Re: Why Nuclear Energy is Wrong For Missouri

1.17.2011

Re: Why Nuclear Energy is Wrong For Missouri

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Scott's Contracting <scottscontracting@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not support any Nuclear Plants in Missouri or any other State for the following reasons:
Scientist do not have long term solutions for waste disposal

Solar Energy aka: Renewable Energy is cheaper and less damaging to the environment- http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-study-shows-solar-power-is-cheaper.html

Nuclear Power PLANT CONSTRUCTION IS ASTRONOMICAL- We the Consumers Fund the Projects (see below-$26 billion so far)

What happens in USA and Europe?(copied from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/wast.htm)

In USA high-level civil wastes all remain as used fuel stored at the reactor sites. It is planned to encapsulate these fuel assemblies and dispose of them in an underground engineered repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This is the program which has been funded by electricity consumers to US $26 billion so far (ie @ 0.1 cent per kWh), of which about US $6 billion has been spent.
Yucca Mountain:
YUCCA MOUNTAIN - POLITICO's Robin Bravender reports that a Reid loss would likely give new life to the project, which would be welcome news to the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear lawmakers who see the lack of a long-term repository as a roadblock for a U.S. nuclear renaissance. http://politi.co/dtgRrZ

copied from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44455.html

"Nuclear power has become a central tenet of congressional Republican's energy agenda; senators like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander say expanding the power source will help to cut dependence on foreign oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Democrats and the Obama administration have shown a willingness to compromise on the issue, and nuclear is posed to be a focal point of energy talks next year on Capitol Hill if Republicans make major electoral gains."

Most Republicans have supported the Yucca repository but it hasn't been finished because "it's not politically correct," John Boehner said in August, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. "We've invested tens of billions of dollars in a storage facility that's as safe as anything we're going to find."

[ I have a hard time believing: "as safe as anything we're going to find." I translate this to be:"We don't have a solution for long term Nuclear Waste disposal"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44455.html#ixzz1BLJVpXkh

Wiki Information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half life 24,000 years).^[20] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.^[21] Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.^[22]
Radioactive Waste Disposal: An Environmental Perspective

[EPA 402-K-94-001]

This booklet describes the different categories of waste, discusses disposal practices for each type. and describes the way they are regulated.

On this page:

Types of Waste

Introduction

Any activity that produces or uses radioactive materials generates radioactive waste. Mining, nuclear power generation, and various processes in industry, defense, medicine, and scientific research produce byproducts that include radioactive waste. Radioactive waste can be in gas, liquid or solid form, and its level of radioactivity can vary. The waste can remain radioactive for a few hours or several months or even hundreds of thousands of years. Because it can be so hazardous and can remain radioactive for so long, finding suitable disposal facilities for radioactive waste is difficult. Depending on the type of waste disposed, the disposal facility may need to contain radiation for a very long time. Proper disposal is essential to ensure protection of the health and safety of the public and quality of the environment including air, soil, and water supplies.

Radioactive waste disposal practices have changed substantially over the last twenty years. Evolving environmental protection considerations have provided the impetus to improve disposal technologies, and, in some cases, clean up facilities that are no longer in use. Designs for new disposal facilities and disposal methods must meet environmental protection and pollution prevention standards that are more strict than were foreseen at the beginning of the atomic age.

Disposal of radioactive waste is a complex issue, not only because of the nature of the waste, but also because of the complicated regulatory structure for dealing with radioactive waste. There are a variety of stakeholders affected, and there are a number of regulatory entities involved.
Federal government agencies involved in radioactive waste management include:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
Department of Energy (DOE), and
Department of Transportation.
In addition, the states and affected Indian Tribes play a prominent role in protecting the public against the hazards of radioactive waste.

Types Of Radioactive Waste

There are six general categories of radioactive waste:

spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors
high-level waste from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel
transuranic waste mainly from defense programs
uranium mill tailings from the mining and milling of uranium ore
low-level waste
naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials.

Radioactive waste is categorized according to its origin and not necessarily according to its level of radioactivity. For example, some low-level waste has the same level of radioactivity as some high-level waste.
The following Clip was copied from the FERAF web site:
Dear Friend:

A proposal announced today by Governor Jay Nixon regarding nuclear power in Missouri represents a key opportunity to strengthen the consumer protections we depend on to keep Missouri energy rates fair and affordable.

The Fair Energy Rate Action Fund has worked hard over the past several years to support initiatives that keep the cost of energy fair and reasonable while providing adequate protections for all Missouri consumers. FERAF couldn't have undertaken that effort without your support and participation. We are happy the Governor is starting the conversation about ways to generate sustainable, low-cost energy and look forward to working with him and members of the General Assembly on provisions important to consumers.

FERAF will encourage the Governor and Legislative leadership to include several pro-consumer provisions, including:

Robust Office of Public Counsel (OPC). Over the years funding for consumer protection has been greatly reduced impairing the ability of OPC and PSC to conduct adequate reviews of rate case filings. Legislation should include funding of the OPC that allows them to conduct thorough audits of rate cases filed with the Public Service Commission.
Responsible Cap. Should the Legislature consider the utility's proposed legislation allowing them to recover costs of construction while in progress, they should include a reasonable and fair cap on rate increases to keep energy costs from spiraling out of control. To ensure consumers money is well spent, each step of the construction process should be monitored and controlled.
Rebate. Currently State law prevents costs associated with building a power plant from being charged to consumers before the plant is fully operational. The proposal announced today would create an exception to this law. If ratepayers pay tens of millions of dollars in rate increases and a plant is never built or the permit is sold at a profit, Missouri ratepayers deserve to be refunded in full.

But what about you? Will you help ensure these consumer protections are included with this year's energy legislation so we can keep Missouri energy rates fair and affordable? Make a difference today by signing up at www.fairenergyrates.com and asking people you know to join FERAF.

Contact Your States Politicians by using the Direct Linking Service

TellMyPolitician

Let them know that you do not support Any Nuclear Plants in Missouri

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com