“Slightly Used” Nuclear Fuel Storage Casks.

by Steve Haner

First published this morning by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.

If you are serious about making electricity without carbon emissions and also serious about making enough electricity to run a real economy 24-7-365, the discussion keeps coming back to nuclear energy. It is the obvious choice if you believe we must eliminate natural gas soon. 

Less obvious is that a serious nuclear renaissance in this country could be sparked and sustained by recycling used nuclear fuel.  It is not “waste” or “spent,” but only “slightly used.” The fuel rods removed from the North Anna and Surry reactors in Virginia still have 97 percent of the energy potential they had going into the reactors. We know how to extract it and make new fuel.

Yet the fuel recycling concept was not even referenced in a new Virginia-specific nuclear strategic plan, despite the massive energy and financial value languishing in fuel assemblies  sitting in giant casks at the two power plants. About the bravest, most forward looking-idea in the 15 pages of fluff (here) is to support extended licenses for those four old-tech reactors, which provide about 30 percent of Virginia’s electricity.

By not mentioning recycling, one need not address the even more bold idea of doing it here in Virginia, building a plant that could provide new nuclear fuel to the entire country, ending dependence on foreign uranium suppliers.

The United States has 90,000 tons of used commercial nuclear fuel and 600,000 tons of depleted uranium. Combined, those are the equivalent in energy to 4.5 trillion barrels of oil, four times the world’s proven reserves. Used by itself in a fleet of next generation reactors or coupled with all the wind and solar your heart desires, our electric grid becomes carbon free, stable, and reliable for the foreseeable future.

The first governor and first state to jump at this may be able to tap into the $40 billion in cash sitting unspent in a federal fund, built with ratepayer fees, intended for dealing with used commercial nuclear fuel.  Decades of effort have found no politically viable solution and the money accumulates.  Forget disposal and move the focus to recycling.

Virginia is already a major nuclear state, although most Virginians don’t know it. The nuclear fuel used by the Navy is assembled here in Virginia. It is installed in new submarines, new aircraft carriers and carriers being overhauled in Newport News. Nuclear ships have been docked at Norfolk Naval Base for decades now, their reactors never fully turned off.

Will Virginia have the vision or courage to move on this, or will some other state go first?

The pitch is being made to Virginia. An advocacy group has formed and is growing and made its pitch to the Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium about a year before it published that report, which then didn’t mention their idea. They call themselves the Virginia Program Office for Recycling and Disposition of Used/Spent Nuclear Fuel. It is a high falutin’ name but it remains a fairly informal effort.

A former police officer, helicopter pilot and police boat operator who navigated the waters of Long Island sound and New York to perform rescue missions on 9-11, Tom Dolan of Charlottesville, is the Virginia connection. His career advanced into radiation detection and terrorism counter measures. That brought him in contact with Steve Curtis, a nuclear emergency response expert who spent his career in Nevada but now lives in Minnesota. Others with the right technical backgrounds have gotten involved.

There are two main recognized methods for recycling the fuel into new fuel and other products, but one objection to the most common (used by France and others) is the amount of water it requires. So, Dolan and Curtis are pointing to a process recently planned out at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois known as pyroprocessing, using electroplating without the water demand. This is hardly secret stuff. You can watch this for an overview or read a detailed business case here.

With that process, 100 tons of used fuel produces 93 tons of uranium pure enough for fuel use, 2 tons of metal fuel ingots for use in the new fast reactor designs, and five tons of fission byproducts with no current use that need safe storage.  But after pyroprocessing the highly radioactive byproducts need only be stored for a few hundred years rather than a few hundred thousand years, and in the Argonne video they are encapsulated in glass.

That’s the first 100 tons. As mentioned above, multiply that by 900 for the total potential.

Why is the United States sitting on all this energy and pretending it doesn’t exist? The public’s fear and misunderstanding about nuclear energy is deep, with many happy to feed it. The industry’s incredible safety record, especially compared to coal, is unknown. Too well known are recent stalled or failed U.S. commercial nuclear plant construction efforts in Georgia and South Carolina. China, on the other hand, has no such problem and just opened a new plant.

