• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Idaho Could Soon Be Producing Plutonium

L

LandRover

Golden Member
Idaho already has numerous issues with nuclear waste management and activity at the existing INL facility poses a very serious threat to the vast Snake River Aquifer (which is beneath the facility). It is the sole source of drinking water for over 270,000 people as well as being used extensively for irrigation. And now this plutonium consolidation plan...

Citizen Report: Health and environmental concerns with plutonium consolidation in Idaho

ABC News: Idaho Gives Lukewarm OK on Plutonium Plan
CNN: U.S. considers plutonium space rockets
Comments on ANA Water Report by Jeremy Maxand - Director, Snake River Alliance
 
Idaho officials are endorsing the proposal but are in a dispute with the DOE over disposal of radioactive waste. They want written assurances that the estimated 5,500 gallons of contaminated waste generated each year by producing plutonium-238 would be hauled out of state.
Click to expand...

That makes me laugh.
 
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Why would one choose to store nuclear waste above a drinking acquifer? Strange.
Click to expand...

Good question. The facility has been in operation since 1949. It is scattered over an area of 890 square miles (roughly 85 percent the size of Rhode Island).
 
With Bush in power, I'm sure the answer will be "Let them drink Evian..."

FS

Seriously, we do need that plutonium to power high-resolution spy satellites, and there are precious few places to develop it. It's a tough one...
 
Originally posted by: Strk
Idaho officials are endorsing the proposal but are in a dispute with the DOE over disposal of radioactive waste. They want written assurances that the estimated 5,500 gallons of contaminated waste generated each year by producing plutonium-238 would be hauled out of state.
Click to expand...

That makes me laugh.
Click to expand...
I know... They've had enough problems with the existing waste, let alone this seriously nasty stuff they have planned. :disgust:
 
Originally posted by: Future Shock
With Bush in power, I'm sure the answer will be "Let them drink Evian..."

FS

Seriously, we do need that plutonium to power high-resolution spy satellites, and there are precious few places to develop it. It's a tough one...
Click to expand...

Supposedly, solar energy could be used in many applications (not claiming all). "...the European Space Agency's deep space mission Rosetta is powered with solar, not plutonium. It was launched in March 2004 and is destined to rendezvous with a comet close to Jupiter, farther from earth than some US plutonium-powered missions." Link
 
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: Strk
Idaho officials are endorsing the proposal but are in a dispute with the DOE over disposal of radioactive waste. They want written assurances that the estimated 5,500 gallons of contaminated waste generated each year by producing plutonium-238 would be hauled out of state.
Click to expand...

That makes me laugh.
Click to expand...
I know... They've had enough problems with the existing waste, let alone this seriously nasty stuff they have planned. :disgust:
Click to expand...

And it's ok to make it as long as they don't have to keep it, apparently!
 
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: Strk
Idaho officials are endorsing the proposal but are in a dispute with the DOE over disposal of radioactive waste. They want written assurances that the estimated 5,500 gallons of contaminated waste generated each year by producing plutonium-238 would be hauled out of state.
Click to expand...

That makes me laugh.
Click to expand...
I know... They've had enough problems with the existing waste, let alone this seriously nasty stuff they have planned. :disgust:
Click to expand...

Disposal was a minor consideration for the DOE and it's preceeding agencies until the last 20 years or so. They are still working at cleanig up all the waste that was improperly stored from the nuclear weapons programs.

They are now far better quipped to store the waste over the short term. The problem is now that nobody wants the waste in their state even if they want the industry. Nevada has drawn the short straw for various reasons and will be the likely resting place of most of the long term waste in the future.

 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: Strk
Idaho officials are endorsing the proposal but are in a dispute with the DOE over disposal of radioactive waste. They want written assurances that the estimated 5,500 gallons of contaminated waste generated each year by producing plutonium-238 would be hauled out of state.
Click to expand...

That makes me laugh.
Click to expand...
I know... They've had enough problems with the existing waste, let alone this seriously nasty stuff they have planned. :disgust:
Click to expand...

Disposal was a minor consideration for the DOE and it's preceeding agencies until the last 20 years or so. They are still working at cleanig up all the waste that was improperly stored from the nuclear weapons programs.

They are now far better quipped to store the waste over the short term. The problem is now that nobody wants the waste in their state even if they want the industry. Nevada has drawn the short straw for various reasons and will be the likely resting place of most of the long term waste in the future.
Click to expand...

I don't think they will ever wake up and realize how insane it is to create this waste that basically can never be properly disposed of and poses such serious health and national security issues. Meanwhile, the government tells all these other countries what they can and can't have. It's disgusting.
 
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: Future Shock
With Bush in power, I'm sure the answer will be "Let them drink Evian..."

FS

Seriously, we do need that plutonium to power high-resolution spy satellites, and there are precious few places to develop it. It's a tough one...
Click to expand...

Supposedly, solar energy could be used in many applications (not claiming all). "...the European Space Agency's deep space mission Rosetta is powered with solar, not plutonium. It was launched in March 2004 and is destined to rendezvous with a comet close to Jupiter, farther from earth than some US plutonium-powered missions." Link
Click to expand...


It's not just a power issue - solar panels large enough to generate that much power have a number of disadvantages:

1) They are MUCH more visible to tracking telescopes and radar...and these are spy satellites, not commercial or interplanetary probes

2) They are much more fragile, both to natural and man-made hazards and weapons. Again, being spy satellites we know that other countries have worked on developing measures to destroy them, both kinetic and laser based. Solar panels are much more vulnerable to both...

3) I would hazard a guess that the surface area of those panels can also affect orbit dynamics, such as drag from the upper atmosphere in low orbit. But I couldn't quantify that...just a suspicion.

FS
 
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: Future Shock
With Bush in power, I'm sure the answer will be "Let them drink Evian..."

FS

Seriously, we do need that plutonium to power high-resolution spy satellites, and there are precious few places to develop it. It's a tough one...
Click to expand...

Supposedly, solar energy could be used in many applications (not claiming all). "...the European Space Agency's deep space mission Rosetta is powered with solar, not plutonium. It was launched in March 2004 and is destined to rendezvous with a comet close to Jupiter, farther from earth than some US plutonium-powered missions." Link
Click to expand...


It's not just a power issue - solar panels large enough to generate that much power have a number of disadvantages:

1) They are MUCH more visible to tracking telescopes and radar...and these are spy satellites, not commercial or interplanetary probes

2) They are much more fragile, both to natural and man-made hazards and weapons. Again, being spy satellites we know that other countries have worked on developing measures to destroy them, both kinetic and laser based. Solar panels are much more vulnerable to both...

3) I would hazard a guess that the surface area of those panels can also affect orbit dynamics, such as drag from the upper atmosphere in low orbit. But I couldn't quantify that...just a suspicion.

FS
Click to expand...
But might those disadvantages be out-weighed by the potential after effects from any of these satellites re-entering the atmosphere and disintegrating with a plutonium battery?
 
Originally posted by: Future Shock
With Bush in power, I'm sure the answer will be "Let them drink Evian..."

FS

Seriously, we do need that plutonium to power high-resolution spy satellites, and there are precious few places to develop it. It's a tough one...
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that, Evian is French.
 
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: Strk
Idaho officials are endorsing the proposal but are in a dispute with the DOE over disposal of radioactive waste. They want written assurances that the estimated 5,500 gallons of contaminated waste generated each year by producing plutonium-238 would be hauled out of state.
Click to expand...

That makes me laugh.
Click to expand...
I know... They've had enough problems with the existing waste, let alone this seriously nasty stuff they have planned. :disgust:
Click to expand...

Disposal was a minor consideration for the DOE and it's preceeding agencies until the last 20 years or so. They are still working at cleanig up all the waste that was improperly stored from the nuclear weapons programs.

They are now far better quipped to store the waste over the short term. The problem is now that nobody wants the waste in their state even if they want the industry. Nevada has drawn the short straw for various reasons and will be the likely resting place of most of the long term waste in the future.
Click to expand...

I don't think they will ever wake up and realize how insane it is to create this waste that basically can never be properly disposed of and poses such serious health and national security issues. Meanwhile, the government tells all these other countries what they can and can't have. It's disgusting.
Click to expand...

The proliferation concerns are merely being used to fuel local opposition to the project.

Waste storage is a valid concern but few want to talk about solutions, instead most stand around and say "Yea, that is a problem" and ignoring it in th vain hope that the problem will disappear on its own.

Geologic storage of the high level waste in safe conditions is possible for the amount of time required for it to decay to safe levels. Factor in reprocessing and there is even less waste to be stored. Yucca mountain is the future destination for all high level wast from our commercial and military nuclear facilities. The problem is that all the space there is already spoken for with preexisting waste. Also, the site choice MAY not be optimal for long term high level storage (something that should be looked into an independent comission).

Also, all nations are free to peacefully use nuclear energy.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Future Shock
With Bush in power, I'm sure the answer will be "Let them drink Evian..."

FS

Seriously, we do need that plutonium to power high-resolution spy satellites, and there are precious few places to develop it. It's a tough one...
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that, Evian is French.
Click to expand...


True, Evian is not for him. More like Moet et Chandon.
 
I am definitely against nuclear power and the use of nuclear fuel. I feel it is too dangerous a way to produce energy.

Take a look at this link and go all the way through this website and you will have some understaning of the dangers of a real radioactive accident:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

People do not know how many people actually died due to the accident at chernobyl. Chernobyl was suppose to be the future of clean energy. Their government did not even tell the firefighters what was going on. When they arrived at the site everyone died almost instantly. Be prepared for a real emergency.

Solar Panels, Hydro Power, and Wind Power all seem a lot safer form of producing energy. I would rather have to get rid of lead batteries than radioactive contamination.

http://www.homepower.com/
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: Strk
Idaho officials are endorsing the proposal but are in a dispute with the DOE over disposal of radioactive waste. They want written assurances that the estimated 5,500 gallons of contaminated waste generated each year by producing plutonium-238 would be hauled out of state.
Click to expand...

That makes me laugh.
Click to expand...
I know... They've had enough problems with the existing waste, let alone this seriously nasty stuff they have planned. :disgust:
Click to expand...

Disposal was a minor consideration for the DOE and it's preceeding agencies until the last 20 years or so. They are still working at cleanig up all the waste that was improperly stored from the nuclear weapons programs.

They are now far better quipped to store the waste over the short term. The problem is now that nobody wants the waste in their state even if they want the industry. Nevada has drawn the short straw for various reasons and will be the likely resting place of most of the long term waste in the future.
Click to expand...

I don't think they will ever wake up and realize how insane it is to create this waste that basically can never be properly disposed of and poses such serious health and national security issues. Meanwhile, the government tells all these other countries what they can and can't have. It's disgusting.
Click to expand...

The proliferation concerns are merely being used to fuel local opposition to the project.

Waste storage is a valid concern but few want to talk about solutions, instead most stand around and say "Yea, that is a problem" and ignoring it in th vain hope that the problem will disappear on its own.

Geologic storage of the high level waste in safe conditions is possible for the amount of time required for it to decay to safe levels. Factor in reprocessing and there is even less waste to be stored. Yucca mountain is the future destination for all high level wast from our commercial and military nuclear facilities. The problem is that all the space there is already spoken for with preexisting waste. Also, the site choice MAY not be optimal for long term high level storage (something that should be looked into an independent comission).

Also, all nations are free to peacefully use nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

Last I heard, Yucca mountain construction was going to begin, and they were going to start shipping nuclear waste there in 2010. I know Congress was delaying construction of hat facility because the contractor failed to prove the facility counld hold up for 10,000 years, which I think is ridiculous. However I agree we should make a massive facility to put all of our countries nuclear waste in. It makes it a lot easier to control and know what is going on, security wise. And yes, Nuclear power should be used for all countries wanting to use it for peaceful purposes. It's countries like Iran and North Korea that make me wonder how many strings they had to pull with the UN to get those reactors....
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
I am definitely against nuclear power and the use of nuclear fuel. I feel it is too dangerous a way to produce energy.

Take a look at this link and go all the way through this website and you will have some understaning of the dangers of a real radioactive accident:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

People do not know how many people actually died due to the accident at chernobyl. Chernobyl was suppose to be the future of clean energy. Their government did not even tell the firefighters what was going on. When they arrived at the site everyone died almost instantly. Be prepared for a real emergency.
Click to expand...

Chernobyl is a great example to the rest of the world regarding how NOT to use nuclear power.

That accident was the result of a crappy reactor design, going cheap on saftey (no containment), and complete operator ignorance/stupidity.
 
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: LandRover
Originally posted by: Future Shock
With Bush in power, I'm sure the answer will be "Let them drink Evian..."

FS

Seriously, we do need that plutonium to power high-resolution spy satellites, and there are precious few places to develop it. It's a tough one...
Click to expand...

Supposedly, solar energy could be used in many applications (not claiming all). "...the European Space Agency's deep space mission Rosetta is powered with solar, not plutonium. It was launched in March 2004 and is destined to rendezvous with a comet close to Jupiter, farther from earth than some US plutonium-powered missions." Link
Click to expand...


It's not just a power issue - solar panels large enough to generate that much power have a number of disadvantages:

1) They are MUCH more visible to tracking telescopes and radar...and these are spy satellites, not commercial or interplanetary probes

2) They are much more fragile, both to natural and man-made hazards and weapons. Again, being spy satellites we know that other countries have worked on developing measures to destroy them, both kinetic and laser based. Solar panels are much more vulnerable to both...

3) I would hazard a guess that the surface area of those panels can also affect orbit dynamics, such as drag from the upper atmosphere in low orbit. But I couldn't quantify that...just a suspicion.

FS
Click to expand...
But might those disadvantages be out-weighed by the potential after effects from any of these satellites re-entering the atmosphere and disintegrating with a plutonium battery?
Click to expand...


Not really - we have had several nuclear batteries of this type re-enter, and they haven't posed any real problems. They cerainly might if there were thousands of them, but there are very few of these, and their re-entry so far has dissipated, or survived intact and plunged into the ocean...

Remember, back a few decades ago, the US (and other countries did similar) simply plunged 55 gallon drums of medium-level nuclear waste just off our own shores...by the hundreds just off the coast of San Fran. There was no shielding involved, no concrete casket...just a simple single walled drum, which was often fired upon to open holes to get it to sink. A few more nuclear batteries would be undetectable...

Future Shock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top