Philosophy
Dear Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama:
Please read the following before you make commitments to nuclear plant construction involving "fission" reactors. Sink promises and funds into "fusion" research and development and alternate energy sources. The estimated $96 billion for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain is ill advised in practice when one considers the costs of current military activity, general energy crisis, mortgage bailouts, health care, etc.
The cost of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada has grown to a projected $96.2 billion over its lifetime, according to a revised estimate released by the Department of Energy on Aug. 5.
Taking inflation into account, the price tag increased by 67% over DOE's 2001 estimate of $57.5 billion. The total system life cycle cost estimate, updated to 2007 dollars, includes the cost to research, construct, and operate the Yucca Mountain facility for 150 years, from the beginning of the program in 1983 through closure and decommissioning in 2133.
"This increased cost estimate is reasonable given inflation and the expected increase in the amount of spent nuclear fuel from existing reactors with license renewals," says Ward Sproat, director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste.
The updated estimate reflects a 30% increase in the amount of commercial spent nuclear fuel to be disposed of in the repository, from a 2000 estimate of 83,800 metric tons to a 2007 estimate of 109,300 metric tons, according to DOE.
The increased volume would extend the transportation period by 16 years and the emplacement period by 25 years. The larger amount of spent nuclear fuel is a result of existing and anticipated license renewals at operating nuclear power plants throughout the U.S., DOE says.
- And Things Keep "piling" Up
Give this some thought before advocating more fission reactors. "Homeless nuclear waste" Some 60,000 metric tons of radioactive waste is stored at nuclear power plants across the country, awaiting federal action that’s already a decade late. by Colin...
- Obama Says...yucca Mountain Out
"Good Riddance, Yucca Mountain" Obama pulls the plug on the nuclear industry's last best hope. by Timothy Noah March 3rd, 2009 Slate We've seen a lot of hyperbole lately about the significance of a presidency that's all of six weeks old....
- Nuclear Waste--long Range Thoughts By Bernd Debusmann
Bernd Debusmann "Nuclear planning to the year 1,002,008" by Bernd Debusmann November 19th, 2008 Reuters Will this barren mountain rising up to 4,950 feet from the Mojave desert look roughly the same in the year 1,002,008? That's a million years into...
- Thorium For Reactors?
Shippingport nuclear power plant The first large-scale nuclear powerplant in the world began operating in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, on December 2, 1957--exactly 15 years after Enrico Fermi demonstrated the first sustained nuclear reaction. The Duquesne...
- Nuclear Energy--not An Option
An Op Ed opinion by Derrick Z. Jackson of The Boston Globe raises once again the problems of nuclear energy plans: Cost and waste. But yet, both candidates throw the concept into the fray of alternative energy sources. Is such a notion ridding piggyback...
Philosophy
No to Yucca Mountain repository
Dear Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama:Please read the following before you make commitments to nuclear plant construction involving "fission" reactors. Sink promises and funds into "fusion" research and development and alternate energy sources. The estimated $96 billion for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain is ill advised in practice when one considers the costs of current military activity, general energy crisis, mortgage bailouts, health care, etc.
"Yucca Mountain To Cost $96 Billion"
by
Glenn Hess
August 6th, 2008
Chemical & Engineering News
by
Glenn Hess
August 6th, 2008
Chemical & Engineering News
The cost of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada has grown to a projected $96.2 billion over its lifetime, according to a revised estimate released by the Department of Energy on Aug. 5.
Taking inflation into account, the price tag increased by 67% over DOE's 2001 estimate of $57.5 billion. The total system life cycle cost estimate, updated to 2007 dollars, includes the cost to research, construct, and operate the Yucca Mountain facility for 150 years, from the beginning of the program in 1983 through closure and decommissioning in 2133.
"This increased cost estimate is reasonable given inflation and the expected increase in the amount of spent nuclear fuel from existing reactors with license renewals," says Ward Sproat, director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste.
The updated estimate reflects a 30% increase in the amount of commercial spent nuclear fuel to be disposed of in the repository, from a 2000 estimate of 83,800 metric tons to a 2007 estimate of 109,300 metric tons, according to DOE.
The increased volume would extend the transportation period by 16 years and the emplacement period by 25 years. The larger amount of spent nuclear fuel is a result of existing and anticipated license renewals at operating nuclear power plants throughout the U.S., DOE says.
- And Things Keep "piling" Up
Give this some thought before advocating more fission reactors. "Homeless nuclear waste" Some 60,000 metric tons of radioactive waste is stored at nuclear power plants across the country, awaiting federal action that’s already a decade late. by Colin...
- Obama Says...yucca Mountain Out
"Good Riddance, Yucca Mountain" Obama pulls the plug on the nuclear industry's last best hope. by Timothy Noah March 3rd, 2009 Slate We've seen a lot of hyperbole lately about the significance of a presidency that's all of six weeks old....
- Nuclear Waste--long Range Thoughts By Bernd Debusmann
Bernd Debusmann "Nuclear planning to the year 1,002,008" by Bernd Debusmann November 19th, 2008 Reuters Will this barren mountain rising up to 4,950 feet from the Mojave desert look roughly the same in the year 1,002,008? That's a million years into...
- Thorium For Reactors?
Shippingport nuclear power plant The first large-scale nuclear powerplant in the world began operating in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, on December 2, 1957--exactly 15 years after Enrico Fermi demonstrated the first sustained nuclear reaction. The Duquesne...
- Nuclear Energy--not An Option
An Op Ed opinion by Derrick Z. Jackson of The Boston Globe raises once again the problems of nuclear energy plans: Cost and waste. But yet, both candidates throw the concept into the fray of alternative energy sources. Is such a notion ridding piggyback...