Curtis and Dolan have pitched Southwest Virginia, with its proximity to the nuclear facilities in Tennessee, or Louisa County next to North Anna as possible Virginia locations for such a plant. But they are also in other states regularly seeking the needed capital and courage. One day they may find both.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

98 responses to “Centuries of Energy Already Sitting in Cans”

  1. James Regimbal Avatar
    James Regimbal

    Like I’ve said before, if climate change is such an existential threat to humanity, the environmentalists ought to be clamoring for clean carbon-free nuclear energy.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      I have long felt it is not really climate change, but USA liberal political preferences driving the debate here. That is kind of what Michael Moore was saying (in Planet of the Humans). I think Moore was cancelled after that.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        So if the deniers/skeptics said that they believe there is climate change after all and they support nukes in response to it , that would put the greenies in a bad spot, no?

        But in terms of USA “liberals”, how do we explain the rest of the world?

        1. Steven Curtis Avatar
          Steven Curtis

          I was not aware that all “liberals” thought the same. I could be wrong.

          1. FiendishGOPlardass Avatar
            FiendishGOPlardass

            yes apparently liberals all think the same. All conservatives think the same, also all lefties think the same. Apparently, according to media and experts eg LarrytheG ….

        2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          We have a different brand of extremism. Basic US liberal preference for a 100% digital electric society. NIMBY. Happy to import all things needing actual chemistry to make. Chemophobic extremism. Electrification advocates, even if electrification is not an eco-improvement.

          As I was saying yesterday other civilized societies (EU/Japan) use waste-to-energy for trash. Here it is considered by liberals mass murder and eco-injustice.

        3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          We have a different brand of extremism. Basic US liberal preference for a 100% digital electric society. NIMBY. Happy to import all things needing actual chemistry to make. Chemophobic extremism. Electrification advocates, even if electrification is not an eco-improvement.

          As I was saying yesterday other civilized societies (EU/Japan) use waste-to-energy for trash. Here it is considered by liberals mass murder and eco-injustice.

          1. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            My point is that there no two liberals think the same. It is disingenuous to declare any group label to all think the same, especially “liberals”. I think you will find that many are normal people like you and me and want to know the truth. They are just being led astray by propaganda. My idea is to simply relate the facts and let them make up their own minds. That is my impression of what America is all about.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            yep. It’s only about liberals to those who are themselves biased on the issue.

            The truth is a lot of people have concerns about Nukes, even conservatives and even climate skeptics.

            If there is such a thing as a no-melt-down Nuke – it would assuage the fears of many and lead to wider support and we could start to build more.

            But right now, it sounds like we’re still dealing with 60 year old designs for new starts and that’s a no go for most and a deal killer in terms of new sites being accepted without massive opposition.

            Blaming this in “liberals” is simply not dealing with some realities that have not that much to do with liberals and, in fact, as long as we demonize folks by calling them liberals even when they’re not – will get us nowhere.

          3. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            You brought it up. The best industrial safety record among all energy-producing industries. Doesn’t that sound safe enough?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Nope. There was a little problem in Japan with a plant. It was not the plants fault per se but it well demonstrated what can happen and that event , for those who do deal with realities, significantly undermined the public’s (and govt) confident in the technology.

            Like I said before, come up with a no-melt-down design and the public will get on board. in the meantime, demonizing liberals for the loss of confidence of all people across the political spectrum is just another form of denial.

            Address the issue and we go forward.

          5. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            Great, I will consider you on board with SMRs. Thanks for you support. By the way, nobody died from the reactor incident in Fukushima. So, I would assume that you are on board with nuclear safety of large reactors as well. Again, thanks.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Nope. I do NOT support ANY reactor of the design used at Fukushima that is vulnerable to the kinds of things that can cause a reactor to melt down.

            I’m totally in favor of ANY reactor that, by design, cannot melt down.

            I would support such a reactor at North Anna but from what I can tell, it’s not an SMR that is being contemplated.

            no?

          7. equalunderthelaw Avatar
            equalunderthelaw

            Modern Gen-3+ passively cooled LWRs already directly address the Fukushima issue, i.e. the loss of electricity to powered water pumps cooling the reactor. Future liquid fuel MSRs will eventually be preferred due to their less expensive low pressure design and complete elimination of water coolant issues like sudden steam flashing and production of potentially explosive hydrogen gas. However, the Gen-3+
            passively cooled LWRs can be built now with confidence until even safer and less expensive reactors are ready to build, likely in the mid 2030s.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            So are these modern “no-melt-down” nukes installed and operating on some sites right now?

