How to Decommission a Nuke Plant

We should all read up and Decommissioning a Nuke plant so we can answer questions on the topic, now that we are getting closer to shutting them all down. Right!

About residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment

Vision for ROSE Working for the good of the Mother Earth. To provide a safe and clean planet for our children and grandchildren, and the seven generations to come. Working to support Ethically Sound Environmental decisions for the future. We hold the power of our vision in our own hands.
This entry was posted in NUCLEAR NEWS & INFO. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to How to Decommission a Nuke Plant

  1. One thing that comes to mind after learning about the details in some decommissionings is that the spent fuel needs to remain on site, but not over-packed into dry casks or left in waste pools beyond five years as is now the trend. If a moderator like water gets into the dry casks then it can start fissioning all over again, or if the configuration within the cask is disturbed by violent movement such as a tidal wave or seismic event, or the materials used within the over-packed cask degrades and no longer act as a barrier to criticality. .And yes, it needs to stay where it is in at high enough levels in structures that will withstand the Worst seismic event and water event currently known and possible then one seismic level higher, in casks that are very low density for spent fuel. It is distance that prevents re-criticality in this enriched radioactive ore…spent fuel…..all other methods are time dependent and we are talking a very long time…we wont be around..not even in the next 20 years to fix the cracks and leaking casks nor recontainerize them as the economics of us supporting these structures through our nuclear rates will no longer be in place…I don’t care what they say..they are an industry looking for another cash cow..this one..nuclear is dead as soon as the government fails to pick up the little bit of the tab that they are currently doing..on paper only as the general Fund has been robbed of all that money put into it by the Nuclear industry through our rates for storage of this waste.. Robbed or given away to help “reorganize” the electric industry by sweetening the pot for companies to purchase nukes and in particular decommissioned nukes. They did it in England and they did it here. IN fact some of the same companies were involved..are involved. Its and international game of name change and liability avoidance. The liabiity for the HLRW/spent fuel is only for three years for the holding company after the plant is closed…3 years! then all liability, not just the little the company must take on is then in the hands of the government. does it not make sense to leave it where it is in the hands of the people living near it to administer oversight as it is they who are at ground zero. No Point in moving it elsewhere and make someone else ground zero who will not have much say in what they get, how they get it or how it will be funded. Got to set up the funds with total transparency..not like the HLRW fund of the US gov.. could it b e because that fund has been pilfered the lack of funds the primary reason behind DOE Sec. Chu nixing Yucca Mountain, not the fact that it is unsuitable and made a sieve by the act of making test drills.. Many a non-suitable site has been used in the past, including salt domes. It is the economics…and we must pay attention to the resources and man hours needed along with the training to keep these monsters within their cages..the spent fuel and their profiteers.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.