Bury it in the Afgan and Iraq deserts, consider it a parting gift from all of us............

Great idea...two thumbs up

The most dangerous time bomb, in the US, is sitting on top of a hill in South Carolina, the MOX processing building. I don't trust the French in telling us all the problems with MOX and I certainly don't trust those idiots in South Carolina. There have been numerous problems with the construction of the MOX processing building and the design of the glove boxes are questionable. I hope DOE does it's job right in verifying this questionable process before they switch it on.

Another potential issue is that some of the DOE echelons are buddies with the MOX contractors. The White House should have third party watch dogs for the verification of this very dangerous material processing.

Or build Gen IV reactors and use it there, I might be wrong, but I believe it wouldn't even need to be processed then. Most of it gets used up, whats left is less potent and could then go to Yucca.

Bury it in Washington DC it was there idea in the first place.

Yea, sell it to France if its so valuable?

I agree, it should be reprocessed. That way we would generate far less waste.

Not only France... US is the ONLY country with nuclear energy that does not have a program to reprocess the nuclear material from civilian use!

Yes, the better reactor designs, such as molten salt, produce fissionable material useful for bombs. Hence the Carter administration outlawed these reactor types, and we've been stuck with the boiling water technology, and also we've been exporting it. Power production and nuclear technology have been conflated into a national security issue. BWRs are inherently more wasteful, more dangerous, etc. Also, there's a boiling water fuel rod production industry to deal with, as a special interest. Nuclear technology could be implemented far better than it is, but politics and special interests are in the way. Same old same old. By the way, these Gen IV reactor types could burn this spent fuel. I've also wondered for a while if Iran is simply pursuing development of non-boiling water technology.

You can edumacate yourself here:

Oh...I know, I know....We can hollow up a big mountain......say Yucca Mountain in NV......and then after spending Billions we can then shut it down......let the waste stack up outside power plants......and then start over in another state.......does that sound like a good plan?

God I want to be elected to public office.....the freakin bar is so low that my dog could acheive better results! Sorry pooch.....no diss intended.

Send it to Rhode Island.

In some way it should be reprocessed. There is no place on earth that doesn't have earthquakes eventually.

Add a few thousands pounds to neutralize it..then sell to Pakistan who will sell it to Iran...PERFECT!

***************************************************************************************************

Okay, all you pro-nuclear energy people. Send us your address for this spent fuel !!!!!!!!

****************************************************************************************************

GoNuke: Ha, that's pretty funny. You know, here in America, we only do things if you can make money on it. That's why we still get our vaccines from egg cultures, and France grows them in state of the art vats; there's no money in vaccines.

There is an easy answer though. There's this guy that's funding Romney, you know, and he wants to bury it in Texas. Seems like a good idea to me.

Nope your wrong can;t just reprocess it and then it all turns into magic fairy dust and disappears. Regardless of what people think there are natural laws at work and those cannot be changed by money or politics. At this point in history there is no one source of energy that can safely power our growing materialistic needs. What it really comes down to is hoping you have someone living near you is powerful enough to protect your state from pollution.

Are you all nuts? If anyone would care to actually look at Thorium LFTR reactors, we would not be having this discussion. Because of the decision our country made back in the 60s to keep pursuing traditional, rather than Thorium, now everyone whines about spent fuel, and dangerous potential leaks and meltdowns, NONE of which would be a problem in LFTR.

China is developing this right now. Maybe we should just wait for them to do it, then pay them to get rid of our spent rods while they burn it happily as fuel that they get paid to take.

All due to the fact that we do not question authority and SUCK at doing any real research. Get a life people.

Nope your wrong can;t just reprocess it and then it all turns into magic fairy dust and disappears.

actually, if we combined pyroprocessing with gen IV reactors, we could utilize 98% of that waste and the final waste product would decay to complete undetectability in 300 years instead of thousands or millions, we wouldn't have to mine anymore for a dozen centuries or so either.

Store it all on the Million/Billion Dollar estates of the Nuclear Power moguls. They're the ones always saying how safe the crap is...........

a first step must be to find a site that isn't forced on a particular region by the federal government.

Good luck with that!

LOL, Perfect "government job opportunity" though, "futile real estate acquisition specialist".

I live in Las Vegas, and IMO, it was a funnel for special interests from the start.

I also think that in less than 20 years there will be a less expensive space disposal option.

