Comments on: Obama, politics and nuclear waste http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: NucleoMatt http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-30260 Thu, 06 May 2010 04:08:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-30260 Something has to be done with this Nuclear waste. I firmly believe that The Yucca Mountain project has to be commissioned. Not a lot of people out there. Plus, I’m pretty sure we have the technology to ensure nuclear waste’s safety.

Fossil fuels are going to run out soon. The time, wherein nuclear energy becomes our major source of energy, will surely come. Nuclear energy will expand, and we need Yucca Mountain to accommodate its waste.

]]>
By: Ismailtaimur http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-29272 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:46:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-29272 Brilliant article , its great to bring these facts to light, might be politics or otherwise, but nevertheless important .

]]>
By: piwarsk1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-29267 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:03:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-29267 Its impossible to model all future scenarios for the next one million years – the number of variables that would needed to be taken into account are astronomical and some are probably unknown. But its obvious that Yucca Mountain is a better site for nuclear waste storage than locations that are next plants that are located near populated areas. Yucca Mountain is located far away from human habitation: Why aren’t we doing this already?

]]>
By: piwarsk1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-29266 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:02:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-29266 Its impossible to model all future scenarios for the next one million years – the number of variables that would needed to be taken into account are astronomical and some are probably unknown. But its obvious that Yucca Mountain is a better site for nuclear waste storage than locations that are next plants that are located near populated areas. Yucca Mountain is located far away from human habitation: Why aren’t we doing this already?`

]]>
By: Confusus http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-29253 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:14:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-29253 The politicos say we need nuclear, but any study, work or actions that will not bear fruit during their tenure are dropped.
Rather than storage of this stuff for 1 million years. Really quite a ridiculous idea. Surely a better idea would be to concentrate efforts in to making it safe now, ie using the radioactivity to generate heat to make electricity until it is spent to the point of no longer dangerous. Not only does this mean not having a large potential bomb lying around for a million years but creates a new transferable and income generating industry in reprocessing.
Considering the amount of waste generated in the world and the age of most nuclear reactors this is something which must be undertaken now. The Russian and American fleets have nuclear reactors, so do the other nuclear powered navies of the world. This is without the weapons to be decommissioned. Add this to the sources put out by hospitals etc there must be millions of tonnes each year. This is going to need a lot of big holes to fill!
Science makes the stuff dangerous; surely science should be able to make it safe!

]]>
By: altecword http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-29252 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:06:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-29252 The problem is that after $10.5 billion the project can be stopped without a final conclusion from the scientists who work at it. It is a problem because of two important and simple issues:
o First, the money has been spent to reach no conclusion at all. It might be worth keep on spending more in order to find an answer, but Obama’s administration dose not seem to go in such direction.
o Second, the nuclear waste has to be put in the safest possible place, as it requires millions of years to become non-contaminant. But the project to determine the safeness of this place can be terminated without a conclusion.
However, both points can be watched from a different perspective when trying to answer one question: Is the project really necessary? There is no real problem if we consider that there are many places spread through the country with safe nuclear waste’s warehouses.
• The evidence given to support the points set ahead in this essay is not conclusive. If the 2011 budget does not mention the Yucca Mountain’s project it does not mean that there will not be any expenses on nuclear safety or alternatives. And there are many places who accomplish the requirements of long term security.
• The essay mentions the Republican Party’s view. However, more evidence is required to consider this issue as a political strategy. An election’s date is not enough to infer such conclusion. In the end, most people in Nevada do not want to be the country’s nuclear waste and so, the decision seems to be logical. If we have a look at the basic general rules about risk, we find that one of them is diversification. Is it really safer to move the whole wastes to a unique place? Where are the rest of the nuclear wastes? Are themin Republican or Democratic states? Maybe the answer to the questions would help us to decide if there are just political interests behind this issue.
• As a conclusion, although the Yucca Mountain’s project has cost a lot of money, it does not mean that it is the best and unique solution. Cost of opportunity is always an important fact. Maybe it is a better idea to tackle the situation from a broader point of view, by considering other alternatives or even continuing with old policies.

]]>
By: mamaway http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-29248 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:00:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-29248 Why don’t we shoot the stuff into the sun? Maybe because it’s super dangerous and we could never afford it….

100k tons X $20m/ton = $2 Trillion to launch it all, every 20 years or so. Much cheaper to bury it. Or reprocess it.

]]>
By: JoStar http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-29238 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:05:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-29238 http://npg.org/forum_series/ForumPaper-F eb-2010%20–%20Final%202-24-10.pdf

]]>
By: Anon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-29237 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:31:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-29237 They should just take the nuclear waste and put them into conventional airburst bombs.

Not only will it create a ‘dirty bomb’ arsenal capable of stabbing fear into the hearts of men, but it ensures that the nation’s nuclear waste will be guarded by military personnel.

]]>
By: worldcitizen http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/03/05/obama-politics-and-nuclear-waste/#comment-29235 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:04:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=6694#comment-29235 It is extremely expensive to launch anything, especially heavy nuclear waste.

Currently there are no fast neutron reactors.

So, we are stuck with using swimming pools, like the Europeans, or putting it under a mountain.

And if we can keep it safe for 100 years mankind will have worked out a way to use or permanently destroy the stored waste. Come on, Harry, get with the program. Someday Yucca will be called ‘Gold Mountain’ and the citizens of Nevada will thank you for safely storing this valuable resource in their state.

]]>