« Incompetence or Hidden Agenda? | Main | Nancy Pelosi Said Impeachment Is “off the table” »

A Problem + A Solution = A Bigger Problem

Or at least, that’s the way today’s problem solving seems to work. Take for example the dilemma of our energy use. The supply of oil is rapidly being outstripped by the demand for it. And the use of oil and petroleum based products is polluting our planet. So o o o o figure the genius’ of today, let’s switch to an energy source that produces toxic waste for which we have no safe disposal plan. This is radioactive waste we are talking about, the kind that not only poisons land for thousands of years, but in amounts as small as one millionth of a gram can cause cancer.

Perhaps I am missing something but it seems to me that trying to solve one problem by creating another with deadly consequences, just doesn’t make sense. And yet that is what the proponents of nuclear energy seem to be doing as they push ahead with plans to build 15 new nuclear plants. Without a permanent repository for the spent fuel currently stored on site around the country, the industry can’t possibly move forward with these plans for additional construction and that explains why the nuclear power industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have spent around $72 million lobbying in favor of the Yucca Mountain dump.

No new nuclear plants have been built since the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. However, we have accumulated what is variously reported as 70,000 – 77,000 metric tons of radioactive waste from the existing reactors. It will cost $70 billion to create the Nevada nuclear waste dump to store it. That is if the people of Nevada lose their fight to keep this dump from being built at Yucca Mountain, a fight that has been going on for years. But with the high cost of oil and the push for “green” living as excuses, the government is pushing hard once again to get this dump built.

Californians should be concerned because Yucca Mountain is only 17 miles from the California border. The nuclear waste, currently being stored in 39 states, would have to be transported by truck and rail across the country to reach Yucca Mountain. There are 109 cities with populations of more than 100,000 along the proposed routes. That means there are a lot of other states that should be concerned as well because an accident could occur anywhere en route with calamitous results.

Some of the interesting facts that should be considered before supporting the building of more nuclear plants are:

Yucca Mountain, itself a volcanic ridge, has 7 young volcanoes and 39 faults in the area surrounding it, with earthquakes occurring as recently as 2002. In 1996 even the Energy Department admitted that some water from the waste repository could go to the water table within 50 years. This water eventually flows into wells and springs.

Nuclear fuel consists of uranium pellets encased in metal rods. Used or "spent" fuel is removed from the reactor to water-filled pools, where it cools for about 10 years. It is then moved to "dry" storage, where it has been piling up at reactor sites because there is no place to dispose of it.

The metal containers designed to carry spent nuclear fuel from the Calvert Cliffs plant and other reactors to a proposed storage site in Nevada would have failed if the transport train had been engulfed in the estimated 1,500- degree heat of the Baltimore rail tunnel fire in the summer of 2001. Each rail cask weighs about 145 tons fully loaded and contains 260 times the amount of radioactive cesium released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The fire would not have triggered a nuclear blast, but the city would have been exposed to a catastrophic release of radiation.


More information on this issue can be found at http://www.earthmountainview.com/yucca/yucca.htm

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://viewsontheridge.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/655

Comments

Nice blog Trish, and timely.

I know that I would not want to live anywhere near Yucca Mountain as a storage facility for nuclear waste. As you say, this is stuff that lasts for thousands of years; once created, you are stuck with it.

I've often thought it would be a good idea to just use rockets to send it into the sun, which would have no trouble absorbing it. Of course you would have to be very certain that those rockets would never fail.

Aside from the vulnerability of a nuclear (nu-ku-lar to some) plant, by accident or design, the storage of uranium waste products is basically why I'm skeptical of nuclear energy. I do believe there have to be cleaner and more practical alternative energy sources. Why not tap into gravity, or even the perpetual motion of waves for instance? Who knows? There are much bigger minds than mine, capable of working this out.

Everything you say here is fine and dandy but it doesn't change the fact that all we can do as individuals is conserve as Stan suggests, AND make suggestions to our elected officials IF we have an idea that may work. My point remains my being conservative while at the same time remaining comfortable doesn't seem to be working since fossil fuel burning now totals 71% of our electrical manufacturing. And no matter what we as warm blooded creatures say should be done, we still will demand the comfort electricity allows us.
Nuclear energy remains the one source able to provide massive quantities of electricity to large areas of the country that will STOP the massive pollution done by coal fired and natural gas fired electrical plants.
If nuclear were ever built the use of coal and natural gas could then migrate to be used in transportation and mass transit. It just seems to make sense. And even if it didn't naturally flow with coal and natural gas migrating to transportation, the closing of those plants would be exactly what the environmentalists have been asking for....yet they persist in this insanity demanding "alternate" sources that have been proven to be too expensive to even make a real dent.
Here is an example of a new modern solar energy plant in the Arizona desert.

http://mendocoastcurrent.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/big-solar-project-planned-for-arizona-desert/

They have used the most modern ideas available to us today to make electricity. Instead of solar storage they actually use a mirrored system to heat a transfer fluid, which in turn heats water into steam, which then turns turbines making electricity. The steam is captured and reused to keep the water usage down……it is brilliant.
It still takes up 3 square miles, is not functional in other areas of the country and only provides electricity for 70,000 homes.
Ideas like this have a place in our whole delivery system, but will not close many of those plants….
Sorry about the propaganda crack Frank…those squiggles got me going…and my point was never whether the cost would go up or down…I want someone to try to convince anyone on here it is somehow a bad idea to keep the $200,750,000,000,000 here in the US based on 44 years of reserves…I want them to convince anyone on here THAT is good for America…

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)