How could the government pass up the advice of alll the nuclear physicists posting on the internet? RIght at the very top of the board we have someone offering a solution that he callls a "no brainer." THink of alll the money it would save the COmmmunist/Marxist government. THink of alll the money it wold save educating scientists. Instead of having scientists study these problems merely post them on the internet and whatever solution gets the most thumbs up - use that one. It's a "no Brainer."

40 years ago, I said this would be a big problem. It looks like I was right again.

Molten salt reactors are all but meltdown proof as the molten salt does/can not boil therefore it does not produce hazardous pressures that can explode catastrophically! Providing a "heat dump" in case of core overheating is as simple as running several circuits of pipes in which the molten salt can be circulated thru into the ocean/ big lakes or into geothermal ground loops where the heat can be safely dispersed to cool the core temp. Plus they produce very little hazardous byproduct/waste and they (the reactor) will last far beyond anything we currently have and we would have the benefit of not having to pay for the constant maintenance/repair or the HUGE amount of redundant safety features necessary in our current reactors! The hazardous waste they generate can then be introduced into the molten salt and burned where it produces radioactive fluoride that has a half life that is well within tolerable range!

The downside to all of this is that we would no longer have a steady supply of weapons grade radioactive materials coming from our reactors, we would have cheap energy that wouldn't be introducing a massive carbon footprint on the planet, CEO's and energy giants wouldn't be getting record profits and paychecks, the government wouldn't be able to waste money (like the 12 billion Yucca thing) like they are attempt to do now to make it look like they are solving a problem they created in the first place, future generations would have a snowballs chance in hell to have a planet that isn't so toxic that it can barely sustain life!! We have to make sure that we keep the current status of supporting our economy mainly by producing materials for killing one another and continuing strife everywhere!!!

Gitmo right under the detainees kill two birds with one stone.....problem solved.

I've always wondered why we don't just launch it into space and aim it directly at the sun. When it gets close enough, it will be vaporized.

If you really understand what the engineering plan was at Yucca, you'd realize that no superior site will ever be found, and that the waste would remain completely safe there for many 1000's of years, right through seismic activity, war, a nuclear blast, you name it. I fully realize that Nevadans are against storing the nuclear waste of the entire country in their own backyard, but there is no better solution anywhere. I'll never understand why Obama cancelled that program - except as a favor/back scratch for Harry Reid. IMO, closing Yucca without any other viable plan on the table was the one really big mistake Obama has made while in office. I've supported just about every other move he's made, but not that one.

Just dump it in either West Virginia or Jersey. Neither one will even notice it and it damn sure can't hurt anything in either location worse than it already is.

We better hurry up with something!! U.S. and Isreal just started "cyberwars" by shutting down a few centafuges in Iran's nuclear facility this last year with "Stuxnet" and "Flame" computer viruses. I just got my computer infected by someone in Russia, China, or some East European Country !! Remember, we have been asleep before : Pearl Harbor in 1941 and Twin Towers in 2001. Over 200 nuclear facilities in the U.S. and probably close to a billion computer users in the world now!

I vote to put all nuclear waste on the last Island in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska--close to Russia !

lets make third world counties take it.for every american job thats outsourced to your country you have to take 5 pounds of waste.the way the rich are exporting jobs in 6 months we wont have any waste

Good freakin' GOD! Not every space launch is a success. What if there's a massive failure???? Boy, you think we got problems with nuclear waste now, just WAIT until it comes raining down EVERYWHERE ON THE PLANET!

So, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya...punk? Oh, you do? Well, how many launches do you think it would take before we could actually shoot that many tons of crap off the planet...it wouldn't be like three loads...ya know?

Nothing like taking a big problem and potentially making it like 3 billion times worse...

Safety is not the reason we don't launch it into space. Cost is. To launch something to the sun would cost upwards of $20k per pound. That is 40 Million a ton. With 65,000 tons, you are at 2.6 trillion dollars. That is just the weight of the payload, not even adding costs to deal with the dangerous nature of handling radioactive materials.

How about we pack it into several old NYC garbage barges and haul it all over the world until a place to safely put it can be found?

Or, how about the nuclear repository be built much closer to the source of the spent fuel rods than in Yucca, Nevada? Might I suggest the Savannah River Plant in the east and the Hanford Plant out west?

