Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 25, 2018 11:40 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2008 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Alabama
Quote:
25524.1. (a) Except for the existing Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Onofre Units 2 and 3 owned by Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company, no nuclear fission thermal powerplant requiring the reprocessing of fuel rods, including any to which this chapter does not otherwise apply, excepting any having a vested right as defined in this section, shall be permitted land use in the state or, where applicable, certified by the commission until both of the following conditions are met:


Well there you go! A submersible thorium reactor does not have fuel rods that require reprocessing, not does it require land in the state of California...we're all set! 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2008 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3063
Duly chastised for not checking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2008 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 24, 2008 4:54 am
Posts: 490
Location: Columbia, SC
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Quote:
25524.1. (a) Except for the existing Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Onofre Units 2 and 3 owned by Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company, no nuclear fission thermal powerplant requiring the reprocessing of fuel rods, including any to which this chapter does not otherwise apply, excepting any having a vested right as defined in this section, shall be permitted land use in the state or, where applicable, certified by the commission until both of the following conditions are met:


Well there you go! A submersible thorium reactor does not have fuel rods that require reprocessing, not does it require land in the state of California...we're all set! 8)


You may have something there actually. Then again it has to get past the Communist Energy Commission....ooops I meant the CALIFORNIA Energy Commision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 29, 2008 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 01, 2008 6:15 pm
Posts: 144
Location: Oklahoma
dezakin wrote:
The problem is the government solution. If there wasn't a solution, there wouldn't even be a perception of a problem. Not that the public even bothers to think about spent fuel more often than any other of 100 issues that are even more innocuous.

Yeah, some of the pro-LFTR statements (such as "can destroy waste from light water reactors") that I see strike me as a little too close to affirming existence of a non-existant problem. I see this as a disservice to the whole nuclear industry.

We of this forum should be disciplined about the waste issue and state more clearly that the waste issue we seek to solve is not a few decades of waste (safe storage of which is not an insurmountable technical problem), but rather the political problem of waste that will certainly outlive the industry that produced it, and the grander problem of an inexhaustible waste system to go along with the inexhaustible thorium energy reserve.

_________________
Nathan Wilson, MSEE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 12, 2008 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Alabama
DOE: Expand Yucca Mountain or plan new site

Quote:
The secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy told the president and Congress on Tuesday that the time is now to act on either expanding a proposed nuclear waste facility in Nevada or developing a second site.

"The Secretary of Energy recommends that Congress act promptly to remove the statutory limit ... and defer a decision regarding the need for a second repository," stated Samuel Bodman.

The facility was authorized by Congress for the storage of 70,000 metric tons of waste, he wrote.

The secretary wrote that the limit set by Congress has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of Yucca Mountain and recommended Congress authorize the proposed facility to hold three to four times the amount it originally approved.


Boy, that's bound to win over Nevada--open Yucca AND remove any statutory limitation on what it can hold. I know there's plenty of room in Yucca, but from a political standpoint I think it's even more of a non-starter than the situation they've got now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 24, 2008 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Alabama
GOP tour gets pitch for Yucca

Quote:
A recent Muth-sponsored poll of Clark County residents asked whether they would rather have $500 million in tax hikes or $500 million a year from the federal government to accept Yucca Mountain. That's a false choice, of course, but two-thirds of those polled said they'd rather have the Yucca money.


Why does that not surprise me?

I personally oppose Yucca Mountain, but not for the same reasons these folks do. I think it's an enormous waste of money to throw away spent fuel rather than using it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 24, 2008 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 169
Location: Orem, Utah, USA
Yes, but Yucca is better than coal. At least someone has figured out if you compensate the community they will "buy" into the storage. We can always go back and get it later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 27, 2008 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sep 10, 2008 7:40 pm
Posts: 300
I wrote in a promotion piece
Quote:
2. The LFTR produces less hazardous waste than coal or other forms of nuclear energy -- less than 1/100 the long-lived radioactive waste of today's nuclear power plants. It consumes spent fuel now stored outside existing nuclear power plants, ending the need for Yucca Mountain for long term waste storage.
Reading this forum I am now concerned about the accuracy of the statement. I'm reasonably confident that LFTR can generate 1/100 the long-term radioactive waste (arising from leakage of Pu etc into the fission product stream), but we do have to put it somewhere in safe geological storage, don't we? Are we saying we can use the New Mexico salt caverns instead of Yucca? And how long would it take us to consume the existing LWR spent fuel if we just use it for LFTR startups?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 27, 2008 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 494
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
If you put the spent fuel in some place like WIPP then the spent fuel is there for good. It is a salt mine and the salt flows around and encompasses the waste over time.

If you put it in Yucca mountain there is some chance you could retrieve it at a future date.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 31, 2009 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 20, 2006 7:50 pm
Posts: 280
Yucca again? When will people realize that these aren't our problems to solve. We give to future generations far more assets than liabilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 02, 2009 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Alabama
Sen. Reid Eyes Cuts to Yucca Mountain Budget

Quote:
One budget cut that isn't likely to get too many people wound up is Yucca Mountain.

Thursday Nevada Senator Harry Reid said he is working on cutting funds for the project. He says a $100 million cut may be the final blow for Yucca Mountain, bringing its budget down to $288.4 million.

(Former President George Bush had initially requested $500 million for the project.)

The proposed cuts could mean lost jobs at Yucca Mountain. "Those jobs will be replaced with renewable energy. That's good for Nevada and good for America."

Reid hopes that the money Nevada receives from President Obama's stimulus package will create more jobs in renewable energy.

On top of proposing budget cuts, Reid's latest move has been to direct $5 million to the Nevada Attorney General to lead the fight against Yucca Mountain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 02, 2009 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
DOE: Expand Yucca Mountain or plan new site

Quote:
The secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy told the president and Congress on Tuesday that the time is now to act on either expanding a proposed nuclear waste facility in Nevada or developing a second site.

"The Secretary of Energy recommends that Congress act promptly to remove the statutory limit ... and defer a decision regarding the need for a second repository," stated Samuel Bodman.

The facility was authorized by Congress for the storage of 70,000 metric tons of waste, he wrote.

The secretary wrote that the limit set by Congress has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of Yucca Mountain and recommended Congress authorize the proposed facility to hold three to four times the amount it originally approved.


Boy, that's bound to win over Nevada--open Yucca AND remove any statutory limitation on what it can hold. I know there's plenty of room in Yucca, but from a political standpoint I think it's even more of a non-starter than the situation they've got now.

Best solution would be a second storage cum reprocessing site. The fission products and cladding, converted to billets should still go to Yucca. It shall cool off in decades.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 17, 2009 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Alabama
NRC adopts 1 million year rule for Yucca Mountain

Quote:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a rule for allowable radiation levels at the proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada for up to 1 million years, the NRC announced on Tuesday. The NRC is now accepting the radiation standards from Yucca Mountain as determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The NRC kept the EPA's rule of limiting the dose of radiation to 15 millirem for the first 10,000 years after disposal. Now, the NRC has adopted the EPA's limit of 100 millirem from 10,001 years to 1 million years. In the United States, the average American is exposed to 350 millirem per year, from sources ranging from X-rays to food, according to Princeton University.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 17, 2009 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1946
Location: Montreal
From a post on another forum, some time ago....
Quote:
Here's some more food for thought: "The estimated world-wide expenditure on cancer research in 2001 was about $12.6 billion, of which about $4.7 billion came from the commercial sector."* That's about $15 B a year in today's dollars. So we're going to spend $150,000 B ($150 Trillion) in the next 10,000 years (constant dollars), and still not have cured cancer? If we believe that expenditure will have cured cancer, why are we worried about long-term disposal? Why do we need a cancer-related standard for YM for 1 M years?

* "The output and funding of global cancer research," Richard Sullivan, MD, PhD, Clinical & Translational Research Directorate, Cancer Research UK, 9 July 2006, UICC World Cancer Congress 2006, July 8-12, 2006, Washington, DC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 17, 2009 10:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 01, 2006 7:23 pm
Posts: 141
dezakin wrote:
Yucca again? When will people realize that these aren't our problems to solve. We give to future generations far more assets than liabilities.


Good point. Every hydroelectric dam is a hazard if abandoned. See the Lawn Lake Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_Lake_Dam, which was a very small dam and killed 3 people because it was abandoned. Most lives lost in an accident related to electricity production is probably the Banquio Dam failure which killed about 170,000, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam. The sum of the hazards of all the non-nuclear waste dumps probably exceeds the nuclear waste by a large margin.

By the way, did you know that there is a licensed interim dry storage facility in Utah for 40,000 tons of nuclear waste? See http://privatefuelstorage.com/. Unfortunately, the only thing that actually exists is the NRC license and the land.

_________________
Paul Studier


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group