Shelve stigma of spent fuel
Having spent my career in nuclear energy, I offer comments on the Yucca Mountain closure. [“Nuke waste has no place to go; new hunt begins,” page one, March 29.]
First, the sky isn’t falling. If the waste —including Idaho’s —is stored here, it will not affect Washington. It could be stored here with no danger to the public or the environment for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, providing it is immobilized and contained (which the vitrification plant will accomplish), shielded and placed in a secure area.
So what’s the problem with the waste? Mainly that it has a stigma. This bothers the NIMBYs. To them, it’s horrible, dangerous stuff and it’s an insult to Washington to even suggest that it be stored here. This is neither an informed nor rational point of view.
Most radioactive wastes in the United States are of two kinds: sludges left over from Cold War production of plutonium at Hanford and Savannah River and spent fuel from nuclear power plants.
The former needs to be vitrified — at least the high-level stuff needs to be permanently stored at Yucca Mountain —but not the latter. Spent fuel should be reprocessed to recover plutonium and uranium, which could be recycled into new fuel. This conserves fuel values, consumes toxic plutonium and cuts the volume of waste requiring permanent storage by 98 percent or more.
France does this and stores its waste in one building. Perhaps this is something useful President Obama could learn from France.
— Clark McKee, Anacortes
Bussard nuclear fissions a suitable alternative
Your story on nuclear waste did not mention President Obama wants to spend $9 billion on three new nuclear power plants without solving the waste problem. On the surface, nuclear fission looks clean and green except for the waste.
A research group in New Mexico achieved a sustained fusion reaction in late 2005 under a Navy grant. This effort was lead by Robert Bussard. For a fraction of their budget, the Bussard team achieved what the Department of Energy has been trying to do for decades at a cost of $1.8 billion.
As funding trickled in late 2005, Bussard and his team achieved the first controlled fusion reaction. It does not produce radioactive waste. Bussard passed away in 2007, but his company has a $7 million Navy grant to continue its work. They need $200 million for a demonstration reactor. This would free us from creating more high-level nuclear waste as well as freeing us from fossil fuel.
The science is done, now is the time for the government to fully fund this activity.
— Bob Holley, Seattle