Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nuclear Trashmen Profit From Unprecedented US Reactor Shutdowns

Soulskill posted 1 year,27 days | from the all-about-the-radioactive-benjamins dept.

Power 74

mdsolar sends this quote from Bloomberg: "More than 50 years into the age of nuclear energy, one of the biggest growth opportunities may be junking old reactors. Entergy Corp. (ETR) said Aug. 27 it will close its 41-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in 2014, making the reactor the fifth unit in the U.S. marked for decommissioning within the past 12 months, a record annual total. Companies that specialize in razing nuclear plants and hauling away radioactive waste are poised to benefit. Disposal work is 'where companies are going to make their fortune,' Margaret Harding, an independent nuclear-industry consultant based in Wilmington, North Carolina, said in an phone interview. Contractors that are usually involved in building reactors ... 'are going to be looking very hard at the decommissioning side of it.' [T]he U.S. nuclear fleet of 104 units is shrinking, even as Southern Co. and Scana Corp. build two units each. ... During a reactor decommissioning, the plant operator transfers radioactive fuel rods to cooling pools and, ultimately, to so-called dry casks for storage. Workers clean contaminated surfaces by sandblasting, chemical sprays and hydrolasing, a process that involves high-pressure water blasts, according to King. 'You do get to a point that you need someone to come in that has the equipment and the technology to actually dismantle the components,' she said. 'That typically is hired out.'"

cancel ×

74 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One man's garbage (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760617)

Is another man's gold.

Re:One man's garbage (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760739)

Is another man's gold.

Yeah, but those other men are being turned back [theguardian.com] when they try to do the right thing for our society.

It's funny, if you read that article, how Branson criticizes the 1994 cuts as mistaken while those men who did so have benefited grandly from doing so.

Re:One man's garbage (0, Troll)

nospam007 (722110) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761207)

"Is another man's gold."

It's an other man's steel, since lots of radioactive steel parts end up in the scrap line for being smelted for new cars and stuff.

They catch most of them but not all.

Re:One man's garbage (3, Interesting)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762149)

I call bullshit. I work in the nuclear power industry. The amount of screening and safeguards in place to prevent a single contaminated Kleenex from getting offsite is beyond belief. And by "contaminated" I mean something that might have a millirem's worth of stuff on it, not something seriously crapped up like you're hinting at. To intimate that substantial hunks of contaminated metals might systematically get offsite and somehow get smelted into a consumer product is so ridiculous as to be easily dismissed. Can you cite an example of "lots of radioactive steel parts" becoming cars?

Re: One man's garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44762769)

I second the BS call. Steel makers are highly motivated to prevent use of radioactive scrap, so every load approaching the plant is scanned using excessively sensitive sensors.

Re:One man's garbage (1, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763251)

Can you cite an example of "lots of radioactive steel parts" becoming cars?

The Goiania Incident [wikipedia.org] came close. The radioactive waste was stolen and sold to a scrapyard, and the only thing that prevented it from being recycled into new steel was that the scrapyard workers started dying.

Re:One man's garbage (2)

operagost (62405) | 1 year,26 days | (#44765671)

Well, that was Brazil and the radioactive material was from an X-ray machine, not a power plant. So, not "close".

Re:One man's garbage (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | 1 year,23 days | (#44789483)

Your example is so ridiculous I'm tempted to ignore it, but perhaps you can benefit from a little criticism here. The incident you cite has nothing to do with recycling irradiated metals into consumer products. A derelict hospital was broken into by thieves who stole a container of radioactive material that had been *illegally* abandoned. This in no way backs up your assertion that "lots of radioactive steel parts end up in the scrap line for being smelted for new cars and stuff." It doesn't even come close. It's not even in the same general area, Hell it's not even in the same *galaxy* of reason as your original assertion. So, you fail. Epic fail. Public Epic Fail at that.

Re:One man's garbage (1)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763519)

Can you cite an example of "lots of radioactive steel parts" becoming cars?

