Uranium Boom Threatens Rivers

[Droboat]

Uranium mining is becoming a threat to many of the rivers discussed on the Buzz. Thought this new threat might be of interest.

Headwaters Magazine #17, Summer 2008 has articles on uranium mining and milling. Access to the whole edition is below:

Colorado Foundation for Water Education

"Even with more conventional [uranium] mining operations, the threat of water contamination still exits. Energy Fuels Resource Corp.’s Whirlwind Mine, which straddles the Utah-Colorado border, calls for treating any excess ground water to meet state standards prior to discharge, but some local residents and environmental groups
have expressed concerns about possible contamination of the Dolores River.

Perhaps the biggest concern is that the company plans to truck the uranium ore down John Brown Road, a steep, narrow gravel road featuring perilous drop-offs and hairpin turns as it runs alongside the
Dolores. As many as 40 trucks per week are expected to eventually make the trip from the mine site to a nearby mill in
Blanding, Utah."

[cemartin]

Finally... it's about time that we start utilizing our nuclear power resources. Should we nay say everything that's in our back yard or anyone else's for that matter?

[SummitAP]

Originally Posted by cemartin

Finally... it's about time that we start utilizing our nuclear power resources. Should we nay say everything that's in our back yard or anyone else's for that matter?

amen

[original durangotang]

Originally Posted by cemartin

Finally... it's about time that we start utilizing our nuclear power resources. Should we nay say everything that's in our back yard or anyone else's for that matter?

Since the problem is in my backyard I feel I should comment.

I say nuclear power is fine providing a couple things.

1. That it is idiot proof. That there is no possibility of a mistake. Because mistakes with nuclear power can be absolutely catastrophic.

Chernobal was capable of burning to the center of the earth. The amount of radiation it produced was simply staggering. And it is a continuing saga. They don't know how to "permanently" contain it.

And the cost, in terms of lives and treasure is almost beyond belief.

Unfortunately there is no human activity that is not subject to human failure. If you could produce nuclear power that was not subject to stupidity I might be for it.

But you can't.

2.The nuclear power generators pay all the costs. That they don''t rely of taxpayer subsidies. If that was the case NOBODY would ever invest in nuclear power BECAUSE:

No insurance company would ever underwrite the risk. Nuclear power relies on the Federal government to accept and pay for the risk of any catastrophe. In other words the taxpayer will pay for the mistakes.

3. If you could find a way, any way, to safely store nuclear waste for the next 20,000 years or so.

Can't be done.

Unless nuclear power is 100% safe, and it is not nor will ever be, and unless you can figure out what to do with the waste, nuclear power is a particularly bad idea.

[SummitAP]

Originally Posted by original durangotang

1. That it is idiot proof. That there is no possibility of a mistake. Because mistakes with nuclear power can be absolutely catastrophic.

Chernobal was capable of burning to the center of the earth. The amount of radiation it produced was simply staggering. And it is a continuing saga. They don't know how to "permanently" contain it.

And the cost, in terms of lives and treasure is almost beyond belief.

Unfortunately there is no human activity that is not subject to human failure. If you could produce nuclear power that was not subject to stupidity I might be for it.

But you can't.

I'll try to keep this simple:

A Chernobyl style accident is impossible in the US because we don't have reactors like that. Chernobyl was a fail-deadly design if coolant was lost, ie the reaction increased with the loss of coolant (graphite moderated RBMK). US reactors fail safe in such a scenarios (water moderated). Even so, to achieve Chernobyl, the Soviets had to do some other amazing things such as disabling safety systems, performing experiments against orders designed to take the reactor beyond its safe limits, and the list goes on from there. Even then, if Chernobyl had containment systems like the US reactors have, the disaster might have been mostly contained.

While you cannot design something that is impossible to destroy, you can and we have designed systems that are incredibly fail safe and that cause only minor consequences in the face of even the most intentional human stupidity.

PS Chernobyl was not capable of "burning to the center of the earth."

2.The nuclear power generators pay all the costs. That they don''t rely of taxpayer subsidies. If that was the case NOBODY would ever invest in nuclear power BECAUSE:

No insurance company would ever underwrite the risk. Nuclear power relies on the Federal government to accept and pay for the risk of any catastrophe. In other words the taxpayer will pay for the mistakes.

I'll buy that argument if every other type of power generation source is funded solely by the generator. But they aren't. That means no tax credits or subsidies or cheap leases of government land for wind or solar or ethanol or oil. That means no government subsidy for building massive and expensive electrical storage and transport systems to make remote wind farms feasible.

No government support is stupid! Something so basic and critical to the economic machine of this country goes slightly beyond simple economics when you consider the national and global implications of pollution and the geopolitical ramifications of being dependent on foreign, fossil, or undependable power sources. Thus, there is enough economic, environmental, and geopolitical potential for the US people to authorize government encouragement when it comes to implementation just as there is sense in having government regulation like the NRC.

In summary, getting rid of coal power and creating a reliable power generation system with the excess capacity we'll need for both growth and for the eventual replacement of petroleum powered mobile power system (cars) with electrically powered ones (batteries and/or fuel cells) is worth some government help because of the freedom it gives us in geoplitics, the safety it grants us by decreasing pollution, and the reliability it offers our economy.

3. If you could find a way, any way, to safely store nuclear waste for the next 20,000 years or so.

Can't be done.

1. Yes it can.

2. You don't have to. Keeping it simple:

Fuel can be recycled (reprocessed) like every other country on the planet does EXCEPT this one (thanks Jimmy Carter, you dumbass).

Unrecyclable fuel can be transmuted into usable fuel or into a shorter lived waste product with breeder reactors (once again, thanks Jimmy Carter).

So in truth, virtually all of the high level waste coming from power reactors that we already have can be turned into usable fuel again through these processes or it can be made shorter lived. All we have to do is choose to do it. The reason we don't is that Jimmy Carter banned these processes in the name of merely setting an example for nonproliferation (because of theft fears). It's retarded and other countries don't follow.

FYI, the vast majority of waste presently produced by nuclear power is low level waste which mostly only needs to be stored for 5 years to make it safe.

Unless nuclear power is 100% safe, and it is not nor will ever be, and unless you can figure out what to do with the waste, nuclear power is a particularly bad idea.

Nothing is 100% safe. Some things are safer than others. Nuclear power generation in the US is far safer than any other major power generation industry on the whole like hydro, coal, and natural gas. No deaths can be attributed to nuclear power generation in this country. The coal we burn in one year in the US accounts for more radiation released into the environment than every nuclear power radiation release in this country's history including TMI. Nuclear power is one the safest and cleanest options out there and it is the most reliable.

[marko]

Or, maybe we could start allocating more dollars into research like the one in the article below. I would be more than happy to have my tax dollars put into research and education instead of where my dollars are currently being spent.

Solar Power Breakthrough Stores Energy for Later Use - CommonDreams.org

[SummitAP]

Originally Posted by marko

Or, maybe we could start allocating more dollars into research like the one in the article below. I would be more than happy to have my tax dollars put into research and education instead of where my dollars are currently being spent.

Solar Power Breakthrough Stores Energy for Later Use - CommonDreams.org

While I like the idea, I have to say...
I remember reading in the 80s "solar just ten years away!" and I read that in the 90s too... and in 2000.

That is another typical "They found the magic solution/It could be ready in 10 to 15 years" story.

The truth is we need to prepare ASAP otherwise we'll just continue to burn more coal or we won't have the excess generating capacity for growth and for electric/fuel cell cars.

PS Photovalic electrolysis is NOT a breakthrough concept. It has been around for decades. It sounds to me after googling about that they have created a more efficient electrolysis process.

That said, solar/fuel cells have their own host of problems. Aside from cost, you have reliability which might be fine in LA but probably not in Seattle. You also have install costs and then you have to take space in peoples homes to put the hydrogen storage. Oh... and how safe is storing compressed hydrogen in peoples homes? That's rocket fuel. (Remember the Hindenbrug?)

Lastly, such an individualized solution requires individuals to purchase them and convert their domiciles (or rental properties) piecemeal. I guess you could try to encourage it through government subsidies and tax breaks, but it's probably less effective than wholesale replacement of large carbon spewing powerplants with no-carbon plants.

You will still need the great interconnects and power distribution and large plants to supply homes when there isn't enough sunlight, power demands spike (summer/winter), and the homes that couldn't/wouldn't convert. You'll also need the large power plants still for industrial power use and for mobile fuel generation like for electric/fuel cell cars.

So we COULD wait 10 years and then start the replacement process if everything is discovered just right. Nuclear, on the other hand, is ready to start the replacement process now. Should we forget about solar? NO! Should we sit on our hands hoping the solution pans out when we have solutions now? NO!

[lhowemt]

Blah blah blah. There is no such thing as "fail safe", if you think so you don't know anything about process controls. And, 3mile island was within an inch of the "China Syndrome", releasing into the groundwater. And, there is no where to dispose of the waste, all spent fuel is stored on site at the facilities. Just because a central site has been identified, it is irrelevant if it isn't/can't be used. That's like saying we have a garbage dump, but you have to keep all your garbage at your house. Get real!

Hydrogen at people's home is probably a stretch, but hydrogen located at appropriate locations on the grid is close to being real. Closed loop, electrolysis, fuel cell, electrolysis, fuel cell. Let that little water molecule work over and over.

[original durangotang]

I would buy the arguments for nuclear power IF: You can show me the insurance company that would write a policy for a nuclear power plant.

You cannot do that because nobody in that industry could possibly buy that risk.

Then ask yourself if they aren't willing to underwrite the risk, why should I, as a taxpayer/

We shouldn't. The consequences of screwing up are much too great. Like our risk assessment manger once said "Human beings will always find a way of screwing up."


P.S. Don't give me that BS about "nobody has been killed." by nuclear power.

Tell that to the Navajo uranium miners who are dying of lung cancer.

[SummitAP]

Originally Posted by original durangotang

I would buy the arguments for nuclear power IF: You can show me the insurance company that would write a policy for a nuclear power plant.

You cannot do that because nobody in that industry could possibly buy that risk.

Then ask yourself if they aren't willing to underwrite the risk, why should I, as a taxpayer/

We shouldn't. The consequences of screwing up are much too great. Like our risk assessment manger once said "Human beings will always find a way of screwing up."


P.S. Don't give me that BS about "nobody has been killed." by nuclear power.

Tell that to the Navajo uranium miners who are dying of lung cancer.

Socialized benefits and socialized risks. It's better than socialized risk and privatized benefits going on with oil and coal. You are being a hypocrite. Other power industries all operate with the public dime. You only demand that Nuclear abide by your "solely private" mantra.

I didn't include mining in nuclear power, especially since so much of it was for military purposes (particularly in the case of the poor Navajo miners you mentioned which started mining in the 1940s for nuclear weapons). Include that and then you can include coal mining in coal power (more legitimate). Will you include surface mines and the concrete industry in hydro power? And the iron mines and steel industry in wind? Gallium, arsenic, and cadnium mines for solar?

I stand by my claim. They are fairly based. Will you be equally fair when applying your criticisms?

PS Reprocessing and breeding will actually minimize the need for further uranium mining. Breeding allows the creation of fuels from things besides U-235.

Originally Posted by lhowemt

Blah blah blah. There is no such thing as "fail safe", if you think so you don't know anything about process controls. And, 3mile island was within an inch of the "China Syndrome", releasing into the groundwater.

First of all, the 1979 TMI-2 was not the near apocalypse you seem to think. There was a partial meltdown but the reactor vessel was not compromised nor was the containment building.

Second, nuclear safety has come a LONG way since 1979 and so has reactor design with our existing Gen II reactors. Gen III+ and Gen IV reactors, what the new construction would be, are even safer than the overhauled safety of PWRs (gen II) after TMI. Look up PBMRs.

Toshiba and some other companies have developed small completely self contained and automated reactors like the 4S.

Originally Posted by lhowemt

And, there is no where to dispose of the waste, all spent fuel is stored on site at the facilities. Just because a central site has been identified, it is irrelevant if it isn't/can't be used. That's like saying we have a garbage dump, but you have to keep all your garbage at your house. Get real!

You appear to not have very much understand your own points.

Waste has been stored on site for two reasons:
1. Lack of a central storage area for high level waste. Now there is YMNWR but it is still not online. Once it is, the waste can be safely transported.
2. Failure of states to create mandated low level waste facilities.

You also lack reading comprehension:

Originally Posted by SummitAP

Keeping it simple:

Fuel can be recycled (reprocessed) like every other country on the planet does EXCEPT this one (thanks Jimmy Carter, you dumbass).

Unrecyclable fuel can be transmuted into usable fuel or into a shorter lived waste product with breeder reactors (once again, thanks Jimmy Carter).

So in truth, virtually all of the high level waste coming from power reactors that we already have can be turned into usable fuel again through these processes or it can be made shorter lived. All we have to do is choose to do it. The reason we don't is that Jimmy Carter banned these processes in the name of merely setting an example for nonproliferation (because of theft fears). It's retarded and other countries don't follow.