Talk:Nuclear Waste

From Pete Ashdown Campaign Collaboration Wiki

Taken from a slashdot comment

Nuclear reactors work fine, and overall are much safer than fossil fuels. You actually got what you were promised. But along the way the fossil fuel industry got serious about controlling public perception, so that everybody knows that nuclear power is deadly dangerous and coal and oil are sweet, kind and friendly.

They do this in all sorts of ways, but here are a few examples:

• Dealing with waste is presented as a "big problem" for nuclear power but not for fossil fuels, when in fact there's are a number of reasonably sound solutions in the first case (e.g. bury it back in the mines where you dug up the nuclear material in the first place) while in the latter case the "solution" is to just dump the waste into the air we breathe.
• Ignoring the facts, such as the fact that any coal fired plant that's running releases radioactive gasses (14-CO2) at levels that would be considered an "incident" in a nuclear plant, or that isotopes with long half lives are by definition more stable than isotopes with short half lives (but they'll stay like that for a gadzillion years!)
• Focusing on imaginary "China syndrome" scare stories about nuclear and ignoring the oil spills, coal mine fires, and other horrors of the fossil fuel industry (oh yeah, the wars is about 9/11...no, WMD...I mean regime change...fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here...or was it spreading democracy?...but not oil. We never would go to war over oil.)
• Adroitly dodging regulation while imposing absurd regulatory burdens on nuclear power, and then using this to claim that nuclear isn't as cheap as promised.

Nuclear power may not be perfect, but even the horror stories are better than what we're drifting into by letting the fossil fuel industry lead us down the garden path.

By MarkusQ --Beachy 06:59, 23 February 2006 (MST)

While I agree with your posted analysis of nuclear power, the issue Pete is addressing is the real problem of nuclear waste:

1. Placed within 45 miles of Salt Lake City
2. Travelling straight through a metropolitan area.
3. Being flown over by hundreds of sorties of fighters every year.
4. For PFS, the consortium calling it "temporary," but the NRC refuses to allow it to moved once it gets here.
5. Possible corruption within the Goshute tribe leadership pushing the PFS deal.

I could go on and on, but it is a real issue that most Utahns do have real concerns with. Almost all Utahns do not want any high-level nuclear waste in Utah, and Pete will keep fighting to keep it out of Utah. --Brett 12:16, 23 February 2006 (MST)

[edit] S.B. 70

S.B. 70 was passed by the Utah State Legislature on Wednesday. The bill weakens the governor's ability to weigh in on storing nuclear waste in Utah. Fortunately, John Hunstman has promised to veto it; he is probably waiting until the last possible minute because the veto deadline is during the last two days of the legislative session. This is when the Legislature is the busiest, and working hard to override the veto will distract them from other pressing matters. Make sure you contact your state senator and representative to let me know how you feel about this bill.

[edit] Fission vs fusion vs others

I am not against nuclear fission completely. I believe there is worthwhile work we can do to make it a viable power source, especially since America hasn't attempted to implement a new reactor since the 70's. However, like the comparison to other energy sources, I think it is a matter of balance. If we allocate 10% total funding into fission and 90% to fusion our outcome is clear.