Nuclear Waste Perspectives - Part II

Posted on May 19, 2004
Posted By: John K. Sutherland
Topic: Nuclear
 
22
This is the second of several articles on nuclear wastes. It examines the potential energy value in spent fuel, and in the world stockpiles of depleted uranium.

Spent Fuel is too valuable to be Nuclear Waste
'When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.' This describes the dominant environmental activist characteristic when faced by rational science of any kind. One could also add 'And never acknowledge the facts'.

This is especially true concerning the subject of nuclear waste management or disposal of relatively trivial quantities of well-managed waste; recycling spent nuclear fuel; or even admitting that nuclear power is the most socially valuable, cost-effective, versatile, capable, safe, and environmentally friendly of all of our reasonable primary energy options. Use of nuclear power does not lead to risk of war nearly as much as our increasing reliance upon politically unstable sources of expensive oil and gas, as several of the last few wars have shown. What is Spent Fuel?
Uranium fuel that has been in a nuclear reactor at power, typically from about 1 year (CANDU) to about 6 years (PWR, BWR) or more (marine propulsion reactors - 20+ years), and which is then discharged from the reactor core, is described as 'spent' fuel. The difficulty with this definition is that even this once-through fuel is NOT 'spent' in the true sense of the word. It is still a massive potential source of energy. 'Spent' fuel from commercial reactors still contains from 95 to 99% of unused uranium that can be and is re-cycled and re-used in some countries, but not in the U.S. although it once was. If fully utilised, each kilogram of uranium could produce 3.5 million kWh of electricity rather than about 50,000 to 250,000+ kWh(e) as at present (about 7,800 MWdays (thermal)/tonne (CANDU) to about 45,000+ MWdays(th)/tonne - PWR). However, even if not reprocessed in the short-term, the resource does not disappear or become worthless just because it has been through the reactor for only one cycle instead of many. Discarding it or managing it as ‘waste’, does not make it waste, as it is still a highly valuable resource. Whether it is recycled in the short or long-term, is immaterial, as it can be (and will be) re-cycled and re-used in the future. It is extraordinarily valuable for its unused energy content, and it doesn't suddenly disappear from society as some seem to believe or would like to see. This will happen, once the politicians recognize that they will eventually have to make some difficult decisions about energy, and with them, their likelihood of re-election if they get it wrong. This recently happened in California, and it is likely to confront Governor Schwarzenegger in short order, maybe even this coming summer, even if he can eventually turn the political steamroller around. Whether spent fuel actually gets put into the Yucca facility or not, is several years away (maybe 2015 now), and is also still very much up in the air, though few politicians would dare to admit it. Its fate can change with the stroke of a political pen or a court decision. If, through political inertia, spent fuel is placed into Yucca, it is worth taking bets as to how long it will reside there before it is recovered and re-processed in our rapidly changing, and increasingly vulnerable and politically-manipulated, energy climate. We may choose not to recycle it at this time, but our descendants are likely to view any spent fuel we might discard, as a gold-mine of energy. Leaving it out of Yucca is the best thing we could do for everyone, so I hope the various activists don't realize that their obstruction to Yucca is desirable in some ways even though their concerns and fears are more science fiction than anyone inside of our Hollywood-media entertained populace (Silkwood, China Syndrome, Mutant Ninja Turtles) might believe. The potential energy value in 'spent' nuclear fuel is 'impressive'
The use of individual fuels to produce electricity is compared in Table 1. It also shows the energy density of our common fuels along with a rough comparison of their fuel costs to produce 1 gigawatt-year (1,000 MW(e) for one year) – 8,760,000 MWh - of electricity.

At today's approximate electricity value (about $40/MWh for baseload electricity), the gross ultimate electrical value of the use of 1 tonne of various significant fuels is:

  1. From nuclear fuel - natural uranium and once-through (as used in a CANDU reactor) - the gross potential electrical value is about $2,000,000 per tonne of natural uranium (costing about $29,000/tonne), for a ratio of gross value to cost of about 70. (Uranium recently reached a high of about $35,000/tonne)
  2. From nuclear fuel - enriched and once-through (PWR) - the gross potential electrical value is about $10,000,000/tonne of uranium, ($10 million!) with uranium costing $29,000/tonne, for a ratio of gross value to cost of more than 300.
  3. From nuclear fuel - enriched, with total recycling - the gross potential electrical value is about $140,000,000/tonne of uranium, ($140 million!) with uranium costing $29,000/tonne, for a ratio of gross value to cost of about 4.8 million. However, reprocessing and fuel re-fabrication costs are also high. With the fast breeder cycle and reprocessing, not only can the spent fuel resource be re-used, but so can the 7 tonnes or so of depleted uranium produced during enrichment, per tonne of fuel, and this is also potentially worth about $140E6/tonne!
  4. From coal (about $120 worth of electricity, per tonne of coal, with coal costing about $35 per tonne) for a gross electrical value to cost of 3.4. The potential energy value of the uranium and thorium in the discarded bottom ash (sometimes above ore grade for uranium) is worth up to several thousand times more than the energy value of the coal itself before it was burned. Discarded coal ash (billions of tonnes), is typically a significant, but usually ignored, uranium/thorium resource of immense future value and significance - at least in a rational, technological society - and should be managed with this in mind;
  5. From heavy oil (about $160 worth of electricity, per tonne of oil, with heavy oil costing about $120/T) for a gross electrical value to cost of about 1.3;
  6. From natural Gas (about $240 worth of electricity from burning 1 tonne of natural gas, costing about $270/tonne when the price is just $5/GJ) for a gross electrical value to cost of 0.9, at this time! It was much better with gas at $2/GJ. With gas costs bouncing around above $5, and especially above $6 or $7/GJ, using gas for electricity, rather than for space heating (still cost effective), is not too smart unless you can charge a lot more than $40/MWh - which is usually the case - or operate with much greater than 40% efficiency. (One gigajoule (GJ) is almost the same as a million BTUs.)

But back to uranium. It comes out of the ground, is purified, refined, converted to yellowcake, and then sells for about $29,000/tonne (about $13/pound, or about $29/kg). It is usually then enriched to become 3% to 4% U-235 fuel that costs about $200,000/tonne in the reactor (plus fabrication costs), with about 7 tonnes of uranium-238 (depleted uranium) rejected and stockpiled (Table 2). In one pass through the reactor, which takes up to about 4 to 6 years, this 1 tonne of enriched fuel produces about $10,000,000 worth of electricity, despite only about 3% of it being fissioned (used) by the time of discharge. The depleted uranium is generally regarded as relatively worthless, even though it is far from this. Now, would anyone - who claims to be rational - willingly choose to bury a refined product (spent fuel) that even after one cycle of use, still has a future potential gross electricity value of at least $130,000,000/tonne (or about 260 billion dollars for each year's worth of U.S. spent fuel) and is recyclable? It would be like junking a Mercedes after driving it for a few days. Even pure gold is worth only $14,000,000/tonne, and look how we protect and recover that. Consider these approximate figures (assuming the resources were all used to produce electricity, for ease of comparison):

  1. Each year's worth of U.S. spent fuel (2,000 tonnes), still contains about the same energy (electrical) potential value (7E12 kWh)(e)), as we actually derived in 2001 from all of our use of coal (555 millions of tonnes of oil equivalent, Mtoe – megatonnes of oil equivalent), oil (896 Mtoe), and natural gas (555 Mtoe) combined (about 8E12 kWh(e), assuming about 30% efficiency of use). And we propose to treat it as dangerous waste because a small part of it is highly radioactive for a relatively short time!
  2. The depleted uranium (very low specific activity - i.e. not very radioactive) that we produce and stockpile (about 20,000 tonnes each year, containing about 7E13 kWh(e) of potential electrical energy equivalent), contains about one fifth of the energy contained in the entire Middle East oil reserves (almost 100E9 tonnes (BP statistical review), or about 3.72E14 kWh of potential electrical energy equivalent). (Thermal energy equivalents are 3 times higher).
  3. The total U.S. refined DU stockpile so far (about 610,000 tonnes by 2002), sitting at the surface and neglected, though managed, potentially contains 2E15 kWh of electrical energy, or about 5 times the potential energy contained in the entire estimated Middle East oil resource.
  4. The world combined spent fuel and DU total to about 2002 (about 240,000 tonnes of spent fuel, and about 1.45E6 T of DU respectively) most of which is sitting at the surface, is highly refined and contains enough potential energy (about 6E15 kWh of electrical energy equivalent) to make the entire known oil reserves (excluding the very significant tar sands and oil shales) of the whole world look very limited.

This analysis could go on, and evaluate the potential energy contained in the total world estimated uranium resource at increasing resource prices (including ocean uranium), and include the thorium resource, but I think I made my point already. Any spent fuel placed into Yucca would be worth (potentially) more than all of the gold in Fort Knox (Hollywood blockbuster anyone? But I’ll be the technical advisor)! We're hording the wrong stuff folks! We should be recycling, reprocessing, and re-using this energy resource as befits a rational, technologically-advanced, energy-intensive society, so increasingly dependant upon energy imports. To neglect it (as we do with DU), or to consider putting such a massive amount of potential wealth and energy back into the ground, and to behave as though it were waste - as is still considered for spent fuel - defies logic, especially when it can be safely and easily re-cycled.

The accumulated surface-stored stockpile of DU so far (Table 2), is potentially worth (for its untapped electrical energy) about $83 trillion in the U.S. alone, or about 8 times the value of the U.S. annual economy. It is sitting around, when it could all be eventually brought back into an advanced reactor cycle as originally planned, researched and defined almost 60 years ago, and exploited to the very great benefit of everyone. Rather than do this, however, we continue to agonize and moan about uncertain and high priced oil supplies from mostly unstable suppliers abroad; the availability and supplies of natural gas; and terrify ourselves about the possible extreme environmental effects from burning coal and other fossil fuels. Surely it is also time that we began to get concerned about the socially destructive aspects of having insufficient or unaffordable energy. Go figure!

Ah well! So much for environmentalist cant about recycling everything, and being concerned about resources, sustainability, waste, pollution, energy conservation, Global Climate Change, and the environment.

 
22
 
Authored By:
Dr. Sutherland is a retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees.

He now has his own consulting company. He writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection,

 

Other Posts by: John K. Sutherland

Oil Shales and Tar Sands - August 12, 2008

Related Posts

 
 

Comments

May, 18 2004

Stanton Friedman says

This is an oustanding overview of the real energy situation and clearly demonstrates the superiority of nuclear techniques for both producing energy and protecting the environment. WELL DONE

Report This Comment
May, 19 2004

James Hopf says

It's definitely true that there is enormous energy remaining in spent fuel, especially if you count the U-238, in addition to the residual U-235 and Pu. However, this does not mean that reprocessing is a no-brainer. It all boils down to economics. The fact of the matter is that, based on the current uranium price, reprocessing (U, Pu recycle) is much more expensive than just mining/using new uranium, and burying the spent fuel. The price of uranium would have to jump dramatically (a factor of several, I think), before reprocessing makes raw economic sense.

Concerning the whether or not to define spent fuel as "waste", the economic definition of waste is something of negative economic value. That is, the costs of using the material exceed its economic value. Given the above, I would say that, with current reprocessing technology, spent fuel would meet the definition of "waste". That does not mean that it will be useless waste forever, however (more on that later).

Tragically, reprocessing doesn't help polticically either. As the author said, you'd think that the "environmentalists" would prefer nuclear waste recycling, where much of the resource is reused, and the long-term hazard of the buried waste is reduced (somewhat). Instead, far from being appeased by this, they are even more opposed to reprocessing than they are to the once-through cycle. Experience in Europe clearly shows this. It is the subject of endless shrill rhetoric concerning red-herring "non-proliferation" issues, and absolutely trivial environmental releases (which result in exposures several orders of magnitude below natural background, over a small local area).

Go figure. I didn't say it made sense, but the fact of the matter is that this is the political reality we face. In addition to being a losing proposition economically, reprocessing currently also incurs a political cost (as opposed to a benefit).

Finally, if and when uranium does get significantly more expensive, it seems that an extensive U/Pu recycle program, which involves full reprocessing but only increases ore utilization by a factor of ~2 (I think), would make less sense than going forward with breeder reactors, which would increase utilization by a factor of 60-70 (by using most of the U-238).

It is also not clear how helpful current reprocessing technology is from a waste management perspective. My old nuclear engineering text (Lamarsh) showed a very disappointing plot of total activity (from one unit of initial uranium) vs. time for the "once-through" and "U-Pu recycle" fuel cycles, along with a "fission products only" curve (which shows the "ultimate" performance that is possible). The U-Pu curve didn't reduce the long-term activity (say, at 10,000 years) very much at all, whereas the fission products alone are much better, decaying away to nothing in ~500 years. This is all due to a large quantity of residual long-term isotopes that remain after the current recycle process. These concentrations must be reduced greatly before any real long-term waste management benefit will accrue. The figure of merit is how much is the time required to reach the activity level of the original uranium ore shortened. Current technology is found wanting on this score.

For the reasons above, I do not favor moving forward with reprocessing at this time. We need reprocessing to be significantly less expensive, and a much greater performance level is needed in terms of residual long-term isotopes that remain after the recycle process. I'm not saying that reprocessing will never make sense. In fact, I'm confident that it will someday. Thus, I favor continued long-term research into improved reprocessing technologies, while we put the waste into Yucca Mtn., for now. I would expect we will start using this resource sometime after 2050.

The article is flexible on this issue, and merely states that the resource will be used at some point in the future. I absolutely agree with this. Going forward with Yucca Mtn., but not sealing the repository (i.e., keeping the fuel accessible) for an extended period (100-300 years) is a very solid, flexible, and wise approach. Note that we will still need a repository, even if it is for nothing other than the fission products.

Given that the waste will almost certainly be pulled out, all of the calculations of ultra-long-term waste behavior, health effects, and risks seem quite silly. What do you mean 10,000 years? The waste will almost certainly have been removed long before then! But alas, OF COURSE you can't take credit for that fact in the license application. We should be allowed to reduce all calculated long-term risks by a factor of 100, given the 99% (at least) likelihood that the waste will not still be there.

The good news is that the calculations show that the risks are negligible, EVEN IF the waste were just left there for all time. This makes Yucca Mtn. very useful from a political perspe

Report This Comment
May, 19 2004

James Hopf says

Part 2: The need for Yucca

The good news is that the conservative calculations show that the risks are negligible, EVEN IF the waste were just left there for all time. This makes Yucca Mtn. very useful, from a political perspective if nothing else. It makes it clear that the nuclear waste problem is SOLVED, i.e., that an acceptable solution is at hand RIGHT NOW (in addition to the fact that even better solutions are likely to actually be employed in the future). Specifically, if we bury it at Yucca, even if future generations do NOTHING, the risks (short-term, long-term, etc...) are completely acceptable. On top of that, it is overwhelmingly likely that we will vastly improve on that situation, as it is virtually certain that the technology will be developed to eliminate (and/or resuse) the waste. In other words, even if the worst possible set of events comes to pass (the waste is never retrieved), the risks are still negligible. Problem SOLVED.

This is (politically) necessary for the future of nuclear power in the US. This may not make sense, but it is our political reality. We are (apaprently) not cool-headed like the French. If Yucca fails, the anti's will be "vindicated" in their position that "there is no solution" to the nuclear waste problem, and no new plants will be built. The utility executives have made this very clear.

Of all the "issues" associated with Yucca vs. reprocessing, Yucca vs. leaving waste in dry storage (at plant sites), etc.... this is by far the most important issue, in terms of public health risk and environmental damage. Frankly, the risks of all the possible nuclear waste management approaches are negligible. The only significant risk to public health or the environment is not persuing new nuclear power plants (and largely building coal plants instead). The public health and environmental effects of building another generation of conventional coal plants (i.e., non-clean-coal, non-IGCC) coal plants, that will emit mass quantities of pollution (and CO2) for 50 years hence, is vastly greater than the nuclear approach (by several orders of magnitude) no matter what nuclear waste management approach is adopted.

Thus, this issue is the big issue, the only issue, the 800 lb gorilla in the room. The key (indeed, only) figure of merit is what will maximize the likelihood of building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the near future. All other issues are secondary. Based on what I know, the political reality, the political wisdom, is that getting Yucca Mtn. up and running will be tremendously beneficial (indeed, necessary) to attain that objective.

Who knows, maybe keeping the waste in above-ground storage and waiting to reprocess it someday (i.e., the French approach) is slightly better from a purely technical perspective. I don't care. Nothing will make up for the fact that, if we persue that approach, we'll all be choking on coal plant fumes (and building dikes) while we proceed with our "enlightened" nuclear waste management program. Sometimes one just has to recognize the political realties of the situation, and set policy accordingly.

The bottom line is that Yucca is, if nothing else, a great (very isolated and secure) long-term storage facility for the waste, a single facility being much more secure than 100 or so sites. Also, consider that even if (and when) we come up with an effective reprocessing technology, it will almost certainly require a large, centralized facility. Thus, the waste would have to be shipped to some central location anyway. What better place than Yucca? The processing facility would, of course, be co-located at Yucca, as all the waste is already (conveniently) there. The mountain would also serve as the staging / temp-storage facility for the processing plant, a storage facility that would have to be built anyway if the processing facility were built anywhere else. And just think, the storage facility is all deep underground (really safe from attack!!). The "more vulnerable" total waste inventory in the plant itself (above ground) could be greatly minimized.

Report This Comment
May, 25 2004

Jonathan Baty says

Concerning the whether or not to define spent fuel as "waste", the economic definition of waste is something of negative economic value. That is, the costs of using the material exceed its economic value. Given the above, I would say that, with current reprocessing technology, spent fuel would meet the definition of "waste". That does not mean that it will be useless waste forever, however (more on that later).

It sounds to me like economists are to blame for foiling your recycling ideas, per this comment from above. Make mining and initial processing more expensive and the "economic perspective" might change!

Report This Comment
May, 25 2004

John K. Sutherland says

James, Your points are all valid and reasonable with minor exceptions.

I am not sure why we should tolerate the political situation the way it is. Politics is notoriously self serving, ever with an eye on the next election. I think we have to be prepared to embarrass politicians when they make egregiously bad decisions. We do this by educating the public wherever possible about both the good science, and the rotten science. Politicians hate to look like ill-informed idiots, so we have to put them into that position whenever and as often as we can, if we expect to change anything rationally and for the better.

The other aspect of increasing the nuclear power base, and of making better use of the uranium resource, is that every effort we can make to displace oil, coal, and natural gas will be beneficial to future society in the long term. France just managed to close its last coal mine, from which coal was costing about US$170/tonne, and that was without considering all of the other costs associated with using coal.

You are right that the cost of uranium would need to rise significantly before we get to an economic point for recycling uranium, but that is still no excuse for 'wasting' this resource and for essentially ignoring the very real value that is contained in depleted uranium. We should be stockpiling this material much more carefully and better than we are, and recognise that although we may not see its value, others will.

When the world price for oil goes above $40/barrel, or we have trouble getting supplies, we begin to realise how much we are at the mercy of foreign energy suppliers. Surely the billions of dollars to trillions each year that we see leave the U.S. to fund foreign economies, many of whom are unstable dictatorships, funding terrorism, and operating contrary to our interests in every way, would be better used domestically.

We need to get over this national phobia concerning radiation, spent fuel and nuclear power. I still firmly believe that we should be actually offering our services to take the spent fuel of any other nation that wishes to get rid of it. It would be as astute in the future picture of things as the purchase of either Alaska or 'Louisiana', both of which were strongly opposed by the blinkered politicians of the day. Politicians don't change, but the circumstances certainly do.

Report This Comment
May, 25 2004

Dennis Sheats says

The authors position is compelling and I certainly would not diagree on the relative risks of Nulear Waste. The problem that I do have with the article is that his positon is diminished by the use of language that is more appropriate to an editorial than a rational study. The authors language is closer to a rant, and does him and his positon dissevice. I have been invovled with the nuclear industy for about 20 years now and I know that good facts will always carry the day.

Report This Comment
May, 25 2004

James Hopf says

John:

I think we are in complete agreement on everything. This is certainly the case, if what you're saying is that you're amenable to placing the waste in storage (e.g. Yucca), given that the waste will be used at some point in the future. Thus, the best approach is a repository that keeps the waste fully retrievalbe for 100-300 years... I have no doubt that it will be used by then.

In terms of embarrassing politicians and environmentalists, and educating the public, I've recently done my part by jumping into the fray over at the online forum at the official John Kerry website (where there is a nuclear power thread). I've been doing a good job at exposing the flaws in the anti-nuke's specious arguments, but additional contributions from people with rational attitudes about nuclear power are always helpful. I encourage yourself, or other like-minded folk, to jump on in and show your support. The more the merrier. Mr. Kerry, by the way, is against Yucca, and vows to not let it happen on his watch (he was in Nevada of course). This alone is enough to keep me from voting for him, no matter how unimpressed I am with Bush & Co.

Report This Comment
May, 26 2004

John K. Sutherland says

Dennis, You are correct, and your point is well taken. I tend to be combative and outspoken, as well as impatient with the views of those who disagree with me. However, this is rarely constructive. I will try to be less aggressive in future. Thankyou.

Report This Comment
May, 26 2004

John K. Sutherland says

James, Could you provide a detailed direction to the nuclear thread on the Kerry site please? I took a look around and could not see where it was, and could not get to any of your commentary.

Report This Comment
May, 27 2004

James Hopf says

John,

Go to www.johnkerry.com (or type in John Kerry in your search browser). The official website should come up. On the left side of the screen you'll see a link for the "online forum". Go there, and hit the link for the "energy & environment" subject area. You should see several threads there, including ones for Yucca Mtn. and for nuclear power. Sometimes they drop of the short list, however, if there isn't much recent activity. In that case, you can go to the bottom of the page and type in "nuclear", or "Yucca" for a keyword search. That should take you there.

Barring all that, try this direct link:

http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=29723

By the way, before you can post they'll make you register, get a password sent to your E-mail address, etc......

Report This Comment
May, 28 2004

Steve Sturgill says

> 'When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.' This describes the dominant environmental activist characteristic when faced by rational science of any kind. One could also add 'And never acknowledge the facts'. <

The recent editorial by the prominent environmentalist James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, may provide some reason for hope.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=524230

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=james+lovelock

Report This Comment
May, 28 2004

Len Gould says

I have a question regarding Yucca. Is the intention to deposite the "waste" in there in a re-useable form? I though i'd heard at one point that the intention was to glassify the waste first, which I presume means to mix it at high temperature with some borosilicate compounds. Is that not going to make the "waste" no more useable than raw uranium newly mined, and in fact enforce / encourage the production of new "waste" rather than sensible re-use of the product when the economics are worked out?

Report This Comment
May, 29 2004

Joseph Somsel says

I'm beginning to think of Yucca Mountain not as a nuclear waste repository. What I see it as is our future Strategic Plutonium Reserve, analogous to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

What is befuddling is why the Nevada Congressional Delegation doesn't actively support a national program to develop fuel reprocessing and an R&D program on actinide burning reactors. They could then report to their constituents (honestly) that they have supported efforts to reduce the risk from Yucca Mountain ten-fold. That risk reduction would result from a reduction in required isolation time from 10,000 years to 1,000 years and the near complete removal of the most biologically active ingredients in its contents.

Excellent pair of articles.

Report This Comment
May, 29 2004

John K. Sutherland says

Len, Any High Level Waste repository envisaged at this time will be laid out and planned with retrievability in mind. This is not my opinion, this is the plan for most of the world. Also, vitrification of HLW is practised only for the 3% volume of fission nuclides separated from spent enriched fuel after reprocessing, and not for spent fuel that is not re-processed. The non-reprocessed spent fuel is already a sealed ceramic material (like most crockery and window glass) and is relatively stable and coherent as it is. I know that society is agonizing over many energy and waste issues at this time, but there is one constant in all of this - change is inevitable. The present, and mostly irrational concerns of our day, will not be those of future generations. They will create their own.

In the white paper section of this site (follow 'research' from the 'more' box in the left column) I have several detailed papers on nuclear cycles and waste disposal, among others, that go into much more detail on the way things are at this time in the nuclear world.

Joseph, What an intriguing thought that I wish I had stated: Yucca, being a strategic plutonium (and uranium) reserve. If perhaps we had offered a monetary prize of billions of dollars to become temporary guardians of this resource, many politicians of many States might even now be falling all over each other to fight for it. Instead we have Nevada and Federal politicians playing the worst kind of poltical games, and engaging in the most questionable of non-science, while still collecting a bundle of money. If I had the real estate, I would also be in the fight for this resource, as well as all of that from other countries too. Being paid handsomely to take care of a few trillions of dollars of future resource value that has less total social risk than choking on a toothpick, is a no-brainer to me. But only if I can keep the mindlessness of unjustified class action lawsuits from lawyers and environmentalists seeking instant wealth and power, at bay.

Thank you for your comments.

Report This Comment
May, 30 2004

Steve Sturgill says

James Hopf made one *HELL* of a spirited effort on the John Kerry website. Thanks for all the time and energy you devoted to the effort James. It was extremely frustrating to read some of the responses you received as thanks for your contributions. "Do you own stock?" indeed, and that from a physician. Thousands of "potential Chernobyls" is the thrust of the final post in that thread as I type. Seems hopeless.

We seem to only advance from crisis to crisis. I hope that when the political tipping point arrives there is still time to do something about the crisis already at hand, but I am not hopeful.

More power to Messrs Sutherland, Hopf, and others unfortunately ahead of their time.

Report This Comment
May, 31 2004

Rodney Adams says

While I almost completely agree with the original article, I completely disagree with the concept of considering Yucca Mountain to be a reasonable step along the way of recovering the energy value of spent nuclear fuel sometime in the future.

Gathering the spent nuclear fuel into a few well chosen locations might be reasonable, but why would anyone spend billions to dig holes in a very isolated mountain that has no other infrastructure for transportation, power, sewage, education, entertainment, etc.

Yucca Mountain would be a horrible place to build a recycling industry; the company would have to pay outrageous salaries to build a work force of talented problem solvers willing to live in such a forsaken place.

The spent fuel is safe where it is. It is cheap to leave it there until its value is recognized.

Rod Adams

Report This Comment
June, 01 2004

John K. Sutherland says

James and Rodney, I am amenable to long-lived 'waste', but not spent fuel, being placed in Yucca. I do not regard spent fuel as waste, and I, like Rodney know that the present location of storage, although politically discomforting, is adequately safe and secure. The volumes are remarkably small, and more than 95% of the fission nuclides are gone in less than three decades.

Report This Comment
July, 24 2004

TERRY MEYER says

B-b-but John, you can't give up on Yucca as the political "solution" that will enable nuclear power plant construction.

Then we only have to over come electrical load balancing, insurance, forced mass evacuations from "insignificant" accidents, and the arrogance, hypocrisy and close-mindedness of nuclear advocates that are hurting their cause more than they help.

Report This Comment
July, 28 2004

Don Giegler says

It looks like Terry missed out on John's recommended reading list in the commentary that followed an earlier article. Perhaps as the great arbiter of arrogance, hypocrisy and close-mindedness, Terry can find a shoe that fits in a repeat of:

John,

I've enjoyed following the discussion in the comments that follow your article. Petr Beckmann has also written a fascinating book, "A History of Pi". In the preface to the third edition in 1974 he decried some of the popular tendencies of the day, e.g., "Meanwhile, a disturbing trend away from science toward the irrational has set in. The aerospace industry has been all but dismantled. College enrollment in the hard sciences and engineering has significantly dropped. The disoriented and gullible flock in droves to the various Maharajahs of Mumbo Jumbo. Ecology, once a respected scientific discipline, has become the buzzword of frustrated housewives on messianic ego-trips. Technology has wounded affluent intellectuals with the ultimate insult: They cannot understand it anymore. Ignorance, anti-scientific and anti-technology sentiment have always provided the breeding ground for tyrannies in the past. The power of ancient emperors, the medieval Church, the Sun Kings, the State with a capital S, was always rooted in the ignorance of the oppressed. Anti-scientific and anti-technology sentiment is providing a breeding ground for encroaching on the individual's freedoms now. A new tyranny is on the horizon. It masquerades under the meaningless name of 'Society'." Perhaps a look or two at Schaum's outline, " Theory and Problems of Electric Power Systems" by Syed Nasar circa 1990, might also help some of those who have so obviously come over Beckmann's horizon.

Report This Comment
September, 06 2005

John K. Sutherland says

Terry, if you ever revisit any of these articles, you should now read the newly issued (September 2005) report on the defined radiation health outcomes of Chernobyl.

I just posted some comments on it in my earlier article discussion on Nuclear Power and other energy comparisons. It shows that most of the response and beliefs of Chernobyl effects were swung by radiation hysteria, almost exclusively, which I, and others, have been saying was the over-riding health effect over the last 15 years.

John K. Sutherland.

Report This Comment
October, 31 2006

John K. Sutherland says

I do occasionally revisit these articles as things change. One major change touched upon above, is the price of U. Well, it has gone from about $13 per pound to unheard of values. And I am sure that the world is now fully aware of the new direction that is being envisaged for energy. I am watching it unfold with great interest.

Report This Comment
July, 11 2009

John K. Sutherland says

For those who wish direction to my other papers on a related site, go here:

http://www.energycentral.com/functional/reference/whitepapers.cfm

and select the publisher filter - edutech enterprises - ie ME. There are 8 more papers there I believe.

Report This Comment

Add your comments:

Please log in to leave a comment!
back to top

Receive Energy Central eNews & Updates








 

Contribute Your Work

It's easy to contribute articles, article proposals, commentary and analysis and be published online through Energy Central!

Sound interesting? Contact the editor for more information.



Sponsored Content