          9. equalunderthelaw Avatar
            equalunderthelaw

            In the U.S., the first two are the now almost completed Gen-3+ Westinghouse AP1000 reactor Units 3 & 4 at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle nuclear power station, see https://www.georgiapower.com/company/plant-vogtle.html . Both should be turned on this year.

            Full disclosure, this Plant Vogtle build has been an absolute logistical nightmare – Westinghouse was going through a bankruptcy midway resulting in multiple construction firm changes leading to years of delay and billions of dollars of cost overrun. Many factors were at play, but it didn’t help that the U.S. had not built a new nuclear plant in 30 years! So, they basically had to resurrect supply chains and bring work crews up to speed. It was a perfect storm and not exactly a poster child for nuclear new power plant success. However, the silver lining on this cloud is that we now have a revivified infrastructure and trained work crews itching to build a new one, which would have a much greater probability of being completed be on time and on budget.

            On the cutting edge are Gen-4 test reactors working their way through the regulatory process in the U.S. and/or Canada. In the U.S. we have companies like Bill Gates’ backed TerraPower with MCFR (Molten Chloride Fast Reactor) test reactor https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/southern-company-and-terrapower-prep-testing-molten-salt-reactor , Kairos using new TRISO solid fuel plus molten fluoride coolant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee https://www.ans.org/news/article-2461/kairos-power-test-reactor-comes-to-repurposed-oak-ridge-site/

            In Canada, this site shows a bevy of Gen-4 reactor companies’ progress through their regulatory process: https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-licensing-vendor-design-review/#R3

            Nuclear power will never be as sexy as Silicon Valley products, but there is a real vibe of innovation in the nuclear design space that has not existed for decades. Hopefully, many diverse safe, efficient, economical, and minimal waste solutions will emerge from this new emissions-free baseload energy gold rush.

          10. equalunderthelaw Avatar
            equalunderthelaw

            In the U.S., the first two are the now almost completed Gen-3+ Westinghouse AP1000 reactor Units 3 & 4 at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle nuclear power station, see https://www.georgiapower.com/company/plant-vogtle.html . Both should be turned on this year.

            Full disclosure, this Plant Vogtle build has been an absolute logistical nightmare – Westinghouse was going through a bankruptcy midway resulting in multiple construction firm changes leading to years of delay and billions of dollars of cost overrun. Many factors were at play, but it didn’t help that the U.S. had not built a new nuclear plant in 30 years! So, they basically had to resurrect supply chains and bring work crews up to speed. It was a perfect storm and not exactly a poster child for nuclear new power plant success. However, the silver lining on this cloud is that we now have a revivified infrastructure and trained work crews itching to build a new one, which would have a much greater probability of being completed be on time and on budget.

            On the cutting edge are Gen-4 test reactors working their way through the regulatory process in the U.S. and/or Canada. In the U.S. we have companies like Bill Gates’ backed TerraPower with MCFR (Molten Chloride Fast Reactor) test reactor https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/southern-company-and-terrapower-prep-testing-molten-salt-reactor , Kairos using new TRISO solid fuel plus molten fluoride coolant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee https://www.ans.org/news/article-2461/kairos-power-test-reactor-comes-to-repurposed-oak-ridge-site/

            In Canada, this site shows a bevy of Gen-4 reactor companies’ progress through their regulatory process: https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-licensing-vendor-design-review/#R3

            Nuclear power will never be as sexy as Silicon Valley products, but there is a real vibe of innovation in the nuclear design space that has not existed for decades. Hopefully, many diverse safe, efficient, economical, and minimal waste solutions will emerge from this new emissions-free baseload energy gold rush.

          11. China – 4 AP1000, US 2 AP 1000 Under Construction

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            thanks. Then we should be good to go in the USA and I’m all for it.!

      2. FiendishGOPlardass Avatar
        FiendishGOPlardass

        as I recall Planet of the Humans focused on green energy marketing and said very little about nuclear energy.

  2. Sounds like a great opportunity to me. Seriously, I do. Just one question: Where do we put the recycling facility? The only place I figure would be willing to accept it is the far Southwest — as long as it can fit inside an old coal mine!

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      That’s the kind of fear-based nonsense thinking we need to get over. It is just another industrial facility. Logical to put it near a supply of the used fuel and certainly needs good transportation. The used fuel stays put at the commercial reactors, but the used Navy fuel doesn’t stay put. This stuff is moving around already, just not something most people know.

    2. Steven Curtis Avatar
      Steven Curtis

      Actually, the process is safe for putting it anywhere. The prototype ran for 30 years in the desert of Idaho. It is not what the public has been given to understand.

    3. Put it at Dominion’s old Bremo Power Plant. It has excellent rail access via an existing rail siding. It’s also got decent highway access. It’s on Rt 15 about 20 miles south of I-64 and 20 miles north of US 60. They could build the facility on top of the old ash ponds.

      As an added bonus the former power plant has a large, barely used, natural gas line running to it so they’ll be able to make the nitric acid they’ll need on-site.

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200504155154.htm

    4. PickaName Avatar
      PickaName

      Richmond or North Virginia, both are already radioactive

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Good post. I had not heard of the feasibility of recycling “used” nuclear fuel. I thought the country/industry was still looking for a site to deposit the spent fuel rods after Yucca Mountain in Nevada was taken off the table due to political (Harry Reid) considerations.

    You are right. If the feasibility is there, Virginia should jump on this. And environmentalists need to get behind nuclear power. If we can take 100 tons of used fuel, reprocess it, and end up with only 5 tons with no current use and that needs to be stored “only” a few hundred years before it is safe, that is a game changer.

    1. Steven Curtis Avatar
      Steven Curtis

      Actually, the volume changes little (except the mixed ceramics to hold the fission products in place). The time factor is the key. Hundreds of years vs. millions of years. Also, this material is dangerous because energy is coming out of it for free. Do we really think future generations will not be able to safely harness this asset through innovation? Also, after time, it is a treasure trove of rare earth elements and we all know what value they have to modern electronics. Lots of good news, Dick. Thanks.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    I agree this is the correct approach. I think the reason we have avoided it is because we, as a country, argue with countries like Iran that they can’t reprocess spent fuel. We fear they will use it as a cover to refine weapons grade plutonium – which is done through the same process. My understanding is that this is the driver for why the industry avoids it. It clearly is nothing new.

    1. Steven Curtis Avatar
      Steven Curtis

      Actually, the plutonium in commercial slightly used nuclear fuel is not a useful material to make a bomb because of contamination from the wrong isotopes of Pu (which cannot be easily separated). Note that North Korea did not process used nuclear fuel, but started from scratch and made “weapons grade plutonium”. Yes, this is given as a reason for not proceeding, but, like other arguments, it does not stand up to scrutiny.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I don’t think the pyro- process they are pointing at produces weapons grade material. Plenty of other countries are recycling the commercial fuel safely. I have always suspected the brakes are on in the U.S. (for 40 years or more now) because some other vested interest wants to prevent the competition. A lot of regulation is really just an effort to squelch competition.

      1. “I have always suspected the brakes are on in the U.S. (for 40 years or more now) because some other vested interest wants to prevent the competition. ”

        Hmmm. I wonder who would want to do that…

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          🎼🎶 It takes two, Baaby. It takes two. Me & you.

          In October 1976,[8] concern of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On 7 April 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel.

          1. I was thinking more along the lines of fossil fuel power special interests. I think it has more to do with money than with political parties.

          2. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            Plutonium from commercial used nuclear fuel is not nearly an ideal material for a bomb. Jimmy Carter should have known better with his nuclear engineering background. Could he have been swayed by campaign money? Just wondering.

          3. But didn’t president Carter have a “nucular” engineering background? There may be differences…

            🙂

          4. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            “Possible” and “Practical” are two different things. I guarantee none of India’s strategic nuclear weapons use commercially-derived plutonium. It is possible to create so much subsidy support for wind and solar that they become popular, but it is not practical. It is possible to save lives on the highway by restricting the speed limit to 10 mph, but it is not practical. Just two examples. President Carter should have known better with his background in nuclear engineering, but he chose to go against his convictions and follow the money.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        If it’s fissile, a fizzle can be as good as fission, within a range.

        1. Steven Curtis Avatar
          Steven Curtis

          If you are referring to a bomb, nobody has made a bomb from used nuclear fuel for good reason. Please explain what you were trying to say.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, of couse not. It’s always done for bad reason.

          2. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            North Korea made a bomb, but not from used nuclear fuel. They reasoned that it was not feasible with used nuclear fuel, so they started from scratch to make weapons grade Pu. The “good reason” was not to make a bomb, but to use the correct technique and eschew the used nuclear fuel path. I hope you get my point now.

      3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Until a few years ago we (USA) were 70% coal, with a lot more coal planned. Coal was the King. I never thought I’d see the shift away. Democrats loved it wholeheartedly. Me being anti-coal, I was far left of the liberals. Now I am right, and still correct too.

      4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Until a few years ago we (USA) were 70% coal, with a lot more coal planned. Coal was the King. I never thought I’d see the shift away. Democrats loved it wholeheartedly. Me being anti-coal, I was far left of the liberals. Now I am right, and still correct too.

  5. “Centuries of Energy Already Sitting in Cans”

    At first glance I thought the article was going to be about Red Bull.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      No, that would have been “Centuries of Incredibly Deadly Energy Already Sitting in Cans”.

      Or, maybe not.

      1. Steven Curtis Avatar
        Steven Curtis

        Please explain how the extremely well-shielded and protected used nuclear fuel can be any more deadly than coal ash, for instance, which contains more radioactive material than used nuclear fuel and is totally exposed to the atmosphere. Just wondering.

        1. I think you may have missed a joke. Take a look at the post to which he was responding.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    There are a lot of things to agree with on this idea. Reprocessing fuel as I understand it is not without risks – no fear mongering but pretty sure no one in Henrico (for instance) is going to be “ok” with it in their county and the quick “idea” of SW Va probably will probably not go well if SW feels they are the step-child of Virginia. Perhaps with enough economic incentives…eh?

    I still find it curious that it’s the Climate deniers who are the big proponents… ;-). If one does not believe Climate Change is a threat, then clearly nukes ought to be risky compared to good old fossil fuels, eh?

    I’ve long supported Nukes – but not the kind that can melt down and no they do not belong on known earthquake faults.

  7. Ben Slone Avatar
    Ben Slone

    A great under discussed topic. Thank you for publishing.

  8. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Those canisters remind me of the pilot episode for Space 1999. Didn’t turn out so well for Moon Pie Alpha
    https://media.giphy.com/media/qlkQAbUPRRQ1G/giphy.gif

    1. Steven Curtis Avatar
      Steven Curtis

      It looks like you think these canisters can explode like a nuclear bomb. Again, public disinformation that is meant to steer people away from nuclear. This is just a nice story for a science fiction fantasy. It is simply not accurate or remotely possible.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Yeah I know. I love sci fi. On the TV show the radiation from the canisters turned people into zombies. Recycling the fuel does indeed seem like a no brainer. Nuclear energy is always going to have the 3 Mile Island cloud hanging over it.

        1. Steven Curtis Avatar
          Steven Curtis

          I hope so. TMI was a textbook example of how the safety features on a nuclear reactor functioned to save people, even though the equipment was destroyed. Nobody harmed from TMI is a better result than even driving cars or flying on airplanes. Thanks, James. We just have to keep the information chain going to refute decades of misinformation.

    2. A month or so ago I watched a few episodes of that show on one of the “nostalgia channels” offered by Dish. I had forgotten how wooden the acting and how stilted the dialog was in that show – and how disjointed some of the scripts were. The one high point for me was seeing Zienia Merton again- I had a major crush on her when I was 11 years old.

    3. A month or so ago I watched a few episodes of that show on one of the “nostalgia channels” offered by Dish. I had forgotten how wooden the acting and how stilted the dialog was in that show – and how disjointed some of the scripts were. The one high point for me was seeing Zienia Merton again- I had a major crush on her when I was 11 years old.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Season one has a few exceptional episodes. Season Two was a bust unless you are a Catherine Schelling fan. Martin Landau’s middle name is “wooden”.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    There are a lot of things to agree with on this idea. Reprocessing fuel as I understand it is not without risks – no fear mongering but pretty sure no one in Henrico (for instance) is going to be “ok” with it in their county and the quick “idea” of SW Va probably will probably not go well if SW feels they are the step-child of Virginia. Perhaps with enough economic incentives…eh?

    I still find it curious that it’s the Climate deniers who are the big proponents… ;-). If one does not believe Climate Change is a threat, then clearly nukes ought to be risky compared to good old fossil fuels, eh?

    I’ve long supported Nukes – but not the kind that can melt down and no they do not belong on known earthquake faults.

    1. Steven Curtis Avatar
      Steven Curtis

      Well, the nuclear industry enjoys the best industrial safety record of all energy producing industries, especially coal. Aside from Chernobyl, which was conducted on purpose and not really an accident, no person has died from any nuclear meltdown. Isn’t that what safety is all about? Ensuring that accidents do not kill people? We still fly airplanes and drive cars on the highway even these actions kill far more people than nuclear energy. Isn’t pollution-free air worth the fight, even if carbon is not the real problem? Science thrives on deniers as the basis for furthering scientific discussion. Without deniers, we would still be living in caves and waiting for the wheel to come along. Thank God for deniers, they are the ones that are responsible for all innovation. If Henrico people do not want to benefit, there are many other places this could go. The first customer gets all the benefits ($40 billion to solve this problem is a lot of benefit)

        1. Steven Curtis Avatar
          Steven Curtis

          We know this. Do we just stop trying? Or do we just push the economic benefit somewhere else.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        So gas is cleaner than another other fuel and cheaper if we have to set aside land to store nuke waste?

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “Thank God for deniers, they are the ones that are responsible for all innovation.”

        What? Yeah, denying the world was flat, denying the Church did bring an end to the Dark Ages. Yeah, I suppose if you mean denying dogma over investigation, then yes, denying brings innovation.

        But wait! Climate change deniers rely on dogma.

        1. Steven Curtis Avatar
          Steven Curtis

          Dogma is defined as what a political bloc believes is the truth. This implies a religion in which blind faith drives your belief instead of any objective discussion. It also implies that there are other dogmas equally believing the opposite.
          So, yes, climate change is based on dogma. Let’s let cogent, logical discussion enter into the discussion. This is the only way to come to a solution that lets humans move on and live their lives with less concocted fear. That is what I pray for.

    2. “If one does not believe Climate Change is a threat, then clearly nukes ought to be risky compared to good old fossil fuels, eh?”

      No. Not at all. Fossil fuels have other, inherent, risks associated with them. Many more people have died in coal mining accidents than in accidents related to nuclear power plants.

      PS – Just to be clear, I am not a “climate denier”.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        I’m not a climate denier — I’m an ‘end of the world is nigh’ denier. But I have no problem with nuclear power and this stash of ready energy already exists, and “disposal” of something so valuable seems really stupid. We’re good at stupid.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Yes. BUT, If someone is a heavy skeptic of climate change and feels that fossil fuels are not damaging to the environment – then why support more nukes if fossil fuels will get the job done and Nukes are “hard” to do anyhow?

          I totally accept the idea that those who say they ARE believers of climate change – have to advocate for SOMETHING if they are opposed to coal and gas – that’s on them.

          but the deniers who like fossil fuels ? why Nukes and why claim they are “better” for the environment if fossil fuels don’t harm it?

          1. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            OK. What about pollution? This kills millions every year NOW. There is plenty of evidence of this. So, why do we argue? If you believe in Climate Change, you are saving the world in 50 years, if you don’t you are saving lives now. Seems like we do not even need the discussion, but we do need nuclear power. Fossil fuels are better than no power at all (ask anyone), so they will be with us until a clean air solution is found. Again, simple. Pass all the laws you want, but no politician will cut off power to anyone. You cannot legislate physics or human nature with any success. Nukes are very easy to do, just look at the track record for the last 6+ decades. Remember, heavily subsidized wind and solar are being paid for by the public, just not on their power bill. Let’s let the market decide in a free enterprise system. If you want to subsidize clean energy, subsidize it all the same so you do not create a Government monopoly. Try to find the real cost of wind and solar. It is very hidden, but very expensive. “Pay me now, or pay me later” as the saying goes.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so nukes are subsidized , right? If they cost more than gas – then we should use gas?

          3. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            not sure what you mean here. Gas is not clean energy, but nukes are.

          4. I told you why,Larry. Even if neither coal nor nukes damaged the environment in any way, nuclear energy is safer for humans than coal.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            If coal did not pollute, Nukes would still be safer? Okay… how so?

          6. How many people have died in nuclear power-related accidents in the United States? Just to be fair, I’ll include uranium mining accidents. The Department of Labor web-site lists one, in May of 2010. That’s it. I cannot find a record at the Labor Department web-site of any fatal accidents at a nuclear power plants in the U.S. I may investigate further because I find it hard to believe there has never been a fatal work-related accident at a nuke plant, but there cannot have been very many or the Labor department would have a category for it.

            How many people have died in coal power-related accidents in the United States? Since 1950, Department of Labor says 10,943 coal mining related deaths in the U.S. There were many, many, more before then, but I used 1950 for comparison purposes because that is the approximate beginning of the “nuclear age”. Since not all mined coal is used to produce electricity, let’s reduce that number by, say, 25% (which is actually quite conservative). That still means 8,207 coal-mining-related deaths, or 115 per year. And that’s just mining deaths, not other coal-industry-related deaths.

            How many people have died in natural gas and shale oil related accidents in the United States? This one was harder to pin down. I could not find any long-term history on it. The best number I’ve found is from the CDC: 1,189 during the period 2003 and 2013, which means about 108 per year. Again, just mining/collection deaths, not other industry related deaths.

            Does that answer your question?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            not completely. Are we talking about industrial accidents related to extraction, manufacturing etc for the various different kinds of generation or are we talking about deaths from pollution?

            Finally, with Nukes, the question is the risk of it melting down – far more risk than with other generation and enough of a potential that the private sector will not fully insure damages from Nuclear plants.

            It’s sorta ironic that we have deniers/skeptics discounting the risk of real climate change playing out verses support for nukes not based on a similar risk perspective. Or am I all wet?

          8. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            We had one melt-down in 6 decades of nuclear power operation and NO casualties. I guess this is hard to wrap your mind around. Next generation reactors are designed so they cannot melt down under any circumstances. Carbon levels in the atmosphere has killed NOBODY, yet pollution kills millions per year. Why are you so focused on carbon? It is nice for you to parrot what you have heard, but please try to justify your position with your own words.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            We had Fukushima which clearly demonstrated the RISK and we have a nuke sitting on a fault and still folks advocating for a 3rd! Is that smart?

            “Next generation reactors are designed so they cannot melt down under any circumstances. ”

            Is that what is being proposed for the new ones like North Anna 3?

            “Carbon levels in the atmosphere has killed NOBODY, yet pollution kills millions per year. Why are you so focused on carbon? It is nice for you to parrot what you have heard, but please try to justify your position with your own words.”

            I’m not “focused” on it. I accept the science just like I accepted the science on ozone holes where some folks wondered if CFCs could cause harm.

            Are you saying that fossil fuels emit pollution that kill people – coal and gas?

          10. Nukes still win out over fossil fuels even if the subject is deaths from pollution.

          11. Tom Dolan Avatar
            Tom Dolan

            Please visit https://virginia-recycles-snf.com/if-interesting-facts/ to see the Tollfrom Coal Section and the other related Energy related disasters and minning accidents there and a vast amount of other information.

          12. To be fair to the coal industry, annual coal mining deaths have declined by an order of magnitude since the 1950s. But your larger point stands.

          13. You are correct. Coal mine deaths in the U.S. have been continually declining for several decades. Coal-mining deaths dropped below 200 per year in 1971. By 1985 there were fewer than 100 deaths per year, by 2007 the numbers had dropped below 50 deaths per year, and they have been below 25 per year every year since since 2011.

          14. You are correct. Coal mine deaths in the U.S. have been continually declining for several decades. Coal-mining deaths dropped below 200 per year in 1971. By 1985 there were fewer than 100 deaths per year, by 2007 the numbers had dropped below 50 deaths per year, and they have been below 25 per year every year since since 2011.

          15. You are correct. Coal mine deaths in the U.S. have been continually declining for several decades. Coal-mining deaths dropped below 200 per year in 1971. By 1985 there were fewer than 100 deaths per year, by 2007 the numbers had dropped below 50 deaths per year, and they have been below 25 per year every year since since 2011.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Why? Because we have such a great history in handling toxic chemicals? The process creates more problems than it solves, and this country has proven it can’t handle it. Solid waste is one thing, liquids quite another.

      1. Steven Curtis Avatar
        Steven Curtis

        What liquid? Used nuclear fuel is completely solid throughout its entire lifetime. Please explain.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          In recycling the chemically extract the various components using acid washes, etc., creating a slurry of all sorts of deadly crap… in a liquid base.

          1. Steven Curtis Avatar
            Steven Curtis

            Not with pyroprocessing or liquid fuel techniques in fast reactors. Chemicals are reused in pyroprocessing and used nuclear fuel is simply dissolved into the liquid salt coolant in the liquid fuel technique. If you want to know more, there are plenty of references for these techniques, but you will not learn them unless you read or talk to experts in the field. We are happy to help if you really want to learn, but cannot help if you stick to your current belief. You simply cannot help people who do not want help. Let me know if you need help finding out what really can happen and I will help steer you to the right place.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Well, we actually have an atrocious record. We have Superfund sites all over the country. And we cannot agree on WHO will take all the nuclear waste to store and so we leave it at the nuke sites where we said originally it was unsafe to do so long term. And few of the proponents admit the risk of terror attacks on nukes…. With drones, it’s now possible to easily penetrate the security perimeters. Finally, no one wants the waste storage nor a new Nuke where they live. Even the proponents want them “away”.

    4. By the way, Larry, “climate change” and “pollution” are not synonymous. You should stop conflating the two.

      It is possible to recognize that burning fossil fuels causes more air pollution than does splitting atoms without also believing that man is the “A#1” prime-mover behind changes to the planet’s climate.

      1. Steven Curtis Avatar
        Steven Curtis

        Of course man is causing lots of problems for the planet. It is human nature. Go figure. Nevertheless, chastising people will never change their minds. You must convince people to change their own minds. That is just the way it is. I know you and me and everyone else wants our own comfort over other consideration. Just ask the Texas people who had their electricity cut off and charged thousands of dollars for a few days of supply how much they care about where the power comes from if it becomes unavailable. Be honest, people care more about having electric power first. The “how” is only debated if power is constantly supplied.

  10. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Exciting times!

    My brother, a retired CAPTAIN and lifelong Republican, told me he just completed his Pfizer regimen AND registered as an Independent on this day.

    Next Thanksgiving will be great! Political discussion and a turkey will be on the table again! Religion next. The only thing that could make it the greatest Thanksgiving ever is if the USNA plays ND. Then, I can watch him writhing in torn loyalty.

  11. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Not sure that I see the relevance of this post. Of course fuel rods can be recycled. In the early 1980s, I did a story about a facility in South Carolina that did just that. The larger point is that there has been a glut of uranium for years. It is one reason why uranium mining in Southside never got off the ground. If there’s a global uranium glut, why spend the money on more reprocessing?

    https://seekingalpha.com/article/4407781-ura-uranium-rally-may-be-getting-ahead-of

    1. “If there’s a global uranium glut, why spend the money on more reprocessing?”

      Really? We have plenty of it right now so there is no need to pursue recycling, conservation or greater efficiency? That same gluttonous attitude is derided by “the left” when the subject is fossil fuels, timbering, wildlife management and a host of other “progressive” conservation efforts.

    2. Your linked article, Peter, makes precisely the opposite point from what you say about it. Raw uranium prices are already high, from a “cheap energy”point of view, and expected to skyrocket over the next few years as dozens of new Chinese nuclear plants come on line (yes, the Chinese are aware of what fossil fuels are doing to their own atmosphere, not to mention they need all the electricity they can generate from any source). Steve is absolutely correct, we need uranium fuel recycling and new nuclear plants too.

      1. Peter Galuszka Avatar
        Peter Galuszka

        Yes, Acbar, I should have hedged by saying it could change, which is why I included the Seeking Alpha thing. I have been slammed this morning. But the point remains that uranium prices have been in the dumps for what? Twenty years? I bet it would be very risky for investors to jump in with funding for new reprocessing at the moment. And, the South Carolina nuclear plant failed because if huge cost overruns. If the Chinese go strongly nuclear, that would change global market dynamics, obviously. If they do, it undercuts the argument of climate change deniers that anything we do here to stem carbon emissions will be undercut by China’s emission. Just say’in.

        1. “… it undercuts the argument of climate change deniers that anything we do here to stem carbon emissions will be undercut by China’s emission. ”

          Indeed it does. Yet another reason for us to stay ahead of the Chinese on nuclear power generation.

    3. “If there’s a global uranium glut, why spend the money on more reprocessing?”

      Really? We have plenty of it right now so there is no need to pursue recycling, conservation or greater efficiency? That same gluttonous attitude is derided by “the left” when the subject is fossil fuels, timbering, wildlife management and a host of other “progressive” conservation efforts.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I think it’s a real question. If there is no need for more fuel – why recycle it? Who would pay the costs of doing that if there was no market for it?

      2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
        Peter Galuszka

        I’m not talking about attitudes on “the left” but cold, hard economics.What killed coal? Fracking for gas. Gas prices dropped for a while from about $8 mmBTU to about $2 mmBTU.

Leave a Reply