US freezes permits for nuclear plants**UPDATE**

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. government said it will stop issuing permits for new nuclear power plants and license extensions for existing facilities until it resolves issues around storing radioactive waste.

The government's main watchdog, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, believes that current storage plans are safe and achievable. But a federal court said that the NRC didn't detail what the environmental consequences would be if the agency is wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/nuclear-plants-waste/index.htm?iid=HP_LN&hpt=hp_t3

I know some people are against nuclear energy. But this is going to cost people a lot as our energy bills increase.

Our nuclear plants are aged and need to be upgraded. They should have dealt with this in a better way.

GAO's study found that Energy Secretary Steven Chu's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program was made for policy reasons, not technical or safety reasons, and officials speaking for Chu in 2010 did not cite any technical concerns or safety issues related to the Yucca Mountain site.

The Energy Department moved to pull its application to develop the site from NRC last year, but the commission's Atomic Safety Licensing Board ruled in June that the government could not pull the application unless Congress directed otherwise. DOE appealed the board's decision to the full NRC panel, and the agency is in the process of making a recommendation on whether or not the government can pull its application. Under NRC procedures, the results of a vote are not made public until staff guidance is developed based on the votes and the commission passes a final order.

When DOE moved to shutter the project last year, Chu did not say Yucca Mountain was unsafe or that there were flaws in the license application, according to the report, but said the site was not a workable option and that alternatives should be found.

(I think Chu is gone from the DOE, but the Administration is behind the DOE stalemate.)

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/10/10greenwire-gao-death-of-yucca-mountain-caused-by-politica-36298.html?pagewanted=all

ok, i was in a funny mood, specially when yall hit me with the math problems

but I do feel strongly that if we dont upgrade our nuclear faciities and take that serious we are going to have a severe energy crisis worse than now.

theve regulated coal so much thats not going to be viable either.

there really is no other alternative to nuclear energy for us since we are such a large industrial nation.

I sometimes feel our gov is trying its hardest to create a crisis and I know that makes me a whacko to think that. but all I have to go on is the descions they make, and they aint all that good sometimes. and if I can figure it out, they should be able to.

Nuclear plants have a high capital cost, but their operating costs (fuel costs) are very low. If the nuke plants go away, we are all going to be paying more for electricity.

EricEricson wrote:

Nuclear plants have a high capital cost, but their operating costs (fuel costs) are very low. If the nuke plants go away, we are all going to be paying more for electricity.

The nuclear industry is going to be completely transformed by these two things:

1. Beryllium-oxide/HEU hybrid fuel rods; now undergoing testing and development:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Beryllium-uranium_fuel_research_shows_promise-0402118.html

2. Small Modular Reactors:

http://energy.aol.com/2012/03/22/small-modular-reactors-the-ipads-of-nuclear-power/

The first makes a fuel rod that is 35-50% more efficient than current technology and uses about half the amount of uranium in a rod. The end result is that the world's uranium supply will be extended, and melt downs are now improbable.

The second uses modular reactors the size of a railroad car (or even smaller), which can be plugged in and changed out, or scaled up or down, as necessary. I read several months ago of a South Korean company which is developing a modular reactor the size of a refrigerator, which would be able to power 25K houses for 8-years before needing to be changed out.

I am all for finding a alternative energy.

what I am not for is making rules or regulations based on alternative enrgies that are not yet invented or perfected to use. They tried that all ready not long ago the EPA put a restriction on refineries for not using a biofuel that wasnt even invented yet.

I strongly feel we shouldnt stop what we have when we dont have for sure something else. This is the type of decisions that leave us in a pickle later on.

what happens if the alternative dont work out?

EricEricson wrote:

Nuclear plants have a high capital cost, but their operating costs (fuel costs) are very low. If the nuke plants go away, we are all going to be paying more for electricity


.

5 plants shut down in 3 days