Comments on: Does Idaho Falls want Areva?

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 06:57:42 +0000

Back to AREVA. I found it interesting that many comments were accepting of wastes being retained here because we “produced” the waste.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this a separation process where spent nuclides and scrap components in the fuel are removed until the remaining concentration of uranium is again at a level that can reach criticality in a reactor?
This being the case I would have several comments.
Handling virgin non used fuel is fairly safe. Handling fuel that has been used once is deadly.
Wouldn’t this processed and re-concentrated stuff also be deadly to handle and transport?
What prevents this material that is now traveling on a regular basis from falling into terrorist hands and being used in a “Dirty Bomb”?
If we are not the state that originally split the atom, used its energy, and produced the hazard then we are not in any way liable to keep their trash even if we perform a separation and enrichment process on it for them.
I would think that since this is a service to them then they should be liable for any additional dirty materials added to the waste stream due to the refinement process.

By: TJ66

TJ66 — Fri, 09 May 2008 02:12:23 +0000

Not sure why it hasn’t been mentioned but Lead is normally what is used as shielding in a reactor. That was one of the problems with the shielding on that Nuclear Aircraft. Lead as you know is heavy but it is also one of the best types of shielding. It was considered for the Aircraft but again it was realized too much weight in shielding making the aircraft too heavy to fly.

Anyways, I guess my point is Lead is one of the main types of shielding used as it shields quite well.

By: Crystal

Crystal — Fri, 09 May 2008 02:04:47 +0000

Mike, re #56, this is truly brilliant.

By: BobbyDigital

BobbyDigital — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:04:00 +0000

Bloop, I was about to say the same thing. Test Area North (TAN) is where they were doing all that work. In fact, there’s a really looong runway out there as well.

CR, I haven’t gone anywhere - work’s just been keeping me a little too busy.

That being said, shouldn’t we get back on topic and move the alternative energy topics to another thread?

Especially since when you search “Areva Idaho Falls” on Google, this is the first hit. This thread is a chance for us to show the world that Idaho can be an energy revolution leader.

Recently I came across the fact that Idaho has the lowest consumer electricity cost in the nation. I would like to see numbers on how much power the Areva plant plans on consuming. Could the low cost of Idaho energy have been one of Areva’s main decision factors?

By: Bloop

Bloop — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:24:50 +0000

As a subscript: the prototype engines for the nuclear plane are on display near EBR-1, as is a locomotive used to move the planes. The hangar built for the project is still visible off U.S. Highway 33 shortly after you enter the site boundaries. I’ve written a travelogue story about it at uncharted.net — look under road trips.

By: Bloop

Bloop — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:21:55 +0000

I have read Idaho Falls, by William McKeown. It’s a very interesting book, that gives not only a peek into the heyday of the INL but also a look into what Idaho Falls was like back then. It’s a pretty fascinating story about an explosion that killed three workers at a US Army nuclear reactor in the early 1960s (I may have the time wrong). Theories abound, but the most popular one involves love triangle or dispute involving two of the three men at the reactor.

By: CR67

CR67 — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:45:45 +0000

No, I havent read the book…..I’ll have to check it out sometime. Sounds pretty interesting.

By: babs

babs — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:12:11 +0000

Those are good points, CR67: I believe this was being discussed in the 50’s when nuclear energy was in its infancy…….obviously, the idea might be workable now; it was just that when the Air Force first proposed the “nuclear plane”, the technology had somewhat outpaced the practical application thereof.

Have you read the book? It truly is fascinating.

By: CR67

CR67 — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:46:15 +0000

Is Cement whats mainly used to shield radiation? Afterall, cement is rather porous, so why couldn’t say titanium or iron be used as a shield. What’s used in nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers?

By: CR67

CR67 — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:40:32 +0000

BobbyD! Good to have you back….where you been hidin these days?

By: BobbyDigital

BobbyDigital — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:38:47 +0000

The truth about the gas tax:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aza2XQB.kk0k&refer=home

By: babs

babs — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:37:27 +0000

okay, this is slightly off topic but someone did mention a “nuclear car”; has anyone here read “IDAHO FALLS” about the nuclear disaster out at the site in the 60’s I believe? Very interesting book……..discusses not only the accident (??? although WAS it an accident at all???) but the history of the site and the reason the government was looking into “mini reactors”. One of the proposals being kicked around was a nuclear airplane. Two problems: the pilots would die from radiation unless the reactor was adequately shielded or vice versa;

problem two: the amount of cement needed to adequately shield the pilot would make the plane too heavy to fly.

I’m really not making this up!

By: Nemesis

Nemesis — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:29:37 +0000

I didn’t mention windfall profit taxes, I don’t know that I am in favor of them.

And unlike your donut, oil is a huge part of our economy in almost all areas. The person with stock in the oil company may profit, but they are paying higher prices on everything else to eat up that profit.

My first thought was that the oil companies could lower the wholesale prices, and still make loads of money, but then I realized that unless everyone in the chain agreed to keep their charges the same, the savings would not be passed along to the final consumer.

So praise God and pass the extra helping of capitalism, because I’ll need that patriotic pap to comfort me when I have to tighten my belt in every other area of my life. I am but one of the millions of “John Q Public” citizens who isn’t wealthy but thinks I am as entitled to live out the American Dream as those who have enough money to not be affected by all this glorious profiteering.

Sigh. I could be living in a 3rd world country, so I guess I’m just whining, after all.

By: Guest_007

Guest_007 — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:50:51 +0000

You should have put a “BOP” alert on that one!

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:28:28 +0000

So, if I open up a Krispy Kreme donut shop and sell a product that everyone wants, needs, likes, etc….I am going to make alot of money aren’t I? Should I get penalized for providing a needed product because it is EASIER to tax than to fix the underlying problems?

The real kicker here is that the American People charge to the hilt on credit cars, drive huge SUV’s, and waste fuel on conspicuous consumption activities…..and then wonder why they are in the mess they are in…..and so, it is easier to nail Exxon than themselves. Taxing is a lazy response to politicians that can’t, won’t or don’t understand how to fix problems. These guys are not economists or statisticians, they are liars and thiefs only interested in power.

Speaking of themselves, windfall profit taxes will not spur exploration and refinement. They will inhibit these activities….tried and tested by Jimmy Carter…..remember the long gas lines?

One other point, windfall profit taxes will hit YOU, ME, and the NEXT GUY in the pocketbook? Why? If you have a 401k or stock, guess what…..you will experience a reduction in dividends/profits as a result. Exxon Mobil, like many oil companies, is not owned by one guy….in fact Exxon Executives own less than 9% of the company stock. The rest is owned by millions of Americans and other stock holders elsewhere. So, in effect, the politicians are at it again: taxing Exxon means taking ALL OF US who invest…..once again in case you missed it: Taxing Exxon is taxing all of us!!!

There are better ways to address the underlying problems energy consumption/shortages/demand is causing. Taking the easy way out is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound.

I am going back to eat my Krispy Kreme donuts now!

By: Nemesis

Nemesis — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:14:34 +0000

Mike, #56 was a masterpiece in the “wow” department. I had never heard of using eminent domain in such a way, but why not?

It just seems so efficient and logical, it blows me away…

Windfall profits for years and years make me very bitter to the oil industry, where I see our country’s policies making billionaires out of some already wealthy individuals and gouging the rest of us (don’t go there with the “most of your price at the pump isn’t profit” because even with all the taxes, those oil companies are rolling in the dough) who are beginning to struggle again with less discretionary income all around.

I admit that I am almost as wasteful as anyone else in my use of resources, so cutting back will be difficult but not impossible.

If Areva can utilize existing nuclear waste and safely do something productive with it, then I guess I’m all for it.

By: INL operator's daughter

INL operator's daughter — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:17:09 +0000

Just a comment to message #38 reguarding the comment on earthquakes causing a “meltdown”. The INL has multiple sensors placed underground level to detect any sisemic activity and then it shuts down all the reactors. There cannot be a “meltdown”, because a meltdown occurs when the cooling system fails. INL has a system in place that shuts down the reactors if the cooling system fails. It does so by pulling the reactor cores apart, so that they can no longer react(which is what causes the heating up of the reactor), which in turn, causes the cores to cool, which prevents a “meltdown”. This system does the same thing if a total power failure(including backup power systems)occurs, thereby renduring the reactor disabled. Most of everyone’s concerns can be eased by simply doing more research on the subject, and just looking at all of the facts. We’ve had a nuclear site here for a lot of years—those who are opposed to Areva coming are either going to have to learn to live with it(ease your minds and do some research on your concerns), or leave the area. To me, I don’t really see a difference from having the INL here alone, and having INL and Areva here together.

By: CafeDelSol

CafeDelSol — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:37:37 +0000

Guest_house - Iceland is a very small country. Where exactly do you expect all that hydrogen to come from in a large scale hydrogen economy? You can not run millions of cars on hydrogen unless there is a plentiful source. It takes energy to produce hydrogen. Lots of energy. Solar and wind will definitely help on smaller scales but this country, and the emerging world markets, need truly massive amounts. That’s why the new generation of nuclear plants is so important. It will enable large scale hydrogen production to make this type of economy possible. The waste issue would also go away with fuel recycling. The INL has the technology to make all this work together to reduce dependence on oil.
Then you’ll be able to fill up your “nuclear” powered Caprice after all.

By: CR67

CR67 — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:27:00 +0000

Excellent point Mike. I’ve heard of that ceramic technology as well and I believe it would do wonders for auto industry.
I’ve always wondered why rotary engines aren’t utilized more often as well. I had an RX-7 back in the mid 90’s that had a rotary engine and I loved that car. The power was so smooth throughout the whole rpm range and it got great gas mileage for being a sports car, not to mention much more reliable than your standard internal compustion engine. I believe Mazda still uses the rotary engine in their RX-8 model, but for some reason that engine never really caught on with other auto manufacturers. Even if Mazda holds the patent on it, you would think somebody would be able to come up with something similar without infringing on Mazda’s original design/patent.
It just seems like there should be a way or at least some type of technology available (after all these years) to improve on gas mileage without compromising power. I have to think there is, but like the ceramic issue, it’s been “shelved” to keep more money in the auto-makers pockets.
Same issue with more futuristic looking and much more functional automobiles. They have incredible looking cars that are fully functional now, but each year they put out something just slightly better than the year before, instead of just putting on the market what they already have built already. Why waste everyones time keeping these cars off the street when we could be driving the “bat-mobile”!

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:07:20 +0000

Here is an interesting idea that Pocatello City Officials were looking at: electric cars.

http://kpvi.com/Global/story.asp?S=8280654

Now, if they could just get them to go faster than 25 mph. it might make alot of sense to use some of these cars for certain city duties. I wouldn’t use them for police cars, but building inspectors and park and rec folks could definitely use them and save the city money….all the while being eco-friendly.