Or, how about building a nuclear repository on Wake Island way out in the Pacific, which has been uninhabited ever since the air base there was closed?

Or, in about 40 years or so when our planet runs out of oil, how about we load it onto several old oil tankers (of which there will be plenty available for very low cost), and make them a monument to the inherent futility of powering society using dangerous non-renewable resources that leave us with poisonous contaminated byproducts for centuries to come?

Maybe someday every major city with a navigable waterway will want to have one as a tourist attraction just like many old World War II ships have ended-up as???

How about we turn it into a liquid waste and then slowly drip-sprinkle it onto our highways every night like some haz-mat tanker truckline in Cleveland used to do every night? I mean, what's the harm if almost nobody knows?

Or how about we just dump it into the old open pit copper mine either in Bisbee, AZ or Ely, NV, both way out in the desert nowhere near a major population center, and then force the nuclear industry to generously buy-out all of the local affected residents too???

Or maybe we could just sprinkle it around right near our southern border in the hope that it would act as a deterrent to keep illegal aliens out, kind of like the use of d-Con against pests?

Or, how about we store all of the spent fuel rods in non-shielded cooling pools inside every reactor building just waiting for some natural disaster to come along and render a 25-mile radius around the affected nuclear plant a dead zone for the next 1000 years???

Oh I forgot, been there, done that, recently too!!!

Anyone remember when Skylab, or the first Russian space station, or a couple of different space shuttles came crashing back to Earth? Just imagine that same outcome when one of your NYC outer-space garbage barges comes crashing back to Earth too!!!

Any more bright ideas for the long-term disposal of an extremely hazardous and poisonous waste product that nobody wants anywhere near their backyard?

Any more bright ideas for the long-term disposal of an extremely hazardous and poisonous waste product that nobody wants anywhere near their backyard?

We could vaporize it and dump it into the air every day. Then people all over the country (and most likely the world) could breath it in regularly as they go about their business.

And we can do this so we all can write out throughts on message boards daily, possibly hourly.

That's a no brainer - call Harry Reid and he will be pleased to have it hauled to Nevada for a price he needs

Dump it is Jpohn McCains backyard, I am sure he won't mind. He thinks nukes are perfectly safe.

Right...it's the cost. What a bunch of nonsense. It IS safety that prevents us from even CONSIDERING launching nuclear waste into space. The cost is irrelevant. It certainly wouldn't be cheap, but it doesn't really matter...now does it.

the problem with launching nuclear wast into space...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL1xUWgBlFw&feature=player_embedded#!

Why not sell it to France then?

Does France want to buy it?

GIVE it to France. Send it by air.

Just kidding GIVE it to Iran. They have been trying to create something nuclear. Send it all by air.

Congress pass a law? Congress? Do anything? You gotta be kidding.

mojo7 GIVE it to France. Send it by air.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Would that fly by 'Air Chance' perhaps? Just kidding, but em....

If you don't like Congress then be more careful who you vote for. Instead of following the ideals of political parties look to see who's a problem solver vs someone who tells you what you want to hear.

One problem is that the ones who stand up to their convictions are normally ostracized by their peers and lose their financial backing for re-elections.

And yes, reprocessing nuclear fuel seems like a logical idea.

Reprocessing it creates large levels of low level contaminated waste.

The bottom line to think about is this: If the Egyptians had had nuclear power and put the byproducts in the great pyramid, it would be as dangerous today!!! as the century it was put in there, even if they reprocessed it and concentrated the waste. That pyramid has been through earthquakes, weather, wars and repeated looting. The generation of man as we know it has only been around for about 50,000 years. Worse, plutonium and other byproducts in the quantities that we have now HAVE NOT BEEN ON EARTH AS LIFE DEVELOPED for over 750,000,000 years.The time scale for waste generated by fission makes it impractical as a large scale energy source for human kind.

Glen,

If the Egyptians had used a Gen IV reactor design (like the LFTR) and put that waste the pyramids, there would be a few kilograms of nuclear waste left. The majority of it would have become less radioactive than natural uranium long ago.

Current designs use 1-3% or the uranium for fuel leaving 97-99% left over as waste. A LFTR could burn 99% of the Thorium, and because Thorium has 2 chances to fission (90% at U-233 and an 80% at U-235) very little will be left to capture enough neutrons to become those nasty transuranic elements (Neptunium-237 being the most common product, which can actually be burned in the reactor to create lower level waste).

Scuba,

Good in theory...

or you can use a fusion reactor which will have smaller amounts of water soluble material/dust dangerous for only 300 years, with no possibility of catastrophic release of large amounts of material even if the reactor where to blow apart and be exposed to the air. Or you could use an expensive fuel heavy reactor and have less problems, but not run as cheaply.

As far as the LFTR is an old design concept from the 60's... as a matter of fact the salt reactors used in this and other metal reactor and breeder programs are still in a mothballed state today and are in the process of decontamination...at an outrageous cost. They are some of the most contaminated sites in America. The job is being done over a period of a decade by Becktel? or Haliburton?

These are not a viable option. Too dangerous to operate in return for their complexity. They are too expensive to shut down and rebuild. They still involve plutonium.

Pebble bed is not an option either. The problems are enormous as demonstrated by the German operating one which is the most expensive cleanup and contaminated site the German the government is having to deal with right now.

Once again, fission on large scale is not an option.

Actually, let me correct myself...no plutonium unless you are reprocessing or running through a breeder. We still have the problem with the existing spent fuel that we are making more by the day.

Just out of morbid curiosity, what happened about the WIPP site in New Mexico? I thought they built an extensive underground facility there to place the spent rods. Also, there is a brand spanking new facility built just East of Jal, NM that has signs on the road that says it is an "enrichment" facility. Maybe we do have the ways to rejuvenate those rods. I have no idea. Lots of security around the place, though. I used to drive past there a lot as it was being built over the past few years. Whether it ever went into operation, though, I have no idea.

There are so many things going on in this world. I do know that somewhere, I found a map on the internet that showed the probable routes used to move the fuel through the country. I am not in favor of nuclear plants, but since we have them, we do need to do whatever is needed to properly dispose or rebuild the fuel in a safe and appropriate manner.

I know that there will never be direct answers. But the news media ... I do not know.

I think I will quit commenting on articles. It all is just so jejune any more.

The country is full of coprophagous people that just keep ranting.

wtf are you smoking, last time i check NASA is dead and nobody cared about doing anything to leave this planet. if anything we'll all die in global warming flood and nuclear radiation before we burned this planet to hell.

NASA is not dead (at least not yet). But yes if we got it into space safely then the answer would not be let it set there, simply push it towards the sun. But thankfully we don't have to worry about that because we have the technology now that would eliminate the majority of the waste with new Gen IV reactors. What is left , after going thru the reactor is only potent for 100-300yrs vs several 1000 and could then go to Yucca.

Great Idea!!! Shoot it into space and hope like hell the rocket boosters don't blow up. Talk about your nuclear catastrophe. Nuclear energy is safe, ignore those tons of radioactive waste, they're not important.

It can be safe. Look up Gen IV reactors.

Load it into rockets and shoot it directly at the sun. If we keep on piling it up on Mother Earth we will all die from cancer. Too expensive? -- Money Money Money.-- It's always about Money! God help our grandkids.

Tidy... I gather you've never seen photos of a certain space shuttle that didn't make it into orbit. Are you THAT sure of our launch capabilities now? Especially now that NASA is losing much of the mental power it had in the past?

Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched. Most of these designs are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030. Current reactors in operation around the world are generally considered second- or third-generation systems, with most of the first-generation systems having been retired some time ago. Research into these reactor types was officially started by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) based on eight technology goals, including to improve nuclear safety, improve proliferation resistance, minimize waste and natural resource utilization, and decrease the cost to build and run such plants. (wiki)

Drop it over Iran...show them what they have to look forward too after the November election 8^)

Little - of those the molten salt thorium has the most research to my understanding and there have been smaller test models. Not to mention India is working on this and believe China as well so there is a lot of knowledge out there and combine that with our knowledge and know how we can easily make this happen. It wouldn't be tomorrow but I'd say if we really wanted to the 2030 date could be cut back significantly, and that's the wide spread use, many smaller systems could be in place even sooner and we could start shutting down the old reactors much faster as well. But this also ignores the fact that we could've had this a good 25 plus years ago if we wouldn't of ended the program; which I believe the real reason was this type of reactor doesn't produce weapons grade materials (chalk another one up to the failure of our government and I'm sure the fossil fuel lobbyists did there part to make sure it didn't come back). Thorium has the potential to take us into the next energy revolution. As far as fossil fuels for electricity production, we could kick those to the curb no problem. And the holy grail of fusion can still be sought after but it could take whole lot longer before we would even need it. Get this you could hold a lifetime supply of energy in the form of Thorium in your hand. The whole planet's energy for a year could be supplied from a single mine alone, and it is easy obtained from mines all over the planet; unlike uranium which is very rare. I seriously think it is our most viable option we have and we need to get to developing it. Make it our base power and combine it with additional renewable options, specifically solar, and we have it made as far as electrical production goes. Then as far as I'm concerned all public traded electric utilities should be scraped in favor of municipal utilities or coops that aren't driven by profit for shareholders, save that for other areas of private industry. We really do have an answer, the question is are we going to make our government wake up again and do what is need to make the leap and get us going back in the right direction again.

I stopped at the space comment, that is just a bad idea. Modern rockets have greatly improved but still no reliable enough to shoot payloads of doomsday material above our heads. Reprocessing technology should be looked into but the fact is we have created a toxic world and are going to keep dealing with the consequences.

Space: USA's attic.

@It Is Time,

They had a working Molten Salt Reactor at Oakridge in the 70's. It ran for several years with not problem and that was with 1970's technology.

We have the technology to do nuclear power safely, we just lack the will (and the education for most people).

Bury this nuclear waste in the backyards of all pro-nuclear people. Do it, today!

Bury this nuclear waste in the backyards of all pro-nuclear people. Do it, today!

Yes. Let's not put it somewhere where it will be perfectly safe, like Yucca mountain. Let's instead punish people for disagreeing with us.

Bury this nuclear waste in the backyards of all pro-nuclear people. Do it, today!

Can I put the poison gas releases in the air from all coal burning plants into your air conditioning?

These molten metal and molten salt reactors were in the 60's and did work but had some problems.They are complex and if they fail the extremely toxic, flammable and radioactive metals involved, and contaminated components themselves. The Soviets had better luck, we should have them build us one.

That said, large numbers of these on a commercial scale are not a viable option if it costs 1 billion dollars to hold the contaminated metals on rebuild and decommission, or if there is a single accident.

Glen - Complex yes, but not near as complex as the current designs we have and much easier to operate. The initial cost may be around that amount but while more it isn't overwhelmingly more than a coal fired plant and thruout it's lifetime it is much cheaper to run and way less environmentally damaging; there are also many byproducts that are produced and sold to industry. 1 ton of thorium would run a 1GW plant for a year; same size coal plant is 3.5 to 4 million tons. True the materials inside are toxic but what type of failure are you talking about? I'm not an expert by any means but my readings tell me that by the nature of the design alot of the nasty compounds would actually bind to the salts as it cooled in the event of a catastrophic failure like containment loss or something leaving the materials in the vicinity of the plant to be cleaned up, assuming massive breach of the containment building. Be that as it may everything that happened in Japan, none of that would've been possible with a Molten Salt (LFTR) reactor. Oh and these types of reactors could use up all that nasty waste we have sitting around from the Light water reactors (this is the design in use now and what was used in Japan and has all the safety and enviromental concerns). For every ton of Thorium put in you get 300lbs give or take of materials that would have to be stored long term, which long term is 300-400yrs not thousands + and what you are storing is much less potent than the other materials we see now as well. We could easily do this. If we think long term and not short term profits, tell a select few to take a hike, we could see the next revolution in energy production. There are just a few in control who don't want to let go.

Scubasteve - I was hoping you would get in on this thread.

Then sell it to France, no brainer, right?

Stunned we don't think, we just post. Judging by our standardized Test Scores I'm guessing that won't be changing..

If you got $10 billion laying around, be my guest build one.

I have never heard the term "IFR" before. I will research this. I was pro-nuke before I learned that nuke plants are not insurable. I learned this before the Japanese disaster.

Yep. Nuclear power plants are SO safe they're uninsurable.

I wouldn't insure a LWR or BWR.

I would most certainly insure a safer design, like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

Yep. Nuclear power plants are SO safe they're uninsurable.

Why are they un-insurable? It could not be because of the presentage for the possibility of an accident. Especially when there are more occurances in history with the coal, natual gas, and oil industry for energy production. Why are they un-insurable?

"Do the coal, oil and natural gas power plants cost less and are they quicker and cheaper to build? Do coal, oil and natural gas power plants need to be de-comissioned and dismantled and buried because they are radioactive and hazardous to the biosphere? Do coal, oil and natural gas power plants generate radioactive hazardous waste that must be kept from the environment for centuries? Can nuclear power plants melt down and release cancer causing radionuclides, contaminating square miles of surrounding land and homes , rendering the land useless and uninhabitable for hundreds of years?

Maybe THAT's why nuclear power plants are uninsurable. Ya think?

You need to take a look at sludge pools some time how many towns they have whipped out. But again, I am generally curious as why nuclear power plants are uninsurable? The insurrance industry insures just about everything, if the money is high enough. So why is nuclear power plants not be insured? They do not have to pay for the dismantling process and de-commissioned process. Per ton, they produce less hazardous waste than most main power generation. They do not have dams that break and cause cancer or fires that set intire towns to be abandon or explosions that have wiped out entire blocks. Yes, those are possible but have not really occurred. Gas pipelines HAVE blown up. Sludge pools HAVE broke damn and whipped out towns. Coal dust HAS caused Black Lung disease.

So why is nuclear power plants uninsurable as you suggest while coal mines are, gas pipelines are, fuel tankers that drive next to your mini-van on the highways are, etc. etc. Personally, I am more scared of the fuel tanker traveling down the highway no less than 2 miles from my house than I would be from a nuclear power plant meltdown. Drunk drivers cannot get near that nuclear power plant.

Personally, I am more scared of the fuel tanker traveling down the highway no less than 2 miles from my house than I would be from a nuclear power plant meltdown. Drunk drivers cannot get near that nuclear power plant.

Some fun headlines for you, both from within the past year:

Investigation underway after beer bottle found in protected area at Waterford 3

Can of Beer discovered in protected area at Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant

That is as may be. But here is some other links, and which even more recent:

http://www.truckaccidents360.com/blog/5345/drunk-driver-causes-fiery-tanker-truck-crash-on-134-freeway-in-glendale-california/

Great picture on that link. Accident was on the major highway in Glenndale, CA. It took 100 firefighters over a hour and half to put out the fire. Occurred in April 2012.

http://www.justiceforyou.com/2011/01/fuel-truck-in-dui-accident-causing-life-threatening-injuries/

This one did not produce such a fire as the first one, but did involve alcohol and a truck in a decent size city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States

This is a list of oil pipeline accidents in the United States over the years. It is a Wiki link so take it with a grain of salt, but it does give a nice picture of the issue with pipelines file transportation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_Century

This is just a list over the last 10 years.

Now if you compare those two lists above to the following one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

Again, my major point has always been that the numbers of accidents associated with nuclear power generation is no where near that of other power generation methods of the scale presently needed to produce our countries needs, not that accidents do not occur. Over the half century, there has been a major stigmata against nuclear power generation. One of which has been, IMO, mainly out of proportion to other methods. It is about the same of saying that "We should not use planes because they can crash. We should use cars to get everywhere we need to go", even though more people die each year from car accidents then ever do from air plane crashes.

I totally agree. That is our answer and we already spent that much money. I'm not sure where else would be any better, some place that says we will take it? Not quiet, there are many qualifiers that need to be met that most places wouldn't. Yucca is our answer but like always DC is screwing the pooch.

If we built the new GEN IV reactors then the waste problem would almost solve itself. Then the amount that would go would be much less and only slightly as potent. 100-300yrs not 1000's of years.

Hopefully the public will wake up and we won't have to be duped any longer. Then maybe we could start building these and tell the big coal barons to take a hike.

What to do with all the nuclear waste? Stick it up Harry Reid's ass!

Little Arkie Okie
said;

"What to do with all the nuclear waste? Stick it up Harry Reid's ass!"

Yeah! That's the spirit ! Screw Harry Reid. And screw the people of Nevada, even though they don't have a Nuclear Power plant. MAKE 'em take it! Force 'em to take it!

(sarc/off)

.

Lil' Arkie don't you mean John Boner. Oh wait, there's no room, his head's already up there.

While the IFR is a better design than a LWR or BWR, the Liquid Flouride Thorium reactor is better still. It has the advantage of being able to burn those nasty transuranic wastes like the IFR, but it also has many passive safety measures and is meltdown proof.

Agreed. The GEN IV reactors could easy solve this problem and reuse all the waste we have as fuel thus cutting down the waste pile to a fraction of what we have and would also be much less toxic as a whole and for a shorter time. This is all do to special interests and lobbyist that have created this non issue. If DC would get the heads out of you know whos rear ends we could easily answer this problem in a way that is win win for all.

It is time

All this'n here scientify stuff is crap. It all's da work of de devil. It be'in one more way'n to take are freedoms. God don't say we could be hav'n nuclar stuff'in so itsa sin agin the baby Cheesus.

They were quick taking tax payers 12 billion dollars!

give rick perry a campaign contribution; he'll bury it in dallas.

Billions spent to built a proper repository under Yucca Mtn. The people said no case closed. Rick Perry gives his benefactor all the go ahead he needs to dispose of it in open strip mines in west Texas. What could possibly go wrong with that. And it wasn't put up to any public referendum .

I wonder why they don't put the repository at the Mercury Test Site? It's not like we can make that place much more radioactive......

Why don't we put it in your back yard? What happened to the conservative mantra 'states rights'. We didn't produce any of it & we don't want it in Nevada.

Little Arkie Okie
said;

"What to do with all the nuclear waste? Stick it up Harry Reid's ass!"

Yeah! That's the spirit ! Screw Harry Reid. And screw the people of Nevada, even though they don't have a Nuclear Power plant. MAKE 'em take it! Force 'em to take it!

(sarc/off)

Put under the Pentagon where it will sterilize much of the professional mass murder class so that they can't reproduce.

Agreed here too. Amazing that we have the answer right in front of us but because of a select few and the sell your mother attitude of congress we are stuck with the problem that shouldn't even exist. The Gen IV reactors are the answer to alot of our energy needs. Combined with solar and we have it made, at least until we have fusion but that could easily be pushed back further and would not need to be rushed, but that is where we would want to get to.

Thorium is also found in coal, and I have read that if the coal were processed to extract the thorium, it would provide more energy than the coal itself.

Despite the nuclear industry's claim that Uranium light water reactors were not favored because they could produce plutonium, they were. Thorium liquid fuel reactors are all about power generation. Yes, we very much need these. Remember the thousands of "hot fuel" generators of which mianyanger should be afraid are coal, oil, and natural gas power plants. It is their CO2 that will destroy the planet. Even if we spent the trillions of dollars on wind, solar, etc., the rest of the world wouldn't and we would still lose. The other alternative energies are not energy-dense enough and the CO2 from Asia, Europe and Africa would make the planet uninhabitable. We need energy-dense non-fossil fuel that we can export.

The best possible solution would be to place this stuff in ceramic casks, and launch it into the sun. We certainly have the technology available to do it, and the cost of the launchers would be miniscule compared to the costs for the inevitable environmental cleanup that would occur should we do nothing.

That would take one hell of a lot of rocket ships to launch all of our nuclear waste into space.

The Evil Tessmachersays;

"The best possible solution would be to place this stuff in ceramic casks, and launch it into the sun."

Of course ! Brilliant idea ! Because our launch vehicles are sooo dependable. You know, like the Challenger and the Columbia...oh...wait...

Never mind...

If you people would simply listen to christianity, and Abandon Science, and give your heart to the Lawd, we wouldn't have this problem. Science and education are tools of the devil, ya know!! Just read your bible, and all will be just fine!

You know, you people who keep bringing up STS are really stupid. You're almost as stupid as the people who talk to the magical, invisible, all-powerful man in the sky. You know, the ones who read this super-book that was really written by a group of politicians, at the Council of Nicea in the third century AD?

Do you not realize, (or maybe it is that you just conveniently ignore facts when they do not suit you,) that the STS was the single most complex, complicated transportation system ever devised? It was even more complex than the Saturn V, which, I might point out, never had a single launch failure. Neither have several other LVs used by the US, but I'll let you live in your little dreamworld, and not bother to cite facts that you will summarily dismiss because of your total ignorance of the subject. It amazes me how much effort you exert in your three brain cells to compare apples to oranges.

Heavy-lift launch vehicles exist today that are more reliable than the cars we drive, and (compared to the overall costs of storing the stuff) are much more economically feasible. Add in the indestructible ceramic casks, and you have an unbeatable, fail-safe, idiot-proof disposal system.

