State braces for possible battle over N-waste (Maine)

[jpak]

http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=165181&zoneid=5

AUGUSTA, Maine — State officials are reacting to the possible need for a second federal nuclear waste site by preparing for another battle like that of 20 years ago, when Maine was on the list of possible locations before Yucca Mountain in Nevada was chosen as the first repository.

"The federal government has not taken the action it needs to take in terms of the issue, and I don’t know when it ever will," Gov. John Baldacci said in an interview. "But you have to be prepared, and we are."

The governor noted that the nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain has yet to be built, and the latest estimate is that it will not be completed for another 15 years. The waste from nuclear power plants — along with contaminated soil from closed plants such as Maine Yankee and other low-level material, such as contaminated protective clothing — all add up to more than 70,000 metric tons now being stored at temporary facilities.

By law, Yucca Mountain, once it is constructed, is limited to 70,000 metric tons. Even though the Department of Energy has proposed doubling its size, Congress has not acted to change the law.

<more>

[pleah]

1. And, still, some of these idiots want to build more nuke power plants.

:nuke:

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Well, they do generate LESS nuclear waste than burning coal

"NORM" -- http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf30.html">Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material -- is quite common, and burning coal for energy concentrates it. (The paper I linked to draws from scientific, not opinion, sources.)

We also get nearly all our http://www.springerlink.com/content/u7345877j33q2014/">agricultural phosphorus (this paper may be embargoed from the public) from geological strata that concentrate uranium and thorium at high levels. These phosphates can be mined for nuclear fuel, too, and have been. Instead, we put this stuff on our crops -- even the organic ones.

Yet nobody in the anti-nuclear movement seems all that concerned about these sources of nuclear material. Greenpeace, for example, wants a 10-year phase-out of the nuclear industry, but is content to allow 40 years for a coal phase-out. I have yet to see any evidence that Greenpeace is even aware of NORM radionuclide contamination in agriculture.

None of these issues are the simple us-vs-them disputes a lot of DU E/E participants seem to think they are. We literally need a top-to-bottom review and revision of the way we conduct our entire civilization. A smaller population under less pressure and inflicting less damage could afford to overlook problems in the interest of political and financial expediency. We can not.

If this was all that clear-cut and simple, it wouldn't be a problem now, would it?

--p!

[losthills]

3. Oh more of your nonsense.

"There's more uranium in coal than there is in uranium."

Right Dude.....

That's right up there with your assertions that we can now "de-nature radioactive waste to quickly render it non-radioactive."

What a bunch of horse shit.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Just like evolution, the heliocentric solar system, and global warming.

This information is easily available. It simply requires the ability -- and inclination -- to read.

Far more ignorance is caused by egotism than by illiteracy.

--p!

[losthills]

5. What a hoot !