Which has the 35,000 year toxic waste, nuclear or the abundant natural gas?We can have the same portability and flexibility with nukes now.
First U.S. Small Nuclear Reactor Design Is Approved
Concerns about costs and safety remain, howeverwww.scientificamerican.com
Bama, does any other waste take 35,000 years to not be radioactive and highly toxic?
You talk about containment vessels. Do you know what happens to them over time? The radiation causes them all to fail dramatically.
And if it's such a small volume, then why are their 80+ repositories for the constantly accumulating waste?
Do you want to live anywhere near one of them?
Confirmed! High Radiation Released After HANFORD TUNNEL COLLAPSE
Hanford’s waste has been notoriously mismanaged. Rarely does a year pass when there isn’t another major investigative report talking about how Hanford waste was dumped downriver or leaked into the atmosphere.
Idaho National Laboratory has been the site of numerous releases of radioactivity. The most recent was in April 2018, when a 55-gallon barrel of “radioactive sludge” ruptured while being prepared for transport. Areas of the site are contaminated with different levels of various pollutants that pose a threat to human health and the environment.
This map includes spent nuclear fuel from reactors and the high-level waste generated when the Department of Energy extracted material from spent fuel to create nuclear weapons. It also includes the locations of research reactor sites, special nuclear materials (e.g., plutonium-239 and uranium-235), transuranic wastes, or low-level nuclear wastes.
Just an iG FYI, the 4 states (MT-WY-ND-SD) with no waste storage sites makes up for that by being the states with the ballistic missile nuke silos, while OK has the massive nuke loaded B-52 base at Altus ....
So nuclear waste is a very small Rubik's cube problem, until you confront the 35,000 years half-life reality, instead of nuclear industry excuses...
en.wikipedia.org
Bama, this was the site that was going to cure the problem for good.
So much for yet another bogus government claim...
The DOE began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 to determine whether it would be suitable for the nation's first long-term geologic repository for over 70,000 metric tons (69,000 long tons; 77,000 short tons) (150 million pounds)[22] of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste as of 2015[when?] stored at 121 sites around the nation. An estimated 10,000 metric tons (9,800 long tons; 11,000 short tons) of the waste would be from America's military nuclear programs.[23] In the 2008 Omnibus Spending Bill, the Yucca Mountain Project's budget was reduced to $390 million.
=====
Lacking an operating repository, the federal government initially paid utility companies somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998.[citation needed] For the ten years after 2015 it is estimated to cost taxpayers $24 billion in payments from the Judgment Fund.[30] The Judgment Fund is not subject to budget rules and allows Congress to ignore the nuclear waste issue since payments there from do not have any impact on yearly spending for other programs. (but they're kicking the tax payers butts, and you'll never get a true total cost accounting from them)
The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, as designated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1987,[2] is a proposed deep geological repository storage facility within Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste in the United States. The site is on federal (public) land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada, about 80 mi (130 km) northwest of the Las Vegas Valley.
The project was approved in 2002 by the 107th United States Congress, but the 112th Congress ended federal funding for the site via amendment to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, passed on April 14, 2011, during the Obama Administration.[3] The project has encountered many difficulties and was highly contested by the public, the Western Shoshone peoples, and many politicians.[4] The project also faces strong state and regional opposition.[5] The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons.[6] (BS, old salt mines flooded, a terrible place for nuclear waste)
Under President Barack Obama, the Department of Energy (DOE) reviewed options other than Yucca Mountain for a high-level waste repository. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, established by the Secretary of Energy, released its final report in January 2012. It detailed an urgent need to find a site suitable for constructing a consolidated geological repository, stating that any future facility should be developed by a new independent organization with direct access to the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is not subject to political and financial control as the Cabinet-level DOE is.[12] But the site met with strong opposition in Nevada, including from then-Senate leader Harry Reid.[2]
Under President Donald Trump, the DOE ceased deep borehole[13] and other non–Yucca Mountain waste disposition research activities. For FY18, the DOE requested $120 million and the NRC $30 million[14] from Congress to continue licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain Repository. For FY19, the DOE again requested $120 million but the NRC increased its request to $47.7 million.[15] Congress decided to provide no funding for the remainder of FY18.[16] In May 2019, Representative John Shimkus reintroduced a bill in the House for the site,[2] but the Appropriation Committee killed an amendment by Representative Mike Simpson to add $74 million in Yucca Mountain funding to a DOE appropriations bill.[2] On May 20, 2020, Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes testified in front of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that Trump strongly opposes proceeding with Yucca Mountain Repository.[17]
In May 2021, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said that Yucca Mountain would not be part of the Biden administration's plans for nuclear-waste disposal. She anticipated announcing the department's next steps "in the coming months".[18]
Be sure to add back these many costs to your
CLEAN-CHEAP-EFFICIENT NUCLEAR ENERGY CLAIMS....
Anyone interested in this total nuclear fiasco can go here to learn more details...
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia
I hope you'll consider Uber when the power grid goes out and you are stranded on the interstate. 😂
Maybe Biden and the DIMS can send us all a $60,000 subsidy so we can all buy electric cars. Of course, they would probably need to also subsidize the cost of installing solar charging stations at each of our houses as the current electrical grid will not be able to handle millions of car chargers.
Natural background radiation is 100-125 millirem in this area of Pennsylvania (150 to 350 is naturally occurs in the world). 3 Mile Island added 1 millirem to the area. Pennsylvania DOH monitored 30,000 citizens that lived within 10 miles for 18 years. No effects. 3 Mile Island meltdown can and SHOULD be ignored. It was closed in 2019.
Was that you whose EV broke down on the interstate due to a blown battery?? $14,000 for a new battery is a bitch considering inflation!
its an amazing car. and they do make sense financially right now. just not good on road trips.
I mean, wasn't the entire industry given a government bailout a decade or so ago?
Given that the average electric car costs far more than the average gasoline car, it's like saying if you are homeless, buy a nice house.Posted in the GOAT thread, but it belongs more here.
Safe to assume instaidiot's thread on bigfeets is dead since I stopped posting and bumping it?
ok, this is getting funny. you would need the variables to make this statment, what price are you using for an electric car? in which state are you charging your car? and how much value do you place on no having to stop at gas stations?
If you ran the math when cars were first developed, then the horse and buggy was cheaper.
This is a rare area that I have expertise in. I have worked at my Chevy Dealership for 35 years. The whole EV thing is a big lie...however there are some good applications for some people. Not me. I tow a boat 5-600 miles at a time. They do not have anything that does that now. BUT...if you live 40 miles or more from work..it could be a good deal for someone.
One little thing(there always IS WHEN A LIB TRIES TO LIE) The gubment did not try to FORCE your hand to buy a car back then. they are lying, cheating and stealing no to force it, because today...99% of politicians are crooked, and get paid. so your point is ridiculous...as usual
