Funding just came through for yet another phase of clean-up. They are going to clean-up seven acres of soil. The cost will be one billion per acre, or seven Billion (with a %26quot;B%26quot;) total.
If you are pro nuclear, how come? How can you justify the costs involved with nuke sites? These costs are %26quot;hidden%26quot; and come out of Federal tax payer dollars. Of course my local news is happily talking about it, because it means a boon of high paying jobs for the local area. About 100 jobs.
My math tells me that 100 jobs X seven BILLION dollars = completely outragous costs to run nuclear power.
So if you are pro-nuke, please present a valid argument/statment to say this is not outrageous.
Additional Details
2 months ago
One last bit of information. This project is to be COMPLETED by 2012. That means in less than 3.5 years the 7 billion will be spent, and of course those 100 high paying jobs will be gone.2 months ago
%26quot;Former Governor Cecil Andrus says, %26quot;This is a good agreement, the waste will be removed from the state of Idaho.%26quot;The plan identifies about 7 and a half acres at the INL for the removal of the targeted waste, most likely to be contaminated with transuranic elements, like plutonium, as well as uranium. And volatile organic compounds, similar to cleaning fluids that move easily in ground water.%26quot;
There%26#039;s a quote from the local news story. Transuranic elements for those who do not know are created in nuclear
power plants by uranium absorbing or capturing neutrons. Fresh nuclear fuel is 100% uranium, generally in the oxide form. Used nuclear fuel is about 94% uranium, 1% transuranic elements,
and up to 5% fission products.
The transuranic elements are long-lived and radiotoxic, and certain transuranic elements can be used in nuclear weapons.
This IS a cleanup of 7 acres of waste contamination, from nuclear power (happening in Idaho). Is is NOT a cleanup of
2 months ago
a Chernobyl like accident...just a %26quot;minor%26quot; cleanup going on, because of the use of nuclear power.So I%26#039;m still asking those who are Pro nuclear to provide sound statements as to why we should spend this kind of money on nuclear power.
%26quot;Because France does it (you wouldn%26#039;t acutally believe the problems they have), and because it creates jobs%26quot; (duh...look at the cleanup costs!) are not good, nor sound arguments for being pro-nuclear.
2 months ago
INEEL (as it is now called) still has six working reactor on it. The 7 billion IS just to clean up 7 acres of the site. There are many, many cleanups going on at the INEEL...I just picked one...the latest one that was on the news yesterday.2 months ago
Still not a single pro nuclear person is able to give a good reason WHY we should invest in nuclear and face cleanups like this in the future.Nuclear technology has come a long way since 1949. 100% 1 Vote
Other Answers (9)
-
I find your math correct. Living near nuke sites causes damage to the health of the citizens of the area, the environment, and the community. Like you said, those jobs will be gone and people will be unemployed. This situation is being replicated at nuke sites across the country.
0% 0 Votes
-
it would make a huge supply of energy. I see nuclear plants in the very near future here in Wyoming they are planning on excavating new uranium mines( which if you werent aware is where nuclear power comes from) that were mined up until the late 70s
0% 0 Votes
-
I am not pro nuclear at all. I have concerns about the amounts of nuclear waste that they will need to store somewhere in nevada. People who live around those areas can%26#039;t be too happy about that.
0% 0 Votes
-
Too many pro to list my best advice is to research Frances nuclear program, it has been ideal. The French are a bunch of cowards, but this they got right.
0% 0 Votes
-
Comparing modern nuclear power nuclear power to the area your are talking about is like comparing a 1910 coal fired plant to a modern one... in the 50%26#039;s and 60%26#039;s when the base research was being done VERY little was known about reactors and how to build and protect them...
modern nuclear facilities in the US have at LEAST three layers of protection between the environment and the fuel... they have detectors for radiation that are so sensitive that we detected the Chernobyl problem from across the globe.... you get less radiation from a modern nuclear facility then you do from the bricks in the buildings you go to school in.
The Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) involves the safe, environmental cleanup of the Idaho National Laboratory site, which has been contaminated with waste generated from World War II-era conventional weapons testing, government-owned research and defense reactors, laboratory research, and defense missions at other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites. 0% 0 Votes -
I love how environmentalists create a problem, and then use that problem as the example for why something is untenable.
Most nuclear power plants have spent fuel rods sitting in open air cooling ponds that were meant as a temporary storage fix, but are leaking since most of these things have been sitting around for 20 years.