Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Why USA nuclear industry is mad keen to get Australia as nuclear waste dump

Australia nuclear toilet

Here’s an example. The State of Wisconsin has a ban on building new nuclear reactors. The nuke lobby is a-cat-CANnow trying to overturn that law.

But they are hampered because of USA’s lack of a nuclear waste dump plan.

Thirteen states have placed restrictions on the construction of new nuclear power facilities, including requiring :

  • the identification a demonstrable technology or a means for high level waste disposal or reprocessing

You can see how the nuclear industry is hamstrung in America, because

  • The disposal and storage of high-level nuclear waste remains a major unresolved issue.

You can see how that problem would be solved for the nuclear lobby, if Australia obligingly decided to take their (and indeed, everybody’s) nuclear waste.

Energy Experts Are Split On Whether Wisconsin Should Lift Ban On New Nuclear Power Plants Earlier This Month, Assembly Passed A Bill That Would Make It Easier To Bring Nuclear Facilities To State WPR, By Scottie Lee Meyers Wednesday, January 27, 2016 Energy experts are taking different sides on whether Wisconsin should pass new legislation that would allow for the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Earlier this month, the state Assembly passed a measure that would effectively lift Wisconsin’s ban on new nuclear power plants by eliminating two essential clauses. The clauses stipulate that nuclear power would be proven to be a cheaper source of energy to residents and requires a federal repository site for spent nuclear waste. ……..

energy experts like Al Gedicks, of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, said they would rather see the state invest in renewable energy systems. While Gedicks said he agrees that nuclear energy is better than coal, natural gas and oil in terms of overall greenhouse gas emissions, he worries that nuclear plants take years to construct and get operating — years we can’t afford to spend when faced with such devastating consequences of climate change. Moreover, he said he fears extreme weather incidents could disrupt radioactive waste stored at nuclear power plants.

Gedicks also believes the bill would open the door to Wisconsin itself becoming a federal repository site.

“If you lift the restriction on no nuclear power plants without a waste disposal site, you are setting up the state of Wisconsin to become if not the first, then certainly the second nuclear waste repository,” he said.

Wisconsin already was targeted by the U.S. Department of Energy as a potential repository site to compliment Yucca Mountain back in the 1980s, according to Gedick. But massive opposition, including from four tribal nations, eventually led for the federal agency to look elsewhere. Soon after, Wisconsin implemented the moratorium.

Gedick said Wisconsin could remain an attractive location for a waste dump site because of granite rock formations in the northern part of the state.

“Wisconsin was high on the list in the 1980s and it is still high on the list now,” Gedlick said. “We  are essentially going into this blindfolded because we haven’t had a discussion on whether this is what the citizens of Wisconsin want if they lift that nuclear power moratorium.”…… http://www.wpr.org/energy-experts-are-split-whether-wisconsin-should-lift-ban-new-nuclear-power-plants

January 28, 2016 - Posted by | Uncategorized

1 Comment »

  1. The first reason is MONEY and I mean BIG Money. Politicians are always gear for Nuclear Payback*

    * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

    Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.

    The “other” reason is that the Nuclear Industry and their Utilities are desperate to create a radioactive waste dumping site for waste is that they are going to want to site Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) very soon, which companies like SD’s General Atomic are now working on. Since CA has a law that says no more nuclear reactors, until a waste site is developed, the lack of a disposal site is the biggest roadblock they face preventing them from deploying SMRs in CA. I believe that most Utilities will want to phase out Nat. Gas fired Peaker plants and install SMR’s “because they don’t emit CO2.” That is, unless they are going to be making big money using nat. gas like SDG&E will be, since they already have a contract to import Nat. Gas from Mexico (which Sempra owns a share of, so they will be kind of buying Nat. Gas from themselves) for use in their two new state of the art Billion Dollar Peaker Plants that the CPUC just approved for them (despite the fact that the cost of Wind and Solar generation continues to drop almost monthly)!

    SCE just had the CPUC decide against approving a Nat. Gas Peaker plant for them, so you can bet that they are now getting “very excited” about installing one or more SMR’s at San Onofre, since the grid wiring connection is already in place and they are going to be guarding that “nuclear waste” site for decades to come.

    http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/jan/08/oceanside-takes-stand-relocating-san-onofres-nucle/

    BTW: All waste facilities should be run by the Government, that way they will always be responsible for it, since Big Waste Corp.’s can go out of business any time they want as as everybody knows Radiation is FOREVER since 50 or more than 100 years is forever to everyone living today.

    Like

    Comment by CaptD | January 30, 2016 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: