Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Others propose that we have the military guard our spent fuel. After all, the "boobs" are not protected by the military, and that raises the likelihood that the spent rods will remain in the reactors awaiting the next disaster: a large quake, a tsunami, a terrorist/enemy state attack, and further deterioration of the 1960's built building. Such a disaster, with so much spent fuel would be the second Fukushima, would be a death sentence for the Pacific.
Still others want California to go it alone, without the Feds, which is exactly what Sen. Reid would have loved. That would be crazy. We do need a Federal solution and it needs to involve jettisoning this crap into space. There is nothing else we can do with it. Only the Feds can do that.
Those of us who live close (within 15 miles) of San Onofre are very scared of it. This stalemate must end. We need strong Federal action but thusfar see anything but.
Last edited by LuvSouthOC; 04-20-2015 at 11:35 AM..
We do need a Federal solution and it needs to involve jettisoning this crap into space. There is nothing else we can do with it. Only the Feds can do that.
Won't happen. It's cost prohibitive and there's too big a danger if the rocket explodes on the pad or there's a Challenger-type failure during launch. Nuclear pay loads being dispersed in an explosion would be a nightmare.
Now that Reid leaving and the opposition controls congress, it is time to move towards getting Yucca Mountain up and going. If not, we need to jettison this crap in space. Take your pick. From his website:
YUCCA
For decades, the Department of Energy (DOE) wanted to move America’s deadly high-level nuclear waste to a dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Since I was elected to Congress, I have been fighting this project because it threatened our health and safety and would have negatively impacted Nevada’s economy. Nevadans are overwhelmingly opposed to dumping nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, and they can rest safely now that the Obama Administration has put the project to rest. The proposal to dump nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain threatened the health and safety of Nevadans and people across our nation. Yucca Mountain, which is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is simply not a safe or secure site to store nuclear waste for any period of time. I am proud that after more than two decades of fighting the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, the project has finally been terminated.
Finding Alternatives to a Flawed Proposal
The time is long overdue for America to find a new approach for solving the nation’s nuclear waste problem. That is why I proposed the creation of a Blue Ribbon Commission of experts to make credible, scientifically sound recommendations for a new approach to nuclear waste.
I was pleased when President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu agreed with this approach and, on March 3, 2010, announced the creation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. The Commission included distinguished nuclear energy experts, geologists, policymakers, and environmental policy experts. On January 26, 2012, the Commission released its final report on recommendations to alternatives to Yucca Mountain for managing nuclear waste, marking a critical step towards safely and securely managing our nation’s nuclear waste.
Most importantly, this report makes abundantly clear that no state, tribe, or community should be forced to store spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste without its consent. Yucca was originally selected because of a flawed, non-scientific and political process, and it failed because Nevadans, with good reason, overwhelmingly opposed it.
The responsible course of action is not to resurrect a costly and failed nuclear waste policy, but to chart a realistic path towards solving the problem. The Commission and its distinguished co-chairs, former Congressman Lee Hamilton and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, have taken the critical step of developing credible recommendations for policy makers to consider for managing nuclear waste in the near and long-term. I commend the Commission’s efforts and look forward to working with my colleagues to finally develop a nuclear waste policy that protects Nevadans and all Americans.
The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report is available here.
Similarly, it is time to consider new uses for the Yucca Mountain site now that it will no longer be used as the nation’s nuclear waste dump. That is why I asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to prepare a report analyzing potential alternative uses for Yucca Mountain. The GAO’s report was published in October 2011, and was an important step as we begin a serious conversation about creating a new mission for the Yucca Mountain site. You can read the GAO’s report by clicking here.
Terminating The Dump
Today, the fate of the Yucca Mountain project has never been clearer. President Obama and his Administration have made it clear that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option. The Yucca Mountain project no longer receives any federal funding, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Yucca Mountain project office has been closed, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has discontinued its review of the application to begin construction at Yucca Mountain.
Last edited by LuvSouthOC; 04-20-2015 at 11:48 AM..
The 781-page report concludes that the repository's multiple barriers would effectively keep radioactivity from escaping into the surrounding air and contaminating groundwater.
Only economically viable and environmentally sound solution is to sink the rods encased within concrete blocks deep into the Marianas Trench, (a tectonic plate subduction zone).
Let's be honest. If you don't want this stuff in our backyard, why should Senator Reid or anyone from the state of Nevada want it? This is one of the many dangers and issues with nuclear power, and no one wants this in their state or near their communities. And, while some locations or mechanisms might provide a good chance of maintaining safety and security, there are no 100% guarantees.
No one wants to embrace any level of risk of nuclear contamination or disaster, and that includes the people of Nevada. Senator Reid has been doing exactly what I would want my Senator to do in opposing any effort to bring nuclear waste to the state of California.
The bottom line is that this is plant owned by a California company, and the state of California should assume all responsibility and risk for disposing of the radioactive material. It is up to us in this state to figure this out, and we should not unreasonably expect some other state to bail us out, assume the risks, and solve our problem for us. We would not be volunteering to bring waste to our state, so why should anyone else?
This is why we need to be focused on wind, solar, and hydro power as much as humanly possible. Fortunately, California has been a leader in some of these sectors, but we all know that investment and commitment to these safe energy sources is still horribly lacking. Aggressive mandates for renewable energy are needed and will drive a lot of great innovation and economic growth. Why let countries like Germany or places in the Middle East and North Africa beat us at solar energy? Why let anyone beat us in innovation and at converting our energy sectors to renewable sources that far cleaner and also far better for our national security and defense?
Let's be honest. If you don't want this stuff in our backyard, why should Senator Reid or anyone from the state of Nevada want it? This is one of the many dangers and issues with nuclear power, and no one wants this in their state or near their communities. And, while some locations or mechanisms might provide a good chance of maintaining safety and security, there are no 100% guarantees.
No one wants to embrace any level of risk of nuclear contamination or disaster, and that includes the people of Nevada. Senator Reid has been doing exactly what I would want my Senator to do in opposing any effort to bring nuclear waste to the state of California.
The bottom line is that this is plant owned by a California company, and the state of California should assume all responsibility and risk for disposing of the radioactive material. It is up to us in this state to figure this out, and we should not unreasonably expect some other state to bail us out, assume the risks, and solve our problem for us. We would not be volunteering to bring waste to our state, so why should anyone else?
This is why we need to be focused on wind, solar, and hydro power as much as humanly possible. Fortunately, California has been a leader in some of these sectors, but we all know that investment and commitment to these safe energy sources is still horribly lacking. Aggressive mandates for renewable energy are needed and will drive a lot of great innovation and economic growth. Why let countries like Germany or places in the Middle East and North Africa beat us at solar energy? Why let anyone beat us in innovation and at converting our energy sectors to renewable sources that far cleaner and also far better for our national security and defense?
Did you read my sources above? Yucca Mountain was determined to be a safe place to store nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is a nationwide problem, not just a So. Cal one. We have spent fuel rods. States like California that are near the ocean (risk of tsunami) and/or are seismically active, should get priority. This isn't just California, consider too states like Missouri (New Madrid fault). In any case, saying that we should find a solution alone is silly since nuclear plants (and nuclear materials) required and still require Federal approval and invention to varying degrees. This administration's complete lack of leadership on this issue is appalling, but can be explained by Sen. Reid's intransigence. NIMBYs in a small state should not be able obstruct the needs of a nation.
In any case, the power company will continue to need to pay for storage, costing billions. The public doesn't realize what is coming in terms of bill increases if you belong to San Diego's power service, which unfortunately, I do here in Laguna Niguel. We all cheered when San Onofre closed. Will we also cheer at the cost of storing this crap and risking disaster over time?
But even those who are lucky not to be subject to San Diego's power company storage problems are still at huge risk of a disaster. It is a ticking time bomb just south of us that can harm the ENTIRE REGION.
Did you read my sources above? Yucca Mountain was determined to be a safe place to store nuclear waste.
Yes, I read your sources, but the judgment of a government body does not necessarily determine reality. No official has been able to 100% guarantee that there is no possibility of a problem or potential nuclear disaster. Consistently, officials have only been able to speak in terms of probabilities and projected safety based on what they assume will be the case over the 10,000-year storage period.
Also, they are not in a position to truly know the future and to know how circumstances and conditions may change. For example, they are unable to truly know whether the water table will potentially end up higher than they expect. They project a potential maximum future level, but they have no way of knowing that geological events or other factors won't change this. And they have no way of knowing that new fault lines won't be discovered and that new risks will not be identified.
In fact, they already had to move equipment and part of the whole operation because they were completely wrong about the location of a fault line that ended up running right under one part of the proposed facilities. Embarrassing to say the least. And one company that is involved in the actual storage of nuclear waste had to point out that the proposed safety plan was highly vulnerable to potential problems if an earthquake occurred before casks were buried.
And let's talk about seismic activity, which you mentioned. Anyone who is familiar with the USGS knows that geologists readily admit that we are still far from having a truly comprehensive knowledge of existing fault lines. New fault lines are discovered all the time, even here in Southern California, and Nevada currently ranks fourth in the nation in seismic activity.
So, if we're going to base things on seismically active areas , then Nevada should not be taking this on, just as California shouldn't. And it's entirely possible that there could be another discovery of a mistaken location for a fault line or a new discovery of new fault lines or other geological risk factors.
Quite simply, there is no such thing as a safe place to store nuclear waste. There is no way that there can ever be a 100% guarantee against all possibility of natural disasters or unexpected circumstances leading to a nuclear waste incident. I would never expect anyone to accept that kind of uncertainty. And, if you think it should be prioritized based on seismically active areas, then Nevada should be off the list.
Quote:
NIMBYs in a small state should not be able obstruct the needs of a nation.
I tend to agree on some issues, but the founding fathers and early American leaders clearly did not agree with you when they drafted the Constitution and future laws and amendments in the way that they did. Our system was designed in part to ensure that larger states cannot simply overrule or take precedence over smaller states by the mere fact of their relative differences in size or population. It's something that we wrestle with all the time, but there is a good reason why those checks and balances exist. Otherwise, all waste and all problems would be sent to Wyoming.
Believe me, I am as concerned about this as much as you are. The proximity of San Onofre was something that my wife and I examined and considered very closely when we made the decision to relocate to Southern California. We were thrilled when the facility was closed. And we share the same concerns about long-term safety, waste storage, etc.
Nonetheless, I don't think it's reasonable for citizens of other states to accept a risk that other states find unacceptable themselves.
It should never have been built there. There were protests against it in the 70's before construction even began. The people who protested against it were labeled flaky, anti-American peaceniks by the staunch Orange County conservatives of the 70's. They brought up the question of what was going to happen to the rods when the plant was closed and no one listened. The protesters were right. It was a stupid place to put a nuclear facility.
It was also stupid to build thousands and thousands of houses that close to it. The developers didn't care. They supported building the plant and they made a TON of money by selling houses that should never have been built. And people (who are now saying NIMBY) were happy to buy those houses. Even thought the nuclear material was in their backyard the day they moved in.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 04-22-2015 at 07:41 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
