|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
25 Tons of radiation, Keys to the Highway...coming to YOUR Town? |
Current rating: 0 |
by a3m posted this
(No verified email address) |
01 Jul 2002
Modified: 03 Jul 2002 |
|
The U.S. Senate will be voting on Yucca Mountain after the July 4th holiday. The time to contact your Senators is now!! |
DO YOU WANT POTENTIAL DIRTY BOMBS ROLLING THROUGH YOUR TOWN?
Sometime next month the U.S. Senate will either approve or reject a plan to ship 77,000 tons of nuclear waste via the nation's highways and railways to a place called Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
A collision or fire involving a 25-ton payload of nuclear waste could kill thousands. Experts estimate that each shipment will contain hundreds of times the long-term radiation released by the Hiroshima bomb. These shipments along our nation's roads and rails are inviting targets for terroristst to create "dirty bombs".
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW!
http://nuclearneighborhoods.org
The U.S. Senate will be voting on Yucca Mountain after the July 4th holiday. The time to contact your Senators is now!!
Please go back to the web site http://nuclearneighborhoods.org and take action. From the web site you can send faxes or make free phone calls to your Senators.
The Senate needs to hear from real people like you. Let them know that nuclear waste should not be sent out onto our nation's roads and rails. It is not safe and important transportation questions remain unanswered.
Please take action at http://nuclearneighborhoods.org today!!
YUCCA MOUNTAIN SOLVES NO PROBLEMS AND ONLY CREATES MORE
Even if Yucca Mountain proceeds, it will be 60 to 100 years before rising spent fuel inventories at reactor sites are substantially depleted. As long there are reactors operating, there will continue to be spent fuel stored above-ground all across America.
By the time Yucca Mountain is filled to its design capacity in the year 2046, there will be at least as much spent nuclear fuel stored at reactors across the country as there is inside the mountain, even if no new plants are built.
Yucca Mountain will contribute nothing to the our nuclear waste problem, but will only compound that problem as new plants are built. |
|
another view |
by JF
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Jul 2002
|
The poster makes an important point that storing waste at reactor sites is dangerous, and that Yucca mountain will not solve that problem if reactors continue to operate.
But let's separate the technical issues from the political issues. Technically, we need to deal with existing waste long-term in some better way than storing it at reactor sites. That almost certainly means moving it, if not to Yucca mountain, then to some safer place(s). Moving it need not be riskier than leaving it at reactor sites, technically; technologies exist to contain hazardous materials and protect them against catastrophic events like fires and collisions. For instance, it is certainly possible to make a container that can withstand the force of a head-on collision between two trains travelling at high speed, and it is likewise possible to make a container that can withstand virtually any fire or explosion that might result from an accident in transit. About the only thing we can't protect the waste from is deliberate tampering or attack. But waste at nuclear reactor sites is hardly safer in that regard.
Politically, the supporters of Yucca mountain are overwhelmingly pro-nuclear and want to use Yucca mountain to justify continuing to develop nuclear power.
At the moment, the safest approach to the problem of nuclear waste is two-fold: 1) decommision all existing plants, and 2) transport all existing waste to one or more underground storage facilities. At the moment, there is no technically-feasible alternative to step 2.
If there is to be an alternative means of long-term disposal of nuclear waste, we need new science. And in this regard the nuclear industry and anti-nuclear activists have the same goal; make nuclear waste safer. But what are we going to do with our waste in the meantime? |
|
Nuclear waste is bad...but the solution? |
by Eric Schneider
eschnedr (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Jul 2002
|
A dirty bomb is an insidious tactic.
Not containing enough weapons-grade material, it results in a low-grade explosion that spreads high levels of radiation, which would cost time and money to clean up. They are a frightening concept indeed, and one that the mainstream media has currently brought to the forefront in the coverage of the "war on terror".
However, this article seems to use the idea of a dirty bomb as an excuse to take shots at the nuclear power industry in general. It speaks of the threats posed by the transport of nuclear waste, and hints that building more nuclear power plants will only make things worse...but has it taken the time to consider the alternative?
There are currently a little over one hundred nuclear power plants in the United States. On average, each of them generates 1,000 megawatts of power, and produces yearly 60-80 cubic feet of spent fuel, i.e. nuclear waste. That's roughly a chest-high cube for the average person.
Compare this to the amount of waste produced by a coal-or-oil burning power plant...which on average each year produces approx. 9.6 acres of soot, six meters deep, and an equal amount of ash, as well as a large amount of hazardous gasses that require thorough filtration and "scrubbing" of the plant's smoke that doesn't always get accomplished.
While the potential for a "dirty bomb" and terrorist attack while moving spent fuel is a frightening prospect, I believe that more attention should be paid to finding suitable alternatives and/or working to make the transportation process safer. Nuclear power helps to keep the ecosystem clean. Together with the development of solar, wind, hydraulic, and other forms of alternative power, it is an important step in becoming free from fossil fuel dependence.
Already other countries such as South Africa and Germany have built nuclear power plants that use less fuel, are more efficient in their fuel usage, and have precautionary measures in place that makes the operation of the plant safer than even fossil fuel-powered plants. In some cases, such as the prototype "Pebble Bed" reactor in South Africa, each and every piece of fuel is encased in a softball-sized coccoon of graphite, making it its own radiation containment device, and able to be held with the naked hand.
These clean, safe plants could be built in the United States, but they require funding and support of the people.
The sooner the public becomes better educated about the nature of nuclear power, and stops fearing it, the sooner we will be able to phase out the "dirty power plants" and build the next generation of clean, safe power plants.
Eric Schneider
Undergraduate student in the College of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign |
