Re: Don't support S.1287 and H.R.45

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Hi Al,

This analysis doesn't hold up. Yucca Mt. will destroy nuclear. It must not be
supported. The immediate issue however is spent fuel storage. Giving this job
to DOE is ludicrous, and it would cause nuclear to 'choke on its waste.' Sites
must provide (are providing) storage. We solve many (all major) problems by
moving it later (except utility commitments to their local states - suck it
up, they have to build on-site dry storage anyway - but tell your states that
you can get the $$ back from DOE!!.

The idea that there's no diff between moving the fuel "now" (with a timetable
and 'Mobile Chernobyl' activists; to gov't central storage and bureaucracy)
and "later" (when nuclear itself will be accepted - or dead, in the unlikely
condition that our grandchildren don't need it, then we don't care, they'll
move/dispose of less radioactive material) doesn't consider the real
conditions.

The time for YM to "show that we have some place to put the waste" is long
past, and even then it would "prove" nothing, unless you want to wait 10,000
years to prove the anti's wrong :-)

Thanks

Regards, Jim
============

Al Tschaeche wrote:
> 
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------67D77C6F38FBE2C1A72DB511
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> All, after the first sentence,  you say may be true. However, the
> overarching reason we need Yucca Mountain operating is to counter the anti
> nuclear statement that we have no place to put the "waste."  Spent fuel is
> not waste.  The liquid from the first dissolution stage of a reprocessing
> plant, although defined by the NRC as "high level waste" really isn't.  It
> has been calculated that, if properly decontaminated and separated, the
> Rhodium, Platinum and Palladium in such liquids would make the US
> independent of the rest of the world for supplies of those metals.  There
> are many other valuable elements in such liquids that should be recovered
> economically.  So, "repository" would be a better word for Yucca Mountain.
> We would be just storing the material there for later recovery.  I trust
> that is what NRC and DOE have in mind.  If not, then we do need legislation
> to ensure we can recover the materials later.  We do need another word for
> what we will put into Yucca Mountain besides spent fuel or waste.  Perhaps
> Radioactive Material for Later Use (RMLU pronounced 'ramloo') would be
> appropriate.
> 
> I just downloaded the two bills and will read them.  Al Tschaeche
> antatnsu@pacbell.net
> 
> Joseph Archer wrote:
> 
> > Supporting Yucca mountain isn't Pro-nuclear, it's anti-nuclear.
> 
> --------------67D77C6F38FBE2C1A72DB511
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
>  name="antatnsu.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for Al Tschaeche
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>  filename="antatnsu.vcf"
> 
> begin:vcard
> n:Tschaeche;Al
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
> version:2.1
> email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
> title:CEO
> x-mozilla-cpt:;0
> fn:Al Tschaeche
> end:vcard
> 
> --------------67D77C6F38FBE2C1A72DB511--
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html