Not in the US, and not cars but here are references to elevator buttons http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/10/22/oukoe-uk-france-lifts-radioactive-idUKTRE49L69320081022 [reuters.com] And belt buckles. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/29/asos_investigation_into_radioactive_belts_demonstrates_scrap_metal_problem.html [slate.com] Bonus link to the EPA http://www.epa.gov/radtown/orphan-sources.html [epa.gov]

Not BS (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763657)

Yes, in the USA there are plenty of regulations. In the USA, they usually are pretty effective. However, the energy plant industry is not the only industry working with materials that emit nuclear radiation. Most large scrap merchants actually have Geiger counters set up to pick out radio active materials coming in on their yards permanently. Scrap gets moved all over the planet and on a global scale, dozens of "misplaced" items get found yearly that have a radiation dose that is actually dangerous to people that get near it for a few hours or more.

Having perfect regulations is only part of the solution. The other part is getting all humans involved to actually follow the regulations in the entire chain. People make mistakes and bend the rules because it's less work if you don't do all those checks. Most often, this does not lead to things going wrong, but we all know how publicly published incidents at nuclear reactors happen. The same applies for waste handling and disposal. Apart from that, once you get to countries and/or individuals that don't really have all that much of a morale, they may choose to knowingly mess with the paperwork and sell radioactive scrap as normal steel, once they shred it to little bits and "diluted" it with non-radio active materials. There's a good reason for those geiger tellers at scrap merchants, it's a well known trick and it happens often enough to warrant this sort of safeguards.

Re:Not BS (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | 1 year,23 days | (#44789523)

once they shred it to little bits and "diluted" it with non-radio active materials.

Once you "dilute" materials as you describe, they can pass the detectors with little chance of being detected. And if the radioactivity is that low after being "diluted" then by definition it's low enough to be of negligible danger to any consumer product it might make its way into.

It's also worth noting that in the above post citing elevator buttons and belt buckles, neither item emitted enough radiation to be dangerous. In each case, the dose was so low as to be negligible. People need to keep in mind they're exposed to radiation *everywhere*, *everyday*. You get around 3mSV annually just from background sources and nobody is screaming about that, yet here we are worrying about an elevator button that *might* expose you to 1mSV if you licked it every single day for a year.

Perspective, folks. Perspective.

Re:One man's garbage (1)

Mashiki (184564) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761221)

Is another man's gold.

You're spot on with that, I used to work for a company that sold hydraulic and metal band saws to the US military for the decommissioning of ICBM's, and cutting the components into scrap. Each saw sold for $8k-148k, and were only used at one site before they were coffined as hazardous waste.

Re:One man's garbage (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762731)

Actually, the thought that came to my mind was, "Where there's muck, there's brass."

Re:One man's garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44762955)

Eee lad, thee and me!

sorry (2)

X0563511 (793323) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760631)

Can you repeat that? I was busy marveling at how excellent a name "Nuclear Trashmen" would be for a punk band.

Re:sorry (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761111)

Post-post-apocalyptic

The pickup truck said ... (1)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760657)

... Sanford and Son.

'That typically is hired out.'" (3, Insightful)

Kaenneth (82978) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760665)

... to the lowest bidder.

Oh yes, store the waste (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44760673)

That stuff needs to be stored for a couple of thousand years. Long term it's actually much safer to rework it into fuel, use it, rework it some more, use it as fuel, and so on, until there's nothing left. Consequence of having started this party. But long term vision isn't something the USA brand Democratic Republic can be trusted with. And so they're buggering off early and stick future generations with an unpayable bill.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (3, Insightful)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760735)

If only there was a central geologically stable and dry place where we could store the waste while we work things out.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760813)

France doesn't have a Yucca mountain (yet [wikipedia.org] ) but they manage to do fuel reprocessing.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

nojayuk (567177) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763985)

They don't have enough waste for it to be worth constructing a deep geological repository as yet. It's one of the benefits of reprocessing spent fuel, reducing the volume and mass of actual waste needing to be stored which helps offset the cost of doing it.

Finland of all places is building one of the first deep repositories [wikipedia.org] for unreprocessed spent fuel from power stations. Total cost for constructing and operating a facility expected to store about 100 years of spent fuel from several reactors is about $1 billion. It's already paid for from a levy on electricity generated by the existing operational reactors which has raised about $1.3 billion up till now.

BTW the US is already storing high-level nuclear waste in a salt-mine geological repository in New Mexico, the WIPP [wikipedia.org] . It's for defence-related waste not for commercial power stations though.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (4, Informative)

Tailhook (98486) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760877)

If only we had planned ahead and fully funded [wikipedia.org] waste disposal we might be able to do something about all of this.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

acidradio (659704) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762107)

Can't we just store it in somewhere like Detroit? I mean they have the space, it's cheap, nobody seems to go there and they sure could use the jobs!

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (3, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760971)

If only there was a central geologically stable and dry place where we could store the waste while we work things out.

I say the moon, but... well, you know.

Space Nazis.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761051)

Whew! Thought for a moment you were going to bring up quasi-futuristic asymmetrical clothing design.

Shooting it into the Sun... (1)

Grog6 (85859) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762099)

Is the proper long term solution.

It will get there anyway in a few billion years, as the Earth is enveloped in the outer layers of the expanding Red Giant our sun is to become. :)

The only issue with that plan is the eventual "Launch Failure", probably over an unfriendly country. :o

Shit goes downhill fast from there, regardless of intent. :(

The Nevada site is the best available site in the country; everything south of the Mason Dixon line will be abandoned in the next century due to Global Warming anyway. :)

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (3, Insightful)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762163)

We don't *need* to "work things out." We already *have* them worked out. You burn your actinides in a breeder reactor until all that's left is negligibly dangerous. You get more power out of a given unit of fuel and you end up with far less waste. What's not to like? Oh, I forgot...the Carter Era put an end to that due to "proliferation concerns." Yeah, we can't have nasty dictators in places like Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan getting nuclear weapons... ...oh, wait...

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | 1 year,27 days | (#44764025)

That has nothing to do with Carter. Breeder reactors are notoriously difficult to operate. I know only one commercial breeding reactor that is still operational and it was built in the USSR.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | 1 year,23 days | (#44789441)

That has nothing to do with Carter. Breeder reactors are notoriously difficult to operate. I know only one commercial breeding reactor that is still operational and it was built in the USSR.

Perhaps you're unaware of the concepts of cause and effect. Had breeder reactor technology been pursued vigorously *then* it would be much less difficult to operate *now*. Besides, dealing with the waste products from light water reactors is also "notoriously difficult" in case you hadn't noticed. I'd rather deal with the "difficult" option that produces power rather than instead of the one that produces a hundred thousand years worth of dangerous radioactivity.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (4, Insightful)

cnaumann (466328) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760995)

There will always be something left. There are a few isotopes of caesium, iodine and a few other elements that have a medium half life (10-100 years), that are biologically active, and have a TINY neutron cross section. The medium half life means they will be around a long time (thousands of years) and will be quite dangerous for that time. Biologically active means that your body will absorb them and concentrate them. The small neutron cross section means that you CANNOT burn them up in a reactor. Long term storage is the only (safe) option for getting rid of materials. Every nuclear fuel cycle produces these, even the much-hyped liquid salt reactors.

Safe long-term storage of waste is not technically difficult. It is politically difficult and distracts from the real danger of nuclear power. The real danger of nuclear power is the almost unfathomable cost of a reactor accident. Not in terms of lives lost, but in terms of property damage. Imagine for a minute the implications of a Fukishima type accident at a US site on a major river. Every city downstream of the accident would have to be evacuated.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761893)

Yep, there is no insurance company in the world that will cover anyone for a nuclear accident. Reactors are normally underwritten by the state who in the case of an accident might give you a caravan to live in (if you're lucky). Same thing with riots and "civil disorder", if a bunch of arsehole protesters smash up your shop because they are pissed at someone else then your insurance company isn't going to pay for it. The reason that insurance companies routinely refuse to cover those things is because they can't quantify the risk.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

nojayuk (567177) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763815)

"Yep, there is no insurance company in the world that will cover anyone for a nuclear accident."

Wrong. The US reactor operators carry commercial insurance up to about $10 billion per reactor site (most sites run two or more reactors). It's a sinecure for the insurers, lots of money in premiums and a very low risk they'll ever have to pay out anything. The government carries the load after $10 billion in the same way they're paying $50 billion after Superstorm Sandy trashed the New England coast and overwhelmed the local insurance market's ability to pay out, even when they try to weasel with "Act of God" clauses. Other nations operating nuclear reactors have the same sort of insurance deals in place.

Commercial insurers are covering the cost of the Three Mile Island incident, for example, having paid out a few hundred million bucks up to now. A lot of the payouts have gone to deal with nuisance lawsuits, nothing to do with coping with the damage to the reactor.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763057)

The real danger of nuclear power is the almost unfathomable cost of a reactor accident

Well, the Fukushima accident was quite fathomable. About $10 billion though it might go up a little with the new leak problem.

Imagine for a minute the implications of a Fukishima type accident at a US site on a major river.

Well, that probably would be less just due to the much cheaper value of US land.

Every city downstream of the accident would have to be evacuated.

Or they could just tell people not to swim in the river or drink the water for a few weeks. Maybe not eat the fish for a while.

The small neutron cross section means that you CANNOT burn them up in a reactor.

But it also means these particular isotopes aren't poisoning your fission reaction in the first place. So no reason to take them out of the fuel rod unless you have a better use for them (say in nuclear batteries or RTGs).

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

blindseer (891256) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763243)

If it's radioactive then it is fuel. It may not be high quality fuel but the decay of those radioactive elements will add to the heat output of the reactor. I recall that it's somewhere between 5% and 20% of the heat output of a contemporary nuclear reactor comes from the short and medium half life fission products. Given that nuclear reactors are already designed to contain radioactive materials for something on the order of decades it seems to make sense to put these radioactive materials into reactors. Not only is the problem contained it adds to the power output of the fuel. We do not have to bury the fission products any more. The so called "need" to bury the stuff is based on an old policy against reprocessing of fuels, which was based on an unfounded fear of diverting spent fuel towards weapons production. Policy makers, engineers, and scientists have realized that making bigger and bigger piles of radioactive junk is a real bad idea, especially if the fear is of someone getting a hold of the stuff to make weapons.

Your estimation on the cost of a nuclear reactor accident also seems to be based on old concepts and old reactor designs. The reactors at Fukishima were generation one and two designs. These required powered safety systems, enriched fuels, and are therefore prone to runaway reactions. Third and fourth generation, and even advanced second generation, reactors do not require power to shut down safely. These newer designs also do not require enriched fuel. If we put the enriched "spent" fuel from older reactors, even if diluted with the fission product "waste", into a modern reactor we'd be able to burn up that stuff and turn it into energy. New designs cannot have runaway fission like old designs. If containment is lost then fission with end. No fission means no more fission products or heat is produced. Without zirconium metals or graphite in the reactor means plain ordinary water can be dumped on the reactor without the fear of feeding or spreading a fire.

In addition I believe the damage from the failure of Fukishima is overblown. It seems to me that the desire to contain the radioactive materials from the damaged power plant is counter productive, they are putting more people at risk than they have to by this policy. I believe they should work on a method of controlled release of the materials into the ocean. The ocean is already radioactive, adding a little bit more can't hurt. Hastily constructing containment pools, and piling up soluble radioactive materials, is just asking for that crap to get released into the environment in the next earthquake, storm, or tsunami.

Maybe they need to find a few old oil tankers, fill them up with all the radioactive crap, float them out to the deepest ocean crevice that they can find, and sink them. What doesn't get diluted on the way down in an unfathomable amount of seawater will get buried in sediment.

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763593)

Not to detract from anything else in your post, but my understanding of the Fukushima nuclear incident is that the problem wasn't so much that the reactors didn't shut down or that there were runaway nuclear reactions, but rather that there wasn't enough cooling. As I remember it, the reactors shut down just fine as soon as the earthquake hit, but the aftermath of that earthquake caused such a great disaster that it was difficult to get power to the cooling systems and emergency cooling equipment to the site. Do I misremember?

Re:Oh yes, store the waste (1)

blindseer (891256) | 1 year,26 days | (#44771995)

You recall correctly. I should add a disclaimer here as I do not wish to misrepresent my knowledge of the situation. I am not a nuclear engineer, I am an electrical engineer. I have some knowledge of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamic that applies to power plant operation but no intimate knowledge of Fukushima or any specific nuclear reactor, just general knowledge of how they work. With that out of the way...

Fukushima is (or perhaps more accurately, was) like most every nuclear power plant operating today. The reactor core is made of metals, which will begin to melt at somewhere around 2000C, and concrete, which will decompose at about 600C. The normal operating temperature is likely to be in the 300C to 450C range. Should cooling be lost the reactor temperature will rise. Even with the fission stopped by the control systems the fission products will still decay and produce a non-trivial amount of power. No cooling and the temperature will almost certainly rise to the point where the materials holding it together will fail.

Fukushima required active cooling to prevent this melt down. They had the primary pumps that ran off the steam from the reactors. There was emergency cooling that ran off electricity. There was most certainly a system or several for the conditions in between the two. With the primary pumps down because the reactor was not operating there was only the secondary systems operating. These needed electricity to operate. The tsunami knocked out the grid power and the on-site backup generators. What remained was battery power.

When the batteries ran out things got hot. Hot enough to disassociate water and melt most steels, over 2000C. The water not only boiled it broke down into hydrogen and oxygen. With all this stuff breaking down because of the heat the fuel would fall away from the control systems and pile up on the bottom of the reactor. It piled high enough that critical mas would be reached with the enriched uranium and some fission would occur. This makes things hotter.

This pile of hot fuel would burn through the metal and concrete until it melted and mixed with enough of that metal and concrete that it no longer had critical mass. My use of the words "runaway reactions" was a poor choice. The fission that occurs after loss of coolant didn't runaway like the "China Syndrome" myth but it was most certainly uncontrolled.

Modern reactor designs avoid this meltdown by using things like convective cooling, gravity fed cooling, unenriched fuel, and materials with more favorable thermal qualities. I've been doing some self study on molten salt reactors and there are some very nice safety features. One is a "freeze plug" that will melt and drain the liquid reactor fuel into tanks designed to prevent fission, and can be cooled with passive methods should temperatures get too high. Another safety feature is that the liquid fuel will boil away before the containment materials will melt. This is a last resort safety as we don't want radioactive gases floating into the atmosphere but this would be preferable to uncontrolled fission boiling away all the coolant and burning its way through the containment structure.

No miracle needed (1)

roguegramma (982660) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760711)

1. build reactor 2. decommision reactor 3. profit

Re:No miracle needed (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761249)

1. build reactor 2. decommision reactor 3. profit

One and two look good. But isn't it supposed to be:

3. ???

4. Profit.

You can't go messing with the natural order of things.

Wait (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44760717)

I'm given to understand that the plants are never cleaned up. They're left to contaminate everything forever for profits. So there can't be anyone employed to do this work.

How shocking! (2)

Medievalist (16032) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760727)

Nuclear plants have to be decommissioned? Just like the builders and designers said, and just like (supposedly) was budgeted for in advance? That's horrible!

It's the damn Greens, I tell you. Dirty hippies making corporations keep their promises are ruining America!

Re:How shocking! (1)

WarJolt (990309) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760807)

Dirty hippies making corporations keep their promises are ruining America!

The government licenses every nuclear power plant. If the power company doesn't have a decommissioning fund then blame the government for not effectively regulating them.

Re:How shocking! (4, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762135)

The companies who built the reactors payed into a government fund upfront, according to a WP link someone posted above there is currently $25 billion in the fund. I don't think $25 billion is going to clean up the mess but it's a start and also a strong sign that those companies were willing to put their money where their mouth was.

The US had a very advantageous head start on the nuclear industry but lost it in the 70's/80's when a couple of European countries started doing it properly by establishing a regulatory "life cycle" for reactors, their foresight turned nuclear power into a clean and stable industry in their own nations. America's lack of foresight, enthusiasm for instant profit, and general disregard for the environment, turned a new industry into a massively expensive white elephant. I was a teenager in the 70's, IIRC even way back then plenty of people were warning the US that it would end like this.

Same thing is happening now with America's attitude to AGW. As a species we are burning over 5 billion tons of coal a year, that's right 5 BILLION tons There still exists a huge opportunity to replace coal with a power source that doesn't fuck up the planet for everyone, from where I sit on the other side of the Pacific the US senate in particular seems determined to kill those opportunities and ensure that the "green energy" industry is stillborn.

Re:How shocking! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762279)

Seriously? US coal burning scares you that much? Do you have a heart attack when you bother to look at the nasty ass cloud from CHINA that is hundreds of times worse or does that magically get ignored?

Re:How shocking! (1)

Medievalist (16032) | 1 year,25 days | (#44777293)

The companies who built the reactors payed into a government fund upfront, according to a WP link someone posted above there is currently $25 billion in the fund. I don't think $25 billion is going to clean up the mess but it's a start and also a strong sign that those companies were willing to put their money where their mouth was.

Bush/Cheney gave the 18 companies who failed to pay a complete pass on prosecution. So I don't expect any more payments into the decommissioning fund.

From Brooklyn (2)

RandomUsername99 (574692) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760759)

“Hey Folks, we’re the Nuclear Trashmen, we’re here on tour from Brooklyn, promoting our album release. This is our thirteenth show, first with this lineup. This is a song called half life.”

Re:From Brooklyn (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44761067)

"Ah well everybody's heard of the atomic bird..."

Re:From Brooklyn (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44762551)

Ba-ba-ba-bird, bird, ba-ba ba-bird...

Re:From Brooklyn (1)

Hobadee (787558) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761253)

Half-Life was meant to be a trilogy of songs... Sadly the 3rd will never be heard.

Re:From Brooklyn (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | 1 year,26 days | (#44764711)

Man, you should see the bass guitarist. She's a smoking hot plutonium blonde.

Sounds Dangerous (-1, Flamebait)

Russ1642 (1087959) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760787)

I wouldn't go near an operation that involves transporting a used reactor core. Don't trust private companies out to make a profit doing extremely dangerous work. They just will never have safety anywhere near the top of their priority list. I like to keep my skin non-bubbly.

Re:Sounds Dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44761043)

Umm. I think you missed something somewhere. Yes it's dangerous, but if you don't leave it to a private company who will do it? A public one? Have you ever been to DMV? How about Social Security, Welfare, or CPS? Would you really trust THEM to do a better job. No no. I'll tell you how to get it done safely. Tell the contractor of the winning bid that the CEO himself has to be directly involved. At least that way if they screw it up the one who made the most money off of it has just as much skin in the game as anyone else.

Re:Sounds Dangerous (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761087)

Um... Who does extremely dangerous work today? The gov't? Who makes and manufactures almost all nuclear materials in the U.S. and designs safety processes and equipment?

Re:Sounds Dangerous (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761369)

People manage to build skyscrapers and bridges, and dig huge mines without a massive loss of life. The threat of OSHA fines and private lawsuits actually does put safety at the top of their priority list.

So much for the future, eh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44760819)

Ah... Electrical power too cheap to meter, offices on the Moon, colonies on Mars... How's the dream working out for ya?

Re:So much for the future, eh? (1, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761833)

Ah... Electrical power too cheap to meter, offices on the Moon, colonies on Mars... How's the dream working out for ya?

Not too well, since it was abandoned due to dipshit obstructionists obsessed with pushing agendas like mathematically PERFECT safety EVERYWHERE at ANY expense, nothing but pretty flowers and butterflies anywhere near MY backyard, out of control religious environmentalism, demonizing the population at large as potential terrorists, and so on and so on, ad nauseum. Oh, and continuous warfare as a way of life, funded by diverting vast sums which could otherwise go toward making that dream come true.

Re:So much for the future, eh? (4, Insightful)

mdsolar (1045926) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762511)

Or, maybe the dreamers just had a hard time keeping a positive attitude and started getting blamey when the technology turned out to be clumsy, dangerous and unworkable.

A lot of that waste will end up in Tennessee (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44760905)

Where they ALLOW low level nuclear waste to be disposed of in municipal landfills. Check out Studsvik on Wikipedia.

Re:A lot of that waste will end up in Tennessee (2)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761861)

ZOMG OHNOES!!! The entire earth was created as a low level nuclear dump. Reality. What is the threshold for where low level stops scaring you? One bequerel? One trillionth of natural background? Just asking.

Well, good! (5, Interesting)

Antipater (2053064) | 1 year,27 days | (#44760927)

One of the biggest problems with nuclear power, agreed on by proponents and critics alike, is that the currently-operating plants are older-generation designs, repaired and refurbished to run long past their expected lifetime.

The natural gas boom is putting these older-gen reactors out of business. When the cost goes back up and nuclear becomes profitable again, we'll get the chance to actually implement the newer designs.

Re:Well, good! (4, Insightful)

olau (314197) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761499)

The natural gas boom is putting these older-gen reactors out of business. When the cost goes back up and nuclear becomes profitable again, we'll get the chance to actually implement the newer designs.

That's true, but it will probably only happen if the capital costs of new reactors falls - a lot. Meanwhile, various renewables are falling in price. And while those generally have high capital expenditures too, the marginal costs are usually really low. So it's going to be a tough market for new reactors.

There's a new alternative for electricity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44761745)

Solar power -> molten salt -> steam.

Giant array of mirrors in the desert pointing at a tower. Molten salt stored at 500 F underground, enough to heat water and run normal steam turbines for 72 hours straight.

No radiation, no hauling in fuel, no coal mining, no fracking. It's easy and proven.

Re:There's a new alternative for electricity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44762541)

you sure about those? Solar power will destroy more land in the US than the coal industry possibly can. .

Re:There's a new alternative for electricity... (1, Funny)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763093)

It already has. According to this report [usda.gov] the US used almost 20% of its land area for crops (an example of solar power). In comparison, it used only 2-3% for urban areas. This link [miningfacts.org] states that a mere 0.02-0.1% of US land is disturbed by mining. So at a glance, it appears that currently solar power covers two to three orders of magnitude more land than mining of anything, including coal, does.

100 years of natural gas (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762441)

So, there is no point in building a new reactor until the gas gets scarce and not much point in running the old reactors either. Sounds like Navy retirees can handle all the future regular work. So, going to school for nuclear power would be to study to be a nuclear sanitation engineer. How, exactly, do you get a lot of interest in designing better buggy whips in this situation? Bill Gates is enthusiastic, yes, but since when did Bill and "better" ever fit well together in a sentence?

Good news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44760963)

It appears that West Texas is the destination for some of the radioactive material.

USA has no backbone... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#44761435)

So which bogeyman is it that is shutting these down? Radiation scare, capitalism and greed, 'green marketing', or Cold War fallout?

Simple fact is, the US requires energy. A LOT OF ENERGY! And it can only come from a few sources at the moment. YES, there is a balance between build cost, operating cost, and possible harm to environment and people, but we should be looking at LONG TERM sustainable investments here. And we're not doing that! That requires a political and social will, that is presently absent in the USA.

A simple fact from the past 60 or so years of nuclear industrialization is this:
Can Nuclear power as an energy source work? YES! That's been proven. Does it have risks? Absolutely! Have we even scratched the surface of nuclear as a long-term energy source? NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Also, until the US starts rethinking how to minimize light pollution by an order of magnitude, waste energy really isn't even discussable yet.

Re:USA has no backbone... (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | 1 year,27 days | (#44762035)

So which bogeyman is it that is shutting these down? Radiation scare, capitalism and greed, 'green marketing', or Cold War fallout?

Well for one it's become a 159,200 year commitment. No place to dispose of nuclear waste; the spent fuel has to be kept on location.

A developing story for the Fukushima nuclear plants are the weakening supports for the storage basins which holds their spent fuel.

Nuclear trashmen, that's a pleasent term (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | 1 year,27 days | (#44761975)

In this area they are known as radiation whores.

To be "crapped up" is to have radiation of some sort on you (which you just wash off in a special area).
I'm sure it came from having $hit on you and it stuck.

Different areas, different terms.

Re:Nuclear trashmen, that's a pleasent term (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763135)

In this area they are known as radiation whores.

Now, that might even be true. But I do find it interesting that Google and Bing searches for "radiation whores" [google.com] has only your post above as the sole on topic link.

Who is paying for this? (2)

anarkhos (209172) | 1 year,27 days | (#44763821)

Since nobody else seemed to ask

Re:Who is paying for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,26 days | (#44764807)

The power plant owners, whom got their money from their investors and customers.

What is really foolish (1)

WindBourne (631190) | 1 year,26 days | (#44771573)

is that the transmission lines, cooling, etc. are taken out first. Instead, they would be better to focus ONLY on the reactor, while moving the 'spent fuel' aside. Then by leaving the rest in place, it can be used for natural gas boiler, energy storage, perhaps geo-thermal, or even better would be small nuclear reactors that are designed to burn up the waste. Basically, better to keep the site going and making money, then it is to shut it down and turn it into a pure cost center.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?