We don't have any realistic plans for dealing with the waste we have already created.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/16-2

Shut them down now.
The sooner the better.

so one by one, they're going to be shut down. So much for the peaceful atom giving us so much energy that we won't even be charged for it--nuclear energy was one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity out there and we're going to be paying for generations to come as mothballed plants remain dangerously radioactive.

Meanwhile, renewable energy source R&D is maturing. The only question is whether or not we'll have the national will to convert, or if we're going to be the only country in the world in thrall to oil and coal barons, choking on filthy air.

Warpy,

This is the umpteenth time I've heard that old LIE that nuclear fission power was supposed to be "too cheap to meter" and that the nuclear industry was lying.

The nuclear industry NEVER said that nuclear fission reactors would be "too cheap to meter". That line was coined by a Government official, then Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss. Additionally, Strauss wasn't referring to nuclear fission power plants; he was talking about nuclear fusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss

In 1954, Strauss predicted that atomic power would make electricity "too cheap to meter." He was referring to Project Sherwood, a secret program to develop power from hydrogen fusion, not uranium fission reactors as is commonly believed.

Nuclear power has been the second most cost effective way at generating electricity. Only coal slightly beats nuclear, but coal has lots of externalized costs that are not accounted for, whereas with nuclear those costs are internalized to the cost structure, including waste disposal and decommissioning.

It's true some nuclear operators have not maintained their plants as well as they should; e.g Crystal River.

However, other companies like Exelon are still operating their plants economically and safely.

It's a lot like looking at the country's poorest operating airline that is about to go out of business, and from that concluding that the entire aviation industry is uneconomical.

Ill-conceived wishful thinking on the part of the anti-nukes does not constitute reality.

PamW

Strauss was speaking to correspondents while on a tour to roll out nuclear fission as a source of electricity. There is no evidence he was talking about anything other than fission.

He also said (in the same speech) "it is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and with great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age”.

You can't pretend that the context for all of those things is nuclear fission as a source of electricity.

It was clearly intended as an inspirational vision of a brighter future in general.

The USAEC (which he chaired at the time) had just proclaimed that they hoped to get fission power down to the cost of more traditional electricity sources. The "attempt to rewrite history" is yours.

I don't know how old some of you are, but I am old enough to remember this propaganda being spread as nukes were being sold to an unsuspecting public.

It was this meme of 'Too Cheap To Meter' that had everybody going gaga for nukes.

Sitting here reading this 'Never said that' makes me want to puke.

I KNOW who the real LIARS are.

They are the people that can't stand when they've been shown to be LYING.

So they FABRICATE stuff that never happened, and claimed that they were there.

There was NEVER any nuclear power plant that was sold in which people were told that they wouldn't have to pay for electricity. Every single nuclear power plant operator in the USA that runs a power plant went to their local Public Utility Commission and asked how much they could charge for the plant's electricity.

There was NEVER a utility that built a nuclear power plant that didn't need to recoup the cost of building / operating the plant from the profits of the electricity sold to the ratepayers.

Go ahead and puke; you are the one that is choking on the falsehoods here.

For all the whining the anti-nukes do claiming the nuclear industry is bad because it lies; I would think that such people would have more respect for the truth.

PamW

It kills.

Are you saying I am lying when I say I remember as a kid the propaganda issued to sell nukes? That I am lying when I say I heard that meme, over and over again?

Gee, it wasn't the anti-nuke people saying it.

RobertEarl,

If you tell me that there was a utility that built a nuclear power plant, and told the people that it would not be applying to the State Public Utility Commission for a ruling as to how much it could charge; then please tell me which utility made that promise and for what plant.

ALL the nuclear power plants that we have now, I know were built by utilities that had to borrow the money to build the plant, and they were ALL fully expecting the State Public Utilities Com. to allow them to charge the ratepayers to recoup the cost of the plant.

I NEVER encountered a case where a utility said it would build a very costly plant; and give the electricity away.

It is just NOT TRUE that fission power plants are "too cheap to meter".

So I have to assume you are either lying or you were so young back when these plants were built that you didn't understand that they were NOT "too cheap to meter". Never where.

I've NEVER heard the pro-nukes say that. The only people I hear say "too cheap to meter" are anti-nukes claiming the nuclear industry is lying.

PamW

Of course the 'Too Cheap To Meter' was a fucking lie. Duh!

It was a meme. Meant as total, bold-faced-lie, propaganda. A sly piece of bullshit told by the nuke power industry that no one believed, but everyone wanted to believe.

Just like we all wanted to believe that nuke power plants were 'safe'.

"Too cheap to meter" was NEVER promoted by the nuclear industry.

I have access to ALL the filings for ALL the nuclear power plants; that includes ALL the PUC filings, ALL the ads in newspapers, TV... ALL the public statements on the power plants.

NOT A ONE!!! claimed "too cheap to meter".

EVERY nuclear power plant was built with funds that the utility borrowed and had to pay back; and the only way to get the money to pay back the construction loan was to charge for the electricity.

If you would care to tell us what utility made that claim and for which power plant; I can easily get the complete documentation to show that you are making a false claim.

PamW

The 'Too Cheap To Meter' was a lie that everyone wanted to believe. That's how you sell a lie. Tell people what they want to believe. Just like we all wanted to believe that Fukushima couldn't happen. But it did.

It was a lie like Bush told the country about Iraq. No, he didn't come out and say it, but it was the idea that if we didn't beat the shit out of Iraq first, they'd beat us up one day.

I bet Bush learned how to lie by watching how the nuke industry sold us on nukes being safe and cheap. The lie about it being 'Cheap' was just that. A lie. I notice you aren't saying nukes are cheap. Right?

"Too cheap to meter" was NEVER told by the nuclear industry.

The only people who cite "too cheap to meter" are anti-nukes that want to claim the nuclear industry is lying.

The ONLY liars are the anti-nukes.

As another poster pointed out; because nuclear power is so capital intensive, it can never be "too cheap to meter".

Since you "ducked" my call for you to identify the utility and power plant for which you "remember" the claim being made; I can only assume that you are being untruthful.

You can bring it all to light if you just identify the utility and the power plant that you "remember".

However, I warned you that I have access to the complete files regarding the filings by the utilities, and what they told the public. If you tell me a falsehood, I can prove it to be false.

So with that admonishment to tell the truth; what utility and what power plant do you "remember"?

PamW

Did you get that Bush was lying about Iraq?

Did you get it that Art told you your information about Fukushima was wrong?

I like that you are here talking like this showing what the nuke industry has been doing all along. People can see what we have been fighting against. Like the tobacco industry. Like those who didn't want to put air bags in cars. Like George fucking Bush, who lied, and people died. Thanks for showing everyone what those of us who are trying to save the planet from nukes have been up against all this time. Heck, you even had a supporter of yours tell you how to operate and you just ignored that advice.

And it isn't that we are anti-nukes. We are anti-lies that nukes are safe. We are for natural earth, not polluted waste lands like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Like the whole world will be in the right set of failures from a few more man made mass polluting contraptions that generate electricity. We are for simple things, not huge conglomerates of centralized, for-profit, damn the environment, 'we want mass power and we want it now, damn the environment'. Which is the exact mindset that got us global warming, by the same people that sold us on nukes.

Thank you, Pam. You are a shining example of all that is wrong about nukes. No one could hardly have made a better case.

So that cartoon light bulb didn't happen? It's a line in "Atomic Cafe" as well, isn't it? Maybe I just dreamt it as well.

Then you're old enough to know that memories often play tricks on you.

If this was something more than creative memories on the part of nuclear opponents... you would be able to provide some kind of evidence beyond your need to vomit. Rather than creative histories that claim now what was said back then... you should be able to find lots of news stories from the period. Perhaps some congressional debate covering the expected costs/benefits? Public opinion pieces?

Kris,

You are 100% WRONG as always.

The event was NOT a roll-out of nuclear fission power. The roll-out of nuclear fission power didn't happen until 1957 with the building of the Shippingport, PA plant. This event that Stauss was speaking at was in 1954.

NOPE - the event in 1954 had to do with Project Sherwood - which was a FUSION project.

Kris - I don't know why you continually LIE about history; historical facts can always be looked up and you will be shown, as always; to be WRONG.

But do please keep up the LYING; because for every time you LIE, your credibility, as would anyone's credibility caught lying; will go DOWN.

PamW

First, you have to be calmer in your threads. In many ways you are to confrontational, instead of undermining the positions of people you are trying to correct, you confront them and all that does is get them to go on the defensive and NOT listen to you. Thus your threads amount to doing no good.

The better approach is to take a calmer look at how to correct the person you are correcting. Instead of "Wrong, Wrong, Wrong" you should say something like "You made some errors" and then in the body show what those errors are. Don't accuse a person of lying, most of the people you are dealing with, believe what they are saying is true, and calling them a lying is a waste of time. The better approach is to show WHY they made a mistake, and after a while just drop the issue. Some people will NOT listen to facts, even if the facts are not really is dispute. Some of the Anti-Nuclear people on this board fall into that trap. I have seen some pro-Nuclear people fall into that trap (Through they are more Anti-Nuclear people on DU then pro-nuclear people, so you will run across more Anti0-Nuclear people refusing to accept facts then pro-nuclear people).

I fall into that trip myself, and I have seen you fall into that trap. The best way to handle it is to avoid it by NOT being confrontational. That does NOT mean you do not have to correct anyone who you disagree with, but try to be non-confrontational. It can be hard, some idiots will NEVER listen to what you say, but once you make your statement and defended it, think about dropping out of the fight. Once you have made your point, go on to other issues on DU. Check up on your post and if it need clarification do so, but avoid useless arguments with people who will not listen and you end up talking pass each other rather then to each other.

Second Issue:

The cite Wikipedia cites for its statement as to "To Cheap to Meter" is the following:
http://media.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html

It contains some nice statements, including that the cost of fuel is only about 20% of the cost of electricity. The rest is cost of the infrastructure to distribute the electrical power and the cost to build and maintain the plant. Given that the cost to produce electricity is mostly non-fuel, electricity could never be to cheap to meter.

I suspect that is true today

She is a shining example of the nuke industry. A real pillar. That melts just like power plants.

If she had anything that was the real truth to say, she'd become anti-nuke like all the smart kids.

Oh, wait, you did call us idiots and that we wouldn't listen, eh? Well, who the heck has been right along when it comes to nukes? Sure, nukes made electricity. So what, you can make electricity with a generator on a bicycle frame! Big deal! The problem with nukes is they are too dangerous, too dirty and too wasteful.

Did you hear that or are you one of those who: "...who will not listen and you end up talking pass each other rather then to each other. "

Nuclear power began in 1957. It is just over 50 years old.

In those 50 years; how many members of the general public were either killed or injured due to a nuclear power plant in the USA? The answer is ZERO.

In those 50 years; how many members of the general public were either killed or injured due to airliner crashes in the USA? It in the 10s of thousands.

In those 50 years; how many members of the general public were killed in automobile accidents in the USA?
The answer is over 2 million We kill more than 40,000 people each year for 50 years.

The public accepts automobiles even though they kill the most.

The public accepts airliners even though there have been crashes.

Nuclear power hasn't hurt / killed ANYONE in the general public in the USA.

So if people were logical; they would know what is safe and what is not.

Of course, people are seldom logical; so they need to be educated to think properly.

PamW

What the fuck? You claim no one hurt or killed by nuclear power in the US? There are only a few thousand doctors who know more about human health than you do, who would call that a lie.

Heck, just the other day you were claiming Fukushima caused no radiation that would make people leave the area. And Art came on and called you on that and you did not respond to him. Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=36210

RobertEarl,

I've got other things to do; so I can't get to every post.

I have no doubt that there are a "few thousand" doctors who are anti-nukes and who eschew the tenets of good science and LIE for their own parochial reasons. However, the bulk of the medical profession, and the studies that they have done claim that there are no ill health effects due to nuclear power. One of the most cited and thorough is one study done by the National Cancer Institute:

No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities

Evidently you are not a scientist; so you don't understand that we don't care what a "few thousand" doctors say. What we care about are good quality scientific research that MILLIONS of doctors ascribe to. That research states that nuclear power is NOT killing people.

You either accept the judgement of good science; or you can be like the climate change deniers that don't accept good science. You choice; but don't be a hypocrite and chide climate deniers for not accepting the science when you won't accept this science.

The statement I made was one that is backed up by scientists, and I cited the article that University of California - Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller wrote that appeared in the WSJ:

Panic over Fukushima

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html

But over the following weeks and months, the fear grew that the ultimate victims of this damaged nuke would number in the thousands or tens of thousands. The "hot spots" in Japan that frightened many people showed radiation at the level of .1 rem, a number quite small compared with the average excess dose that people happily live with in Denver.

I looked at Art's post - and the only thing he said was that there are sections that are still quarantined.

Evidently, you think I dispute that - I do not. I know that the area is still quarantined.

However, Art didn't offer any radiation measurements that dispute what Professor Muller stated in his article.

Yes - there is residual radioactivity from the accident. I don't dispute that.

However, I want people to put that into perspective and ask the same question that Professor Muller posed.

We accept the additional radiation levels in Denver which are THREE TIMES larger than those in the bulk of Fukushima that has been quarantined.

Why do we accept this additional radiation in Denver, but not accept the 3X lower additional radiation in Fukushima.

If we are consistent, shouldn't we evacuate Denver if we have evacuated Fukushima?

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. If you are going to quote me; the do it ACCURATELY!!!

I didn't say there was "no radiation" in Fukushima. I stated exactly what Professor Muller states; the natural levels of additional radiation in Denver that we accept are 3X higher than the additional radiation levels in most of Fukushima, which is not accepted. Professor Muller asks:

What explains the disparity? Why this enormous difference in what is considered an acceptable level of exposure to radiation?

There are parts of Fukushima very close to the plant itself that have higher levels, for sure. I don't dispute that.

However, there is the great hew and cry about how the bulk of Fukushima is terribly contaminated... and in comparison with other places like Denver; I don't believe one can call it terribly contaminated when put into perspective.

Her problem is she can NOT understand they are people who so dislike what she is saying, they will attack her. There is an old saying, if someone resorts to a personal attack, they have lost the argument and PamW has a problem that she takes such personal attacks, personal.

Remember the three rules of Debate:

1. If you are weak on emotion, argue the facts.

2. If you are weak on Facts, argue emotion.

3. If you are weak on both facts and emotion, insult your opponent,

DU has a lot of people on DU who want to argue emotion, more then facts. The problem in debates on Nuclear energy is while it is good emotion to argue against the effect of radiation, the facts of nuclear energy tends to show radiation is less of a threat then most people think it is (in many ways Radiation from Nuclear plants is less then back ground radiation and even radiation released into the air from burning coal). Once these facts are out, the emotional issue becomes how to reduce total radiation, and the facts tend to support Nuclear power as the best way to reduce exposure to radiation, for Nuclear releases less radiation into the atmosphere then does burning coal.

Coal ash is more radiative then Nuclear waste:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1977/3445605115087.pdf

At that point many anti-Nuclear people resort to the third rule of debate and start insulting the other side, more often then not calling them liars. PamW raises to this bait and counter attacks, and by during so loses the debate for she starts insulting them, and then the Anti-Nuclear people point out she is attacking THEM. PamW needs to learn NOT to raise to the bait, make her point, defend her point, but avoid getting into a name calling session.

One of the problem with people who were educated in a number crunching major (Accountants, Engineers, Scientists etc) is the numbers become the answer, it is both their strength and their weakness. It is their strength for numbers show them HOW things work, it is their weakness for numbers that causes them to lose the ability to deal with more emotional issues. They want to reduce things to numbers, even if the numbers are meaningless.

Now as Nuclear Power, numbers are dominate, thus PamW is a good source for information on Nuclear issues. She rarely comments on other issues, thus you do not hear about her attitude as to how to raise children, how to interact with co-workers, is it a good idea to invade Iran? etc. Those issues can NOT be reduced to numbers. Numbers can help, but the issues themselves involve more then numbers. Thus someone whose education involved mostly numbers, such issues are beyond they education.

When I was in Law School I was told Accountants and Engineers were noted for doing poorly, for the simple reason the law reflects how people interact and as such rarely deal with numbers. When is a minor capable of thinking like an adult? At 21? 18? 14? 12? 7? All are numbers, but in many ways unimportant for the real issue is how the child that is the actual subject capable of doing? Brain development accelerate after birth, then slows down after about nine months, and is reduced to a twinkle after you turn 21. Thus which of the above ages should one be treated as an adult? The ages are thus at best a rough guideline not the answer in themselves, something people educated with numbers have a hard time to accept.

Side-note: The ages I gave are ALL ages for various reasons under the law, The reason they are so many, is all of the ages have different plus and negatives points. The general rule was if you thought like a normal 14 year old, you were treated as an adult, an exception was the right to entered into a contract, which was age 21 before the 1970s, since the 1970s 18 UNLESS you were an Emancipated Minor. If an Emancipated Minor then you could entered into a binding contract even if below age 18 (and I know of no law that sets a bottom age for such emancipation, which in many states done by the Child's parents NOT by any court action). Under the Common Law a 12 year old could entered into a valid marriage (and consent to sex), now this has been changed in all states, but as late as the 1990s it was possible for a 12 year old to entered into a Common Law Marriage, with out her parent's consent, with another person in Pennsylvania. A Colorado Judge has noted that decision and stated that Colorado Common Law Marriage rule is similar to Pennsylvania's and thus it may be possible for a 12 year old to enter into a Common Law Marriage, without the child's parents consent.

Age 7 was the age Courts said Children may have the capacity of thinking like a 14 year old. In one case at least, a 7 year old was HANGED, for the court found he had the ability to think like a 14 year old and thus guilty of the alleged offense (Please note this was in the 1700s, and today. even the US Supreme Court has rejected such punishment for anyone under age 18).

I go into the above to show that while numbers were important in the above, the real issue was the ability of the actual child. Number people have a tendency to view the above numbers as absolute instead of guidelines. The courts, made of lawyers who tend to be people who can barely add 1 and 1 and come up with 2, fully accept these numbers as guidelines and treat them as such. PamW sounds like a Numbers person but most of the people she is debating are NON-numbers people, so much of the time she is taking by the other side instead of to them (i.e. both are using numbers, but for different purposes). PamW has to learn this and avoid getting into arguments with these people. make her point, defend her point, but do not raise to the bait of insult. If she does that more people would listen to her.

I've dealt with "true believer" anti-nukes long enough to know that they will NEVER admit that they are WRONG!!

When someone makes a mistake for the first time; I correct them gently. However, most of the people here have been corrected gently and yet persist to tell the same lies. Those are the ones that I go after with WRONG WRONG WRONG!! They are non-repentant repeat offenders. I've written off attempting to get them to tell the truth. They are "true believers" like a religion. They won't reform

The best thing is to show the others who the REAL LIARS are.

That means to confront the anti-nuke LIARS at every turn. When people see that the anti-nukes getting caught lying time after time after time; then they will know not to believe anything they say.

We have some real long term liars that have been shown to not know their science and who fabricate absolute crap just to make a point.

The objective reader will see that those people have been caught lying numerous times; and their credibility isn't worth a plugged nickel.

If people see that >90% of the stuff someone posts is ultimately shown to be a lie, time and again; people will just turn away from reading those liars.

You are correct in your analysis that most of the cost of nuclear power is capital cost; and it could never be too cheap to meter. Yet we have people here claiming that the "too cheap to meter" was being claimed. Those people are either lying; or they didn't understand what was being said decades ago.

PamW

You think that doing the equivalent of shouting at someone is going to get your point across. We're not children (and even if we were) you are never, ever going to change anyone's opinion by shouting at them.

With kristopher I have about as much in common on the nuclear issue with as salt does with pepper, yet somehow in your exchange with him I'm more eager to know what he has to say.

Why don't you post something original - lay out some ideas for others to ponder - instead of constantly shooting other people down? You're obviously an intelligent woman and I know we would see some amazingly constructive contributions if you could step out of attack mode for a moment.

I don't recognize caps as shouting. I think that is dumb. Shouting is intrusive; caps are not.

I'm "old school". In my day; caps meant emphasis. That's because we didn't have all the bracket codes we have now.

I use the bracket codes; but I think they are a pain. I'd rather just hit the shift key when I want to emphasize a word, and I don't consider it shouting.

I've had enough of the propaganda that kris spews; all of it in contradiction to the laws of science. I have no need for that.

I have posted many times what I would do. I would go for an open and fair competition between energy sources. I wouldn't "rig the game" for one source or another. We should have solar / wind to the maximal degree the National Academy says, about 20%; and the rest should be nuclear with actinide burners to take care of the waste; and bring fusion online as soon as we can.

PamW

So much more pleasant.

I agree with you 100% - except about caps, which "netiquette" has deemed equivalent to shouting for as long as I can remember:

"Another rule is to avoid typing in ALL CAPS or grossly enlarging script for emphasis, which is considered to be the equivalent of shouting or yelling."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_%28technology%29

What I would like to see is an original thread based on your last paragraph, "an open and fair competition between energy sources". People have a lot of different ideas as far as what "fair" means, and that would be an interesting discussion. I hope you'll consider it.

jpak

It was mostly the government. "Atoms for peace" was quite a sales job in the late 1950s and early 1960s, coming close on the heels of the "duck and cover" campaign. Talk about whiplash! The utilities didn't offer a peep of protest about the cost of such plants.

Plants do have a limited life and the earliest ones need to be mothballed or practically rebuilt. Concrete containment is cheap and dirty and works remarkably well but ionizing radiation does degrade it and everything else over time.

And they still don't know what to do with the garbage.

They solve those problems, maybe the people you hate to listen to will all go away. Until then, get used to it.

Warpy,

You have absolutely ZERO idea what you are talking about.

Evidently you don't know ANYTHING about the interior design and construction of a nuclear power plant.
For your information, ionizing radiation does NOT degrade the containment. First, there is really no ionizing radiation that reaches the walls of the containment. The reactor has internal radiation shields that prevent the radiation from getting out beyond those shields. People have to be able to enter the reactor building and be within the containment building. Human bodies are much more fragile than concrete.

Additionally, what do you "think" that ionizing radiation does when it encounters concrete? Do you know what it does? Evidently not! It turns into a small amount of heat. Concrete doesn't have any long complex molecules like our DNA that can be disrupted by radiation. So ionizing radiation really doesn't damage concrete. It would do more damage to heat the concrete with fire. How much damage does fire do to masonry? Why do you think the hearth in houses with fireplaces are made of masonry?

Nuclear power plants were designed to have lifetimes of many, many decades. Yes, the normal license period is 40 years. However, saying that means the lifetime of the plant is 40 years is as erroneous as saying that a car driver should be retired the first time his/her license expires. NO - humans can get their driver's licenses renewed because we are good to operate motor vehicles for the duration of several license terms. The same with nuclear power plants. They don't have 40 year lives.

As far as what to do with the nuclear waste; scientist know what to do. The problem is the US Congress OUTLAWED the solution. What the scientists / engineers that designed nuclear power plants had in mind from the beginning is for nuclear waste to be reprocessed / recycled.

Here's an interview with nuclear physicist and then Associate Director of Argonne National Lab, Dr. Charles Till, interviewed for PBS by Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Rhodes:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

You see if you reprocess / recycle nuclear waste it can be transmuted into elements that have SHORT lifetimes; of the length of time in the highlighted section of Dr. Till's response.

ONLY the USA has this multi-thousand year problem that the Congress created for us at the behest of the anti-nukes.

Do you see France or Sweden or Japan looking for a mountain to bury nuclear waste in? NO - France reprocesses / recycles their long lived waste back to their reactors as fuel. The fission products are stored in the reprocessing center at La Hague until they radioactively decay on the time scales described above; and then the French can discharge the material that is no longer radioactive.

It's really quite simple. However, the anti-nukes don't like this solution; so they got Congress to outlaw it so they would have something to whine and complain about. The anti-nukes are the last people that want a solution to nuclear waste.

It would be like people opposing catalytic converters to clean up car exhaust because they don't like a solution in which we have clean cars. They want to BAN cars. So they keep the cars as dirty and polluting as possible, so they have something to complain about.

I find it the height of HYPOCRISY to complain about a problem that you created yourself.

PamW

You apparently were not.

Initiative Would Shutter California Nuclear Plants For Decades While Feds Ponder Waste

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen cleared an initiative Wednesday that would shut down California’s two existing nuclear power plants until the federal government figures out what to do with the used fuel—a process expected to take at least 35 Years. The initiative (pdf) now moves to the signature collection phase. It needs 504,760 signatures to qualify for the 2014 ballot. The initiative is sponsored by California’s “Nuclear Terminator,” Ben Davis Jr. who helped write an initiative that shut down the Rancho Seco nuclear plant near Sacramento in 1989. This is his second attempt to use this strategy to shutter the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre plants. He failed to gather enough signatures for the November ballot after the California Legislative Analyst’s office issued a report saying the iniative could result in rolling blackouts, an assertion that Davis and other supporters of the initiative dispute. The 2014 initiative would prohibit nuclear plants in California from generating electricity until the U.S. has an approved technology for permanent disposal (expected in 2050) or an approved technology for reprocessing nuclear fuel rods (expected to take at least 20 years). In fact, some critics of the federal government believe the Department of Energy’s quest for a new permanent disposal site is a stall tactic, which could close the plants for much longer than 35 years.

Link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/02/08/initiative-would-shutter-california-nuclear-plants-for-decades-while-feds-ponder-waste
Date of Article: February 8, 2013

List of Nuclear Dominoes That Need to FALL BEFORE They FAIL:
https://forms.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:56 AM - Edit history (1)

That initiative runs afoul of the US Constitution.

The US Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate nuclear power plants. If the States attempt to interfere, then their laws are unconstitutional under the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause; Article VI, Section 2.

The Supreme Court has upheld the States LIMITED power under NRC regulations to bar new power plants due economic concerns.

Additionally, recent changes in the laws may actually lessen the States' control on nuclear power.

The US Supreme Court upheld California's ban on new nuclear reactors back when Diablo Canyon was owned by the public regulated utility Pacific Gas and Electric. The argument was that if the utility built more nuclear power plants, and the federal waste depository was not forthcoming, then the additional waste disposal costs would be passed on to the utility's customers; the citizens of California.

However, in the decades since that decision was handed down, the legal landscape has changed.

Diablo Canyon is no longer owned by the State-regulated utility Pacific Gas and Electric. In the deregulation of a decade ago, Diablo Canyon is now owned by a corporate holding company PGECorp. PGECorp also owns the State-regulated utility Pacific Gas & Electric as a wholly owned subsidiary.

However, if PGECorp gets in financial trouble due to Diablo Canyon or any other nuclear power plant it owns; the State of California is not obligated to bail-out a private company as it has to bail-out a State-regulated utility.

The exposure of California citizens to financial problems of Diablo Canyon is lessened. But so also is the State's power to regulate Diablo Canyon.

Besides federal regulation has NEVER allowed a State the power to shutdown an operating plant; that power is held SOLELY by the Federal Government.

That's what the Vermont Yankee lawsuit is all about; and the State of Vermont LOST round 1.

I expect that Vermont will also lose on appeal; and at the US Supreme Court level should it go that far.

The US Supreme Court has been less tolerant of late on the States interfering with Federal regulations; see National Meat Association v. Harris. "Harris" in this case is Kamela Harris, the Attorney General of California. This recent US Supreme Court case authored by Obama-appointee Elana Kagan struck down a California law that had to do with the treatment of "downer" beef cattle. Justice Kagan stated that it doesn't matter that the State of California had "pure" motives based on concerns of animal cruelty; the California law interfered with Federal regulation, and was thereby pre-empted by the US Constitution, the motives of the State of California, notwithstanding.

I learned of the above case from a posting by Law Professor Cheryl Hanna of the Vermont Law School:

http://vtyankeelawsuit.vermontlaw.edu/january-24-2012-chery-hanna-national-meat-association-v-harris-read-the-footnotes-part-ii/

I don’t need to provide Entergy’s lawyers with my specific analysis of why National Meat Association just made their job a lot easier either if Vermont appeals or if the PSB rejects Vermont Yankee’s certificate of public good petition. They were on it the minute the case was decided.

But what I will offer is this: Animal rights activists and anti-nuclear advocates face similar uphill battles when it comes to using state law as a means for accomplishing their ends. If you carefully examine the last five years of federal pre-emption cases, the federal courts continue to side more often (albeit not always) with industry. When states such as California and Vermont, with progressive political agendas, try to respond to federal acquiescence to industry by seeking a route around federal law, they will find it very hard to do.


PamW

And that is saying a lot...

http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2012/120640.aspx

The investors might be able to sue for losses associated with the mandated shutdown, but that is uncertain at best.

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:02 AM - Edit history (2)

kristopher,

In connection with my job; I've been briefed on this subject extensively by Lab lawyers.

I've even read the original US Supreme Court holding in PG&E v. State Energy Conservation and Development Commission.

In this case, the US Supreme Court reiterated its finding in Baltimore Electric v. NRDC, that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 preempts nearly ALL State regulation of nuclear power.

However, the US Supreme Court "carved out" an exception to that preemption in this case. The US Supreme Court's logic was that if a federal repository were not forthcoming, the State-regulated utility Pacific Gas and Electric could face economic hardships. Since the utility is State-regulated and, in essence, guaranteed a profit because it is a utility; the hardship would thereby fall on the citizens of California to bail-out the utility in case a default by the US Government on the repository.

THAT is the legal rationale for giving California a "veto" over new power plants in the State.

However, look what has happened since deregulation. The guaranteed profit utility Pacific Gas & Electric no longer owns Diablo Canyon. Pacific Gas and Electric doesn't own any nuclear power plants; and hence is not on the hook for any costs if a repository is delayed.

The owner of Diablo Canyon is now an ordinary corporation called PGECorp. PGECorp owns Diablo Canyon and PGECorp and its shareholders are responsible for any cost overruns at Diablo Canyon.

In essence, the State of California in its deregulation legislation of a decade ago, absolved the ratepayers of California of any responsibility for the financial health of Diablo Canyon. However, it was that responsibility, and that responsibility alone; that was the rationale for the US Supreme Court to give the State a say in the nuclear power operations of the electric utility.

Since the State absolved itself and its citizens of financial responsibility for nuclear power; it also absolved itself of any rationale for State control over nuclear power.

If this initiative were to go forward, get challenged in the Courts, and make it to the US Supreme Court, the legal experts in nuclear power law that advised me say that; given the change in ownership and responsibilities; that the US Supreme Court would in all probability REVERSE the holding in the above case.

I WELCOME that initiative; because I see in it a way for the present California law to be OVERTURNED.

Be careful what you wish for with this initiative; you just might get it.

As always, kris; you missed the whole point. It's not about investors being able to sue if the State closes the plant. The main issue is whether the State of California has ANY power over nuclear power plants in the State. The ONLY reason the State of California was not TOTALLY PREEMPTED by Federal law was the US Supreme Court carved out this narrow rationale. That rationale is now gone. So my legal experts tell me that if the present situation were reviewed by the US Supreme Court, in light of the current situation, California would LOSE that power and be TOTALLY PREEMPTED by Federal law.

PamW

There are several points of interest in this story. Just because you can only isolate one that resonates within your narrow understanding of power systems, doesn't mean that others won't find more to the story.

Just not uranium based reactors. Currently the Danes, Indians, and Chinese are experimenting with thorium, which although still produces waste, works at an efficiency of about 200 times greater compared to what we are using now.

I don't know, I'm torn over the whole situation, I would like us to use more renewable energy sources, but my pessimism says we can't replace 30% of what we are using now with the current green tech.

Economics and best response to climate change both argue that new nuclear reactors are less effective than renewables. In fact, building nuclear slows the transition away from fossil fuels by perpetuating the economics which favor coal and large scale natural gas plants.

but working on my Master's is consuming too much of my time.

I tried looking on some websites that claim to be pro renewable, but I don't have the time to vet them properly to determine their credibility, perhaps a few links to the least biased sites?

One thing a do like about the thorium reactors (not trying to beat a dead horse) is the that they are able to consume the nuclear waste we currently have laying around as well as the material in our nuclear weapon stockpile.

I wish there was a way to co-mingle renewables and a safer form of nuclear energy without supporting the status quo of fossil fuels reliance. I just can't think of a solution right now.

I need to finish a paper for class so I'll end this here. I'm going to keep checking into this group to try to increase my knowledge on the situation and perhaps join in more debates.

Revanchist,

You are correct that we can't replace 30% with green tech. In fact it is more like 20%.

The National Academy Science and Engineering studied this for the last few decades, and has been stating in numerous energy reports over that time; that renewables can get AT MOST a 20% penetration into the electric market.

However, kris doesn't recognize that the eminent scientists / engineers of the National Academy know more about the science than kris or the fraudulent professors that he likes to quote. They are "true believers" in the anti-nuke cause.

Good scientists like our own Nobel Prize winning Secretary of Energy Steven Chu know what we can do with renewables and what we can't do. After all, Chu used to be Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

PamW

But in the face being crushed by renewables and gas, the money men may finally pull the plug.

The first time I've heard natural gas disassociated with "the money men" (talk to some people in upstate New York; you may get an argument).

* Southern California utility customers pay $250 million more every year to replace the power lost when SONGS (San Onofre) shut down.
* In it's 45-year history, there has not been one radiological death - or injury - associated with San Onofre.
* Since it opened, SONGS has provided 525TWH of carbon-free energy. That same energy, generated with CA's non-nuclear power mix, would have resulted in over 4,000 deaths from cancer (mostly from coal).
* Wind & solar provide 6% of CA's non-baseload power, and are dependent on natural gas peaking plants for backup.
* The World Health Organization has found that the result of Fukushima nuclear accident, the "rate of increase in cancer cases is so small that it does not present a statistically detectable risk."
* Since Fukushima about 30,000 Americans have died from complications associated with breathing coal smoke. Not one death has been attributed to radiation from the accident.
* The notion that SONGS is "perched on an ocean cliff" would be hilarious if it wasn't so plain stupid.
* Natural gas, one of nukefree.org's saviors, has a bone to pick with the Jenny Chang of the Sierra Club: “It’s incredibly frustrating and incredibly manipulative” for the gas industry to align itself with renewables, Chang said. “Clean energy and natural gas are not on the same spectrum.”

http://climatedesk.org/2013/01/charts-renewables-in-bed-with-natural-gas/

Another product of "nukefree.org", members of which meet once a week in a carpeted room at the local rec center to reinforce their ignorant, incestuous fears. In a nutshell, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

What you are arguing against is a simple and absolutely true concept - there are two separate and incompatible systems that are available.

The system you support is the "base-load generation" system built on large scale generation provided by coal, large natural gas plants and nuclear. Since in this system the bulk of electricity is provided by these large scale thermal plants, the economics of the entire system is built around the most cost effective way to run them. That means the economics favor running ALL of them (not just nuclear) as much as possible.


The alternative is the "distributed generation" system where the bulk of the electricity is provided by wind, solar, marine, hydro, geothermal, biomass and smaller CHP natural gas plants. The economics of this system are poison to large-scale thermal generators like coal, nuclear and those natural gas plants that are not designed to be turned on/off quickly.

We ARE NOT going to see a system with a high penetration of nuclear energy.

Your efforts to support nuclear by constantly spreading FUD about renewables is not going to promote more nuclear, but it is going to assist large scale thermal (both coal and natgas) in slowing the inevitable transition to renewables.

Why don't you knock it off.

The only difference is, fracking for natural gas is FAR more deadly to the survival of global ecosystems than nuclear power plants over the next few thousand years.

I wrote:

And you wrote:



There is no mechanism by which nuclear energy is going to reduce natural gas use - none. In fact, the anti-renewable economics that support nuclear inevitably drive large scale natural gas consumption because they position natural gas as the least cost new base-load alternative. Those who support economic policies that promote the building of new nuclear plants are supporting the economics that are designed around large scale thermal plants which means they are actually promoting the same economic policies that promote the large scale 24/7 natural gas plants. Natural gas has only stepped into that role as a result of fracking.

Conversely, with their zero fuel cost, the low project capitalization costs associated with graduated projects, and the quick installation, renewables are by far the fastest growing segment of the power market. Their zero fuel costs means that the electricity they produce is easy to market. That fact, in turn, leads to shut-downs of plants that use fuel - natural gas, coal and nuclear. The system is now being shaped around these economics of variable resource generation.

Since we have a large number of quick cycling natural gas plants in place, we do not need to increase the existing amount of natural gas capacity to enable renewable growth. All future renewable growth with come at the expense of existing fueled generation and WILL NOT necessitate any additional fossil fuel consumption. A grid powered by renewables requires virtually ZERO natural gas since various biofuels and energy storage systems can fulfill the same role.

The surest, least cost and quickest route away from fossil is renewables. Promoting nuclear delays the transition and makes it more expensive. If you are supporting nuclear, it isn't because you are focused on addressing climate change.

Barf!

Specifically I'd like to see research into mechanisms to reverse energy demand growth in such a way that it doesn't just move the energy consumption avoided in one country to other parts of the globe. I'm talking about research into mechanisms for reversing global industrial growth as it pertains to life-cycle energy consumption. That would make shutting down energy projects of all kinds, whether nuclear or fossil-fueled, possible in a way it is not right now.

Here are some thoughts on the significance of energy efficiency in a fuel-based economy:

General energy efficiency improvements alone do not help to reduce aggregate, global fuel consumption as long as the overall growth in fuel-derived energy demand is not constrained. The situation right now is that national energy efficiency measures tend to spare fuel consumption, and that fuel is promptly made available for export to nations where demand is still growing. Squeeze the fuel balloon in here, and it simply bulges out there instead.

This problem applies to energy generated from transportable fuels, whether they are nuclear or fossil fuels. Renewables themselves don't have have this particular problem, since they are dependent on local ambient energy conversion rather than fuels. But building out renewable sources within the context of an existing fuel-dependent economy (which is what the world is doing right now) amounts to improving the efficiency of fuel-derived energy. And that immediately runs into the above problem.