Yes, it was a brilliant idea. You got that part right, at least.

I would love to see an article as well on the Gen IV thorium based reactors. Won't hold my breath though, rather play the nuclear boogyman all thing nuclear bad card instead. Get's more clicks by those who are a little slower upstairs than the rest.

Disposal here is much less as there is only a fraction of the waste and what is left is much less potent.

I invite all readers to stop taking swipes at each other. This is a very serious issue for everyone. It is non-partisan. We all solve this or all our children and grandchildren die. Separate the issues and objections from the emotion. Guaranteed, there is not a perfect overall solution. We must find and agree upon the optimal solution and compensate for the negatives.

bobbayarea2

" We all solve this or all our children and grandchildren die."

You mean like the children and grandchildren around Fukushima?

sorry, but schooldog is right. the right-wing conservative faction in this country keep denying science, insisting things like the environment don't matter... so, what the hell... bury this stuff in oklahoma, mississippi and georgia. it can't contaminate the water, it won't make you sick... just read your bibles and let the jesus-myth take care of everything else. soak the ground with crude oil, too, while you're at it. nobody can be hurt by it! just ask any republican!!

Believe it or not, we're doing better than China, Russia, and other Eastern European countries under the former Soviet umbrella. For now...........

Impossible! The Federal Government is required to waste a certain percentage of money each year or they can't ask for higher taxes. That project was only meant to shed some of that excess revenue. No one ever meant to actually use the thing for it's intended purpose.

No, let's don't. Why don't you take it?

Bill H-1430012 says;

"We built a gillion dollar storage facility in Nevada to store the stuff. Lets use that."

Great idea! Let's ask the people of Nevada if they wants to sit on a mountain-full of high level nuclear waste, okay?
Just because no other state is willing to store it, I'm sure they'll go for it.

Right?

Right?

Nevada doesn't have any nuclear plants and we don't want any. I don't want my grandchildren to glow in the dark.

What ever state produced it needs to build their own storage unit for it. Keep your sh!t in your own state. My husband said to send you folks a message from him...those of you who want to store you sh!t in Nevada...fu ck em all. Don't think he is to crazy about the storage idea for Nevada.

Wow! Sounds great. Is there an article somewhere i could copy and vet with my nuclear energy tutor?

That is interesting.

The problem is that is junk science just like the car that runs on water......except the oil companies blew it up. LOL

John, and all....Perhaps this is a place where you could get more feedback and support on your ideas. I agree, it is time for our best minds to focus on real solutions for safe, clean, affordable and efficient energy management. It is also good for many scholars and scientists to work together, to be aware of new discoveries, and to help each other find answers or make proposals through effective avenues of direct contact and communication with the agencies that are the regulators and decision makers of policy and planning.

http://www.resilientsocieties.org/home.html

What they are working on...perhaps you could ask or comment, or make a proposal on yours here.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2011-0069-0001

john-737278 says;

"The problem with the whole scenario is that this type of system would last for a centuries, and it would make electricity "free",

Right. Electricity too cheap to meter! Uh huh.

HMMmm.... I believe I've heard that before.....

If they go the Futurama route I hope to God they build that rocket with 6001 hulls!!!

Well kevin, I could take a shot. All radioactive elements have a half life in which half of it changes into something else. Say, for example, that in a hundred thousand years the world will be half as radioactive as it is today!

Conversely, it also means that one hundred thousand years ago it was twice as radio active and two hundred thousand years ago it was four times and so on, by the square of two. Going back a few million years the world was thousands of times as radioactive and yet, according to the science guys, it was completely populated.

The funny thing is that I pointed this out back in the mid fifties and thought I was going to be run out of town on a rail. If it aint politically correct, people don't want to hear it.

IWonder - maybe you would like to buy the London Bridge - you can pick it up in London if you decide to buy.

These radioactive waste products are highly concentrated and will kill - slowly but surely - if a solution is not found.

The funny thing is that I pointed this out back in the mid fifties and thought I was going to be run out of town on a rail.

Only because what you are suggesting is complete nonsense. Ya think??

Radioactive material can be created. Nuclear fusion will not solve this as it produces neutrons which, when they slow down, ("Thermal" neutrons), enter the nucleus of non-radioactive elements making them radioactive. It is the principle behind neutron activation analysis, (used to test Napoleon's hair for arsenic, among other things).