SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times is reporting that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided that nuclear waste from power plants can be stored on site, above ground, in containers that can be maintained and guarded forever.
In her statement, the Chairwoman recognized that this unanimous decision makes it less likely that any permanent storage facility will ever be approved by Congress:
“If you make the assumption that there will be some kind of institution that will exist, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that will assure material stays safe for hundreds or thousands of years, there’s not much impetus for Congress to want to deal with this issue. Personally, I think that we can’t say with any certainty what the future will look like. We’re pretty damned poor at predicting the future.”
The decision allows the resumption of Nuclear Licensing for new reactors, and expansion of existing plants by allowing indefinite use of above ground storage that can be monitored repaired and maintained essentially forever.
In June 2012, a court ruled that the commission had not done its homework in studying whether the waste could be stored on an interim basis while awaiting the creation of underground storage facilities. As a result, the commission froze much of its licensing activity two years ago.
The new storage plan is exactly the same as the old storage plan, but drops any pretense of there being a central underground storage facility, while at the same time mumbling some vague plans for 2048.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mtrycz on Sunday August 31 2014, @09:41AM
I remember having seen the documentary about this new type of nuclear by this guy who's supporting it, lemme see if I can find it.
Yeah, I got it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4 [youtube.com], it's an interesting video, and while I'm too ignorant on the matter to either endorse or dismiss the type of nuclear he's advocating, the video explains the details of why traditional nuclear is so bad.
The pieces I liked the most is where:
1. nuclear fuel rod are used up in about 1% of their fuel content, and the remaining 99% of it remains inside, unusable
2. uranium and plutonium were researched and built *because* of their weapon applicability, while thorium was dismissed for not having this applicability
Now I'm not saying that the claims are right or wrong, as I don't have the knowledge necessary, but I'm sure other folks here can.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!