemental LAW. DOE concurred with GAO's recommendation.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
On the other hand with an 80% fission powered grid plus fission process heat for industry you can power up synthetic fuel production like NASA wants to use on Mars to convert CO2 and H2O into synthetic jet fuel and fly wherever the planes can carry you on carbon neutral fuel.
Doly wrote: Besides, EROEI starts to bite, and the price of the fuel would be a lot more expensive, and with the amount of fuel that planes need, air travel would probably get priced out of the budget of most people.
AdamB wrote:Doly wrote: Besides, EROEI starts to bite, and the price of the fuel would be a lot more expensive, and with the amount of fuel that planes need, air travel would probably get priced out of the budget of most people.
EROEI has nothing to do with price. It is entirely an energy ratio. You should know better.
vtsnowedin wrote:AdamB wrote:Doly wrote: Besides, EROEI starts to bite, and the price of the fuel would be a lot more expensive, and with the amount of fuel that planes need, air travel would probably get priced out of the budget of most people.
EROEI has nothing to do with price. It is entirely an energy ratio. You should know better.
BS.
vtsnowedin wrote: If the EROEI is low the price will be high and vice versa.
You should know better.
vtsnowedin wrote: BS. If the EROEI is low the price will be high and vice versa.
You should know better.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests