Plutonium, in addition to being radioactive, is highly toxic. But the technology exists to handle it safely, and it has been handled safely for decades.

As far as the policy toward weapons proliferation, the enrichment level required to make bombs is far, far higher than the enrichment of power plant fuel. It is not possible to make a bomb from power plant fuel.

To my knowledge, there was one (commercial) LMFBR built in the U.S. near Detroit. It had issues. Being the first, it had some engineering defects and wasn’t successful. But instead of learning from the mistakes, we shelved the technology. We did the same thing with the “high temperature gas cooled reactor” concept. There was one (Fort St. Vrain), it had a problem (IIRC, the graphite core was left exposed to rain during construction) and never reached its full potential. HTGCR does not require the expensive steel pressure vessel that water reactors use. If we were serious about them, it’s possible to pre-fab all of the concrete components and truck them in.

IMO, what happened to nuclear power in the U.S. is pure ignorance. Horrible science education, coupled with leftie news media hype fomented the negative public perception and doomed the industry. We should be getting 90% of our base-load power from nuclear. It’s proven, the science is done, the engineering is done. We know how to handle it, we know how to transport it.

“There are no chemicals with the same toxicity level as the nuke waste that needs to be put into Yucca, not even the over-hyped DDT.”

You got the pare about DDT being over hyped right. But there are thousands of very nasty chemicals we use for our modern lifestyle that are very deadly and remain so for eons.

There are all sorts of nasty things in nature. Why is spent fuel, which is only as dangerous as the natural uranium found all over the world, any more worthy of worry?

We elevate nuclear waste to a special pedestal that its inherent risks don’t demand.

When Plutonium is left in a reactor for a long time, it becomes enriched in Plutonium 240. Pu 240 creates major problems for bombs but is a non-issue for reactor use.

That’s why the special reactors used for plutonium production for bombs had the ability to refuel online and the fuel residency was measured in weeks. In a power reactor, the fuel stays for years and the Plutonium in the spent fuel is useless for bomb making.

I agree that most people are overly fearful of it. But a callous disrespect of its potential is as bad. I don’t think anyone can accurately predict the stability of any particular geological site for the length of time required for the materials to be safe as a result of natural decay. Which is why I’d prefer the reprocessing route.

And for the record, as a teenager I was the one telling my mother to ignore my Aunt’s paranoid warning to get out because Three Mile Island was about to melt down. We lived about 35 miles from the plant as the crow flies, and frankly, it wouldn’t really bother me to live right next to it.

And I disagree on the chemicals question. There are no chemicals with the same toxicity level as the nuke waste that needs to be put into Yucca, not even the over-hyped DDT. It’s not a canard, it is a real danger, just like mining for coal is a real danger to the guy running the drilling machine. Responsibly assessing and reacting to the danger is the key.

Do you agree with that? Were there other reasons why the breeder research programs were shut down back in the sixties?

Er….

It makes no sense to bury unreprocessed “used fuel” for eternity when we could use it for fuel again.

And a couple of breeder reactors could keep us in fuel forever. But we need the reprocessing plant(s) to separate the new fuel produced in the breeder.

Dr. Bernard Cohen penned a couple of very good books on nuclear power…they may be lurking in a dusty corner of your local library. Each has an interesting chapter on risk…relevant since our society is so risk-adverse today in everything.

The IBEW wants the trades employees to be loyal democrats, but those same employees know that the dems want to end their line of work.

Nuclear waste decays. It eventually becomes safe. Not so for many other types of waste. Many chemical wastes will stay deadly to the end of the planet.

The whole thing is a canard used by anti-nukes.

Yet somehow it is conservatives who are living in the past.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961.cfm

Carbon-capping legislation and recent studies[1] that conclude that a massive build-up of nuclear power is needed to minimize the negative economic impact of CO2 caps have spurred several high-profile articles on the costs of nuclear energy.[2] One such article notes that estimated construction costs for nuclear power plants and the overall costs of nuclear power have increased significantly since 2000 and espouses wind power, solar power, and energy efficiency as alternatives to new nuclear plants……

……To argue that nuclear power is not viable based on cost alone while ignoring the many problems, including costs, that are associated with wind, solar, and efficiency measures is to present an inaccurate picture.

Wind and Solar Have Problems Too

Wind and solar power do have a role in America’s energy mix, but those technologies alone are not ready or able to power the United States. Despite efforts to portray these sources as viable alternatives to nuclear power, they have their own problems. They are expensive, intermittent, and inappropriate for broad swaths of the United States. For example, wind turbines are virtually useless in the Southeast, where there is little wind. Even environmental activists are beginning to oppose wind projects because they kill birds, despoil landscapes, and ruin scenic views.

First, wind is intermittent, producing electricity only about a third of the time. Second, the life expectancy of windmills is projected to be 20 years.[5] Nuclear power plants produce power for up to 80 years. This must be taken into account when considering costs.

The intermittent nature of wind and solar energy is important to the overall economics of energy and how these renewable sources relate to nuclear power. Given the low cost needed to operate a nuclear plant, lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed.[8] It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all…….

The Market Should Decide

Government has no business making any decisions about nuclear power based on costs. Its role should be to provide adequate oversight and fulfill its legal obligations on nuclear waste. It is primarily private companies that produce America’s power,[12] and consumers pay for it. Their interactions in the marketplace should determine the best way to meet America’s energy needs……

Conclusion

Nuclear power must be expanded if CO2 caps are to work. Despite claims of high costs, nuclear power is competitive with renewable energy sources when all costs are factored in. The time has come to acknowledge the critical role that nuclear power will play in the United States.

It’s a solution only a psychopath or the Obama administration (or do I repeat myself) coud love.

/snark

There has been a lot of discussion in the last few years about “alternative” energy, which, in most cases means wind and solar as alternatives to coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The problems with wind and solar are well known to anyone with thirty minutes to spare to do a modicum of research. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are too intellectually lazy to become informed and have outsourced their thinking to radical, agenda driven environmentalists and their enablers in media, academia, and politics. They have substituted saving the earth platitudes for real world analysis of even the basics of our available energy sources.
Below is a simple analysis of solar energy that I hope even the most stubborn and ignorant Liberal can understand. I will follow up this post with one on wind energy.
According to the New American the maximum, which is far more than what is actually recoverable, amount of solar power available per acre in Albuquerque, a region of the country blessed with a lot of sunshine, is 970 kW/acre.
The largest nuclear power plant in the is the Palo Verde plant near Phoenix, AZ.
Although the entire Palo Verde facility occupies 4,000 acres, the reactor buildings, cooling towers, cooling ponds, and support facilities only cover approximately 500 acres. Palo Verde produces 3.2 GW from its three reactors that run 24/7 and only shut down for maintenance and periodic refueling.Now, to get that same 3.2 GW from a solar array operating at 100% efficiency (remember, this is a physical impossibility) the solar plant would require a little less than the same 4,000 acres, ~3,300. This sounds like a great deal but in reality the physical maximum efficiency of modern solar cells only allows a conversion rate of about 10%. The problem of maximizing power from sunlight has been known for at least 30 years, and is primarily one of physical limitations, not engineering technology.” So this 3,300 acres in reality would require 33,000 acres to produce the same 3.2 GW as a nuclear power plant. That also assumes the entire 33,000 acres is covered by solar arrays, which, again is impossible. There needs to be spacing for panel movement, personnel and vehicle traffic, and support facilities. So lets conservatively say that to generate 3.2 GW during the peak sunshine hours would require 35,000 acres. That’s a lot of acreage for a plant that would only be able to produce electricity for 8-10 hours on a good sunny summer day. What then to do at night when the sun isn’t shining or in the winter months where the available hours falls significantly? What are the options for areas of the country that don’t have the available number of sunny days Albuquerque has? What options are available for the vast majority of the country that doesn’t have land for solar farms? What are the environmental impacts to wildlife and plant species of tens of thousands of acres being hidden from the sun under vast arrays of solar panels? Due to the area required, the inefficiency, and limited availability of solar energy, solar energy can never be more than a supplement to more traditional and reliable sources of energy.