DOE Launches Nuclear Waste Disposal Initiative (energy.gov) 143
mdsolar writes: The Department of Energy is formally launching its initiative aimed at establishing a disposal site for spent nuclear fuel. The department said Monday that it is accepting input on the disposal plan, which centers on finding at least one place to store spent fuel, with the consent of the local community. Officials are also planning forums throughout 2016 to inform a more concrete plan for establishing a disposal site. It's a key step toward rolling out what the Obama administration thinks is the best way forward for nuclear waste disposal. It stands in stark contrast to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, which was designated by Congress to be the country's main waste site, but which the Obama administration canceled amid strong local and state opposition to it.
Why not the Rocky Mountains? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Colossus isn't in service anymore, how about using its location?
Re: (Score:3)
It was re-activated in order to defend Earth's oxygen against the Martian moons.
What? And contaminate the weed supply? (Score:2)
Enough problems with pesticides as it is...
Re: (Score:2)
It would be cheaper to drop it into an oceanic subduction zone.
oh yes, Yucca Mountain (Score:1)
The place we learned the term NIMBY.... "Not In My Back Yard"
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody has a really large, empty, and desolate yard...
Re:oh yes, Yucca Mountain (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
And isn't it funny now that Reid has announced his retirement, that DoE is getting off their ass and working the problem again. Let me guess, they'll be announcing the decision to dispose of it in Nevada, roughly 72 hours after Reid has cleared out the minority leader office suite and Chuck Schumer has moved in?
Re: (Score:2)
"The place we learned the term NIMBY...."
Yucca Mountain was chosen not just because of its geological stability and 10cm annual rainfall, but because there is no town anywhere near it for as far as they eye can see, which from the top of a Nevada ridge is a long way. In fact, it is located inside the Nevada Test Site, constituting Area 25 of the most well-guarded spot in the nation.
I'm hoping that Trump has the imagination to not just open this fully completed storage facility, but to start building a recyc
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will save us and restore sanity to this topsy-turvy world.... wait what? The orange angry dufus guy?
Re: (Score:3)
Rather interesting that Senator Reid had no problem with the DoE spending $90+ billion to build the place in his state, but all of a sudden pitches a fit when it's complete and time to start moving waste there.
A couple construction jobs provided to tunnel that out and pour in the concrete?
Re: oh yes, Yucca Mountain (Score:2)
I'd let you put it in my backyard if you let me re-refine and sell it back to you for your next gen reactors.
Nuclear fuel is recyclable if you have the right reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is "inappropriate to contain nuclear waste". The most appropriate way to move the Nuclear Industry forward is to develop a geologically stable containment facility for radionuclide inside a granite mountain as opposed to a pumice mountain like Yucca.
The destination of the facility is important because an infrastructure plan to move 70,000 tons of plutonium (and other things) to that facility will be significantly more ex
Re: (Score:2)
The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is "inappropriate to contain nuclear waste"
Do you have any evidence of that claim? Everything I've found points to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is "inappropriate to contain nuclear waste"
Do you have any evidence of that claim? Everything I've found points to the contrary.
You will have to look at the earlier revisions as opposed to the amended Act, especially if you are reading it online where the emphasis changed to using containment devices. I should have said 'original' document. Thanks for pointing that out.
Re: (Score:2)
I understood that it wasn't the original text shown on places like Wikipedia because they talked about the changes made in '87. I checked a few more sources, but it was more of the same. I'm not trying to dispute your claim, just find out for my own edification if the choice was made for political or logical reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm am having the same problem, it is very difficult to find copies of the original act. This book [wiley.com] makes comparison between versions of the original bill. If I can dig it out of my archive I will post what I can.
You triggered an interesting journey, in my attempts to find the online references to the original Bill, it showed that the Bill poses challenges to the very sovereignty of the states and relegating them to the same role as a citizen. You question has uncovered some interesting things that I wasn't
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere, in some boardroom, these guys are making a toast to youthful naivete.
How is this any different? (Score:1)
Except that this time, it's Obama's idea?
Re: (Score:3)
More like Harry Reid. Of course the most powerful democrat in the senate would cancel a perfectly good repository site and put the nation at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
$2 says that when DoE announces the site for the new storage facility, it will still be in Nevada, and they'll announce it in 2017 after Harry Reid has cleaned out his office, and a now very junior Senator has moved in.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Harry Reid care? He is quite shielded from the environment he helps create.
Cancelled by Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Approved by Congress, Cancelled by Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Signed into law by Obama. He does have a veto, and he's not afraid to use it for things he gives a damn about...
Re: (Score:2)
And who ran the Senate in 2011? Oh, that's right, the senior Senator from the Great State of Nevada.
Yucca Mountain was never going to happen with Harry Reid in charge, so I'm willing to bet that Obama traded that for advancing something else he wanted to move. Shitty policy, but smart politics, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think it would have happened without him? Wikipedia quote....During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to abandon the Yucca Mountain project. As a result, Senator Reid moved the Nevada primary to help Obama's campaign
Re:Cancelled by Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
The proper thing to to with the waste is use it to power a breeder reactor and get more of the energy out of the stuff. However, that was outlawed for no good reason so power plants are forced to define high energy radioactive material as 'waste' instead of 'fuel.'
If it hadn't been banned, fission byproduct recycling would probably be at the point where the most dangerous waste from a nuclear power plant is the irradiated lead used to construct parts of the containment.
Re: (Score:3)
> The proper thing to to with the waste is use it to power a breeder reactor and get more of the energy out of the stuff.
> However, that was outlawed for no good reason so power plants are forced to define high energy
> radioactive material as 'waste' instead of 'fuel.'
*sigh*
The extremely good reason is that breeders are fueled by highly enriched uranium which is fantastically expensive, and their primary output is plutonium, which is fantastically dangerous. And if you don't recall, the US "lost" s
Re: (Score:2)
Recycling the waste to reuse the fissionables it contains is not the same thing as running a breeder, which makes U238 into something usable.
That said, both of these things have been tried pretty extensively in Europe and both were deemed failures.
The problems are not fundamental, but the minor and medium scale engineering problems were just too hard. I know more about recycling, and there the problem was essentially that to get the fuel to remain stable inside the reactor you want to make it into something
Re:Cancelled by Congress (Score:4, Informative)
yeah but the thing is
1 you are now dealing with a TENTH of the mass
2 the gack left is less radioactive than the stuff you started with (and has much shorter half-lives)
3 in some cases you can run the waste back through to "cook" it even more
Your forgot... (Score:3)
This is actually the problem with the fast breeder program is that it works by converting Uranium-238 into highly fissionable Plutonium-239. This means that you need lots of Plutonium reactors to burn the fuel but this poses a security risk because the Plutonium fuel is relatively easy to convert into a nuclear weapon unlike most uranium fuel which nowadays is not weapons grade and so cannot be used to build a nuclear device.
So while there may be some effic
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no.
A very specific type of Plutonium is good for weapons, and all the other types are very BAD for weapons, and in fact inhibit the weapon from working. The good news is that the Pu-239 that is good for weapons is created with a massively inefficient short fuel cycle, because the Pu-240 and Pu-241 is bred from the Pu-239, and cannot be separated from the 239 with current technologies. So just leave the fuel in as long as commercial plant operators currently do, and the Plutonium that is created is
This was Jimmy Carter's argument... (Score:2)
4. you have lots of weapon's grade plutonium. [...] So while there may be some efficiencies with recycling the fuel the security concerns, especially in this day and age, perhaps out weigh any benefit.
This was Jimmy Carter's argument... and why he signed the executive order.
It did not stop South Africa, Pakistan, and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.
It is an ineffective measure, and not worth the cost of having to let nuclear waste pile up just so it doesn't end up being reprocessed.
Re: (Score:2)
1 you are now dealing with a TENTH of the mass
Incorrect, you have 3 times the mass. That is why it is called a 'breeder' reactor, it 'breeds' more plutonium
2 the gack left is less radioactive than the stuff you started with (and has much shorter half-lives)
That's also wrong. When you are talking about fast neutron reactors that can burn transuranics into fissile ash the 'gack' is extremely radioactive *because* it has a shorter half life than the 'gack' of conventional reactor technology.
3 in some cases you can run the waste back through to "cook" it even more
After extensive re-processing of the fuel to extract the waste products, so not quite the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have a 90% solution than the 0% solution we have now. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
Re: Cancelled by Congress (Score:2)
> Here's a wild idea - have each state figure out where to store their own waste. Then let them fucking store it there. If they didn't know what to do with the waste, perhaps nuclear power wasn't the way to go.
This is a really cool idea. Instead of the Feds building a repository, they mandate that each state build one. Feds set rigorous standards. States can pay other states to store it. A nuclear waste market arises, capitalism ftw!
Re: (Score:1)
Good idea.
We in California are going to build our storage facility just on our side of our border with Nevada :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because having 50 storage sites that all have to be protected in geographically unsound locations is far better than a single properly built and guarded site.
How would your proposal be any different from just leaving that shit at the ~104 reactors where it currently is?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because having 50 storage sites that all have to be protected in geographically unsound locations is far better than a single properly built and guarded site.
And the massive infrastructure costs involved in transporting it to each of the storage facilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Waste or fuel? (Score:5, Informative)
> So how much of the "waste" is just spent fuel that can be reprocessed vs irradiated materials and other construction trash and whatnot
It depends on the type of reactor. The MAGNOX and CANDUs have better neutron economy, so you can burn all sorts of mixes that won't burn in a typical US or French reactor. That said, France is the #1 reprocessed, and the UK and Canada are both involved too (along with Russia and Japan).
In the best-case scenarios, you can get the equivalent of 30% recovery - that is, you can get enough fuel from the waste to cover 30% of what you burned to get that waste. It's not insignificant, but it certainly doesn't eliminate the waste problem, in spite of what you might have heard. The real advantage is that it tends to isolate the nastier bits, which means that part can be stored more easily while you can put the larger-in-volume-but-less-nasty stuff somewhere less intensive.
As always the only real problem is cost. Reprocessed fuel costs much more than just digging up new stuff from the ground. As reactors can't really compete on the market right now even with the current fuel glut forcing prices down, they can't even think about used reprocessed fuel. Again, that depends on the cycle, at least some of the fuel being used here in Canada is reprocessed.
The good news is that the good parts don't burn off quickly, so if there is a need for reprocessed fuel, you can always go and get it from storage. Of course, it will be a very cold day in hell before the economics are in your favor, given the CAPEX on wind and solar for fiscal '16.
Re: (Score:3)
Gah, I wish /. had "edit". I forgot to mention that the #1 output from the reprocessing is plutonium. You can mix that into your fuel mix in some reactors, and this is common in France and the UK for instance, but it is a proliferation issue. This is why the US and fSovs offered to reprocess fuel for other countries, even after the US decided not to reprocess its own.
Re: (Score:1)
In the best-case scenarios, you can get the equivalent of 30% recovery - that is, you can get enough fuel from the waste to cover 30% of what you burned to get that waste. It's not insignificant, but it certainly doesn't eliminate the waste problem, in spite of what you might have heard.
Where exactly did your 30% number come from? Conventional nuclear extracts less than 1% of the energy content of uranium, and fluid fueled reactors can extract almost 100% of the remainder in that "spent" fuel. That is the best-case scenario, and it is achievable with molten salt reactors. Using MSRs essentially eliminates the waste issue, and even the concerning isotopes are easily isolated and have uses. The actual waste produced by an MSR is vanishingly small.
To get anywhere near your 30% number wou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"So how much of the "waste" is just spent fuel that can be reprocessed vs irradiated materials and other construction trash and whatnot?"
It would all be spent power-plant rods. There is already a designated burial site for trashed medical equipment, industrial gloves and other non-recycleable radioactive waste. And guess what - it's Area 4 of the same Nevada Test Site. Such waste decays by itself in a relatively short time.
Yucca Mountain is still the the best site (Score:1)
There is no way they will find another site as safe or with less special interests to contend with.
This just political talk with chance of real action.
Re: (Score:2)
Rocket technology has advanced far enough at this point that relatively simple and cheap rockets could be used to drop spent fuel rods on the Moon. This converts the problem from waste disposal to long term warehousing since eventually someone will make use of the material.
I think its time to do a cost and risk comparison study between Yucca Mtn and lunar storage. Lunar storage has the obvious risk associated with a launch failure, but it would be possible to develop abort procedures that would minimize th
Re: (Score:2)
However, Yucca is already built and is more than safe enough. As such, it should be used, but only after we have burned up the majority of this waste. IOW, we should not be burying 100,000 tonnes, but 5,000 tonnes. Besides, it is criminal to have dug up this energy and now to just throw it away by burying it again. that would be sad.
Re:Yucca Mountain is the worst site (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the details of Yucca, nor do I care (I'm not an American and don't see any need to go to America to steal their money), but I'll take your word for it that it's a crap site. Worst of the worst.
What you want from a waste storage facility is low permeability of the ground to water viz, for a set bit of geometry and pressure difference, you only get a low flow of water through the unit you're considering. Granites can be
Re: (Score:2)
What you want from a waste storage facility is low permeability of the ground to water viz, for a set bit of geometry and pressure difference, you only get a low flow of water through the unit you're considering. Granites can be low permeability - if they're not fractured or heavily corroded.
Thanks for those details. I see what you mean about fracturing however it's really interesting what you say about the corrosion of the granite. What corrodes it? Does the granite become a porous structure?
I note that the description of the FINNISH waste repository has the repository being dug into granite, but the waste being buried in (bentonite) clay within the segments of the mine.
Exactly, I read about that bit too. IIRC, the way the bentonite clay clumps and holds the water in place was why it was selected. Is the un-fractured low permeable granite selected for if the water is also under pressure?
I'd welcome any specific expertise in geology you have on the subject RockDoctor! (g
Re: (Score:2)
Intense weathering can reduce granite to essentially a powder of (bleached) micas and quartz grains in a mush of kaolinite clays. In tropical soils, this may take millions of years, but following the chemists rule of thumb (10degC increases in temperature doubles reaction rates) and the fact that many granites generate large fluxes of hot (300-500degC) water as they cool, you won't be surprised to learn that
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I have for decades posited that the ideal place for the UK's HLW waste is in the London Clay (a thick, low permeability claystone), with the entrance through the Houses of Parliament.
Genius!
I believe that America (and Sweden, and Finland) have also encountered political problems with their various waste repositories.
Can I presume from your pseudonym that you are a professional geologist RockDoctor? Have you seen this article [abc.net.au] from an Australian science show? Dr Birch's research seems to be cited a few times, it may interest you as it looks like it may lead to an interesting way to solve this waste issue.
Re: (Score:2)
[Reads AU link] Flash - have to read the transcript.Narrator describes "gossan", Briefly
Since the 1600s, people (who would now be called geologists) have been describing how the effects of near-surface weathering can concentrate (or dis
What a waste.... (Score:3)
Yucca Mountain cost more than $96B dollars so far. I just read an article stating that the spent nuclear fuel is fine where it is, cooling in the ponds local to the reactors. So which is it? Do we need to spend another $96B, or more, and then not use that facility too? Is shipping nuclear waste to some repository far away safe and cost effective?
Re: (Score:2)
Financially, it is expensive to continue to store the fuel local to the reactors, though safe.
The utility companies were told that they would have a place to store the fuel in exchange for a tax assessed per kWh for decades. When that money didn't materialize in an actual place to store fuel, the utilities sued the federal government. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04... [nytimes.com]
Then again the entire idea of "nuclear waste" boils down to politics and general misunderstanding of nuclear engineering in the population (b
Re: (Score:3)
Fed gov't can't actually do anything anymore. Any NIMBY idiot can multiply a project's cost by 10 by whining about his feelings to a gutless judiciary. Useful idiots at newspapers eat up disingenuous arguments (spotted owl! sacred native landmarks!) that originate from financially interested groups, then write simplistic good-vs-evil propaganda pieces that tie the hands even the good legislators.
Could you imagine building an interstate highway system now? Every foot is a litigable affront to someone's feeli
Re: (Score:2)
Let's have a look at the NIMBY argument that is so often cited as a cause of obstructing the placement of Nuclear facilities.
Placement of Nuclear facilities is governed by a Suitability Criteria that is an act of law. [nrc.gov]
Environmental concerns are addressed in Section C.9 [nrc.gov] so it's pretty ridiculous to think that greenpeace, hippys in combi vans, NIMBYS or any one else for that matter have any influence at in the placement of these facilities.
When you consider there has been a bunch of GenIII reactors alre [nrc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Yucca Mountain was a no-brainer when we started looking into it and it's a no-brainer now. Those that oppose it are either (1) useful idiots, (2) financially interested in competing energy generation methods, or (3) actively and purposefully attempting to weaken or destroy the US.
So how do you apply your reasoning to the D.O.E who ruled it inappropriate to contain nuclear waste? Let's look at your points:
(1) useful idiots
Which Wikipedia defines as In political jargon, useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause., do you know who you are serving?
(2) financially interested in competing energy generation methods
You really don't know who is drinking who's milkshake do you? I suggest you read the 2005 Energy Act, Sec 638 onwards.
(3) actively and purposefully attempting to weaken or destroy the US.
Studies of Yucc [sciencedirect.com]
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (Score:3)
We should use the facility that has been built, instead of letting one lone-wolf senator [wsj.com] prevent that from happening. Yes, a national repository would be much, much safer than the status quo.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 [wikipedia.org] was passed to create a national program to dispose of nuclear fuel safely. The bill arranged for utility companies to pay for the development of such a site, which technically was a fee payed for by customers, not taxpayers (though that's really not much of a difference). Congress
Re: (Score:2)
You can quickly identify a disingenuous argument when the arguer doesn't offer a practical alternative. Yucca Mountain arguments sound like this to me:
"We shouldn't use Yucca Mountain"
"What should we do instead"
"Feed the waste to unicorns--they'll turn it into poop rainbows!"
Re: (Score:2)
"We shouldn't use Yucca Mountain"
"What should we do instead"
Build a geologically sound facility in granite that is in line with the DOE's 'defense in depth' design philosophy. If politics wasn't a factor in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Politics placed the facility at Yucca, not science.
Re: (Score:2)
Yucca Mountain cost more than $96B dollars so far. I just read an article stating that the spent nuclear fuel is fine where it is, cooling in the ponds local to the reactors. So which is it? Do we need to spend another $96B, or more, and then not use that facility too? Is shipping nuclear waste to some repository far away safe and cost effective?
That's the wrong question. We don't have a centralized depository because that was planned to be built in Nevada, and Senator Harry Reid, arguably one of the most powerful senators, must answer to the Nevada NIMBY voters.
On the other hand, we have nuclear power plants in 30 states, all with senators who have to answer to those NIMBY interests who wanted to relocate the waste. So what we got was a big fight, a lot of money spent, and the end result of nothing.
It's fairly obvious why we tried to do some
Re:What a waste.... Indeed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's beside the point. The point was that keeping it there is a very stupid idea. It has to be moved and should be moved inland. Preferably some place with low population, and low rain fail.
That puts Nevada high on the list of possible locations. They don't want They tried and failed to move it before money was spent. No one else wanted it, they lost the battle. The fact that they got out of it, after already spending billions is also fine - i
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ever vote to have hundreds of nuclear weapons detonated in Nevada? Were you consulted on that one?
We are a representative republic. You voted for representatives that went to Congress, and Congress voted to establish Yucca Mountain. Ergo, by the rule of law, your vote was carried by your proxy to the Congress.
That's why Nevada has to take it.
Best thing Obama has done (Score:2)
Closing that place - it was a total lie and waste of money lining contractors pockets.
Re: (Score:1)
Exaclty. Those Republicans designed it to poison the ground water in all of California. All of California. It would have killed millions. Killed millions.
Backroom Deals (Score:3)
from the ./ summary:
from the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com]:
Something seems wrong to me... (Score:2)
One of the criteria for a storage facility is that it be stable for thousands of years. Mountains are mostly created at the unstable boundary between colliding tectonic plates.
So why are mountains considered a good place to store high-level nuclear waste?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I simply cannot see what could go wrong with this plan....
Oh, another fool-proof idea is just to launch the waste into the Sun...
Yucca Mountain had a lot of support (Score:1)
Yucca had support when it was proposed. It had support when it was being built. When they did not pay off all the people who had a lever to cancel it, THEN it became unpopular. A lot of the Billions spent, were to grease locals. When Harry wanted too much grease, the wheels stopped. Yucca mountain was chosen because it is as good a place as you can find in the USA to put this stuff.
There is no place else that is going to have better stability and other attributes than Yucca. This is just an excuse to p
California (Score:2)
Diablo Canyon nuclear may close (Score:2)
"spent" fuel? (Score:1)
Isn't referring to "spent nuclear fuel" (at least in the US) analogous to using a $100 bill to buy a soda at a gas station and then discarding the change as "spent"?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't referring to "spent nuclear fuel" (at least in the US) analogous to using a $100 bill to buy a soda at a gas station and then discarding the change as "spent"?
That's actually a pretty good analogy, except that you would be buying one of those $5 cans of hotel soda. Recycling rather than dumping would let us make use of the other $95.
Washington D.C. (Score:2)
Re: Washington D.C. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, just launch it into space. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but I don't think Martin Landau or Barbara Bain will be around for the sequel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until someone is able to launch a 3d printer onto the moon and program it to print out the creator's face from the regolith...
Coal Country (Score:2)
Just put it somewhere in coal country. You don't even need to dig, just pour it right into the local wells. The locals won't mind, they will fiercely defend you so long as you employ them to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Dump the stuff into the NY sewers.... If I am correct, we will see crime fighters inside of 20 years.
tectonic subduction? (Score:2)
Bury it in a subduction zone and let the mantle swallow it?
Wrong way to do this (Score:2)
Instead, develop the Gen IV reactors and burn up the majority of the nuke waste. 95% of it can be used up. Right now, we have around 100,000 TONNES of this. By simply using safely in a gen IV reactor, we will have less than 5000 tonnes which will be safe within 200 years. As such, Nevada should not grip about this. Yucca mountain can hold that amount of waste easily, esp. if we vitrify it.
Already, [TBA] sounds like a nice place to live. (Score:2)
Imagine a whole community of people!
Amazing, wonderful people! I can see them now.
Welcome to TBA, where the proud stewards of America's spent nuclear fuel keep watch over the future.
Amazingly, these people understand the principles of ionizing radiation, the log scale, the inverse square law, how half-life directly and inversely proportional to danger for a given mass of material. They are aware of the relatively small mass and storage volume that decayed spent nuclear fuel uses. They know that once spent
Not in my backyard. (Score:2)
Not in my backyard may keep any repository from becoming a reality.
The need is great and while this part of Nevada has issues they are less troubling
than other choices.
Area 51 is not a good choice. The visitors that come and go in the middle of the night might
visit another location.
The single largest risk is water and high desert is a good place to avoid or manage water.
Large volume low level waste might qualify for canyon fill (land fill) can be paved over and sealed with concrete after limiting groundwat
Chernobyl... (Score:2)
The perfect location.
It's already experience the pilot storage test with great success and no one is left to complain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiousity, did you know that each of the biggest three coal mining disasters has produced an order of magnitude more deaths than all of the nuclear accidents (including Chernobyl and Fukushima) combined?
And that routine coal mining deaths are a bigger killer in the 20th century than nuclear power, even if you define "nuclear power" in such a way as to include the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because your basement is where you keep your cows.