Report: Dry cask studies 'inadequate'

Why is the Reformer publishing this? It's an "expert" opinion! We read only last week about how we shouldn't listen to experts, especially where nuclear power is concerned.

I wonder where this gentleman scientist was when the plant followed existing protocal / regulations to obtain the certificate of public good in the first place? He may be correct and he may be incorrect, but I would like to add, that if those casks sitting on 8 foot thick cement pads are in danger of flood damage, what do you suppose would happen to Windham Solid Waste, Cersosomo lumber, and all of thsoe other businesses and homes along the river? You can't just target the businesses you don't like with this information. This is the sort of thing that must be unifromally applied to all those potentially in harms way. Areywe prepared to relocate the Brattleboro train station, and what about those two bridges that span that flooding river?

Bill of Rights wrote:

I wonder where this gentleman scientist was when the plant followed existing protocal / regulations to obtain the certificate of public good in the first place? He may be correct and he may be incorrect, but I would like to add, that if those casks sitting on 8 foot thick cement pads are in danger of flood damage, what do you suppose would happen to Windham Solid Waste, Cersosomo lumber, and all of thsoe other businesses and homes along the river? You can't just target the businesses you don't like with this information. This is the sort of thing that must be unifromally applied to all those potentially in harms way. Areywe prepared to relocate the Brattleboro train station, and what about those two bridges that span that flooding river?

its ultra hazerdous material maybe?

equating those things to spent rods is like equating matches to dynamite...
the other things, if released, would not make me glow green...for generations!

nuclear is currently only half a plan...no plan for the waste...
how can anyone argue that nuclear is cheaper when it stores its waste on -site without a plan for permanent disposal...the plan isnt finished yet how could it purport to have a total cost?

estanson, I find fault with the objectors attempt to isolate Vermont Dry Cask Storage from others. Minnesota Department of Commerce. Energy Facility Permitting....
http;//energyfacilities.puc.st ate.mm.us/Docket.html?Id=9901

Do you honestly think that this technology does not currently exist outside of Vernon Vt? Of course you don't, it's just one more scare tactic based on your smoke and mirrors circumstantial evidence based case for closing the plant.

http;//energyfacilities.puc.st ate.mm.us/Docket.html/=9901

for the above post

I am sorry, but for some reason the link is broken.

The docket No: 04-87-CON-Monticello
Project name: Monticello Dry Cask Storage Environmental Impact Statement
Description: Xcel Energy is asking the PUC to approve a dry-cask storage facility for spent nuclear fule at its Monticello Generating Plant.

Bill of Rights wrote:

estanson, I find fault with the objectors attempt to isolate Vermont Dry Cask Storage from others. Minnesota Department of Commerce. Energy Facility Permitting....
http;//energyfacilities.puc.st ate.mm.us/Docket.html?Id=9901
Do you honestly think that this technology does not currently exist outside of Vernon Vt? Of course you don't, it's just one more scare tactic based on your smoke and mirrors circumstantial evidence based case for closing the plant.

are you telling me that you equate nuclear waste with the waste of regular homes? then telling me about smoke and mirrors???

even the solid waste (which relates more to your post) does not equate to nuclear waste!
are you actually asserting that they are the same?

if you were buried neck deep in solid waste and a fellow was going to throw a bucket of nuclear waste on your head, would you duck? dont answer, I just like picturing you this way...

Dry cask storage in VT is above the 500 year flood plain. Was that mentioned in the article Mr Audett?

Bill of Rights wrote:

Dry cask storage in VT is above the 500 year flood plain. Was that mentioned in the article Mr Audett?

you seem like an expert...is nuclear waste dangerous after 500 years?

If the anti-nuke lunatics and the Obozo administration would stop blocking the opening of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, and allow the transportation of the storage casks; with would be a non-issue.

The Brattleboro Informer wrote:

If the anti-nuke lunatics and the Obozo administration would stop blocking the opening of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, and allow the transportation of the storage casks; with would be a non-issue.

would you want that in your neighborhood?

also makes a pretty good target...

so your solution to the waste problem is to pile it up all together in one place...forever...THAT shouldnt be expensive or dangerous...

i know...smoke and mirrors right?

Bill of Rights wrote:

estanson, I find fault with the objectors attempt to isolate Vermont Dry Cask Storage from others. Minnesota Department of Commerce. Energy Facility Permitting....
http;//energyfacilities.puc.st ate.mm.us/Docket.html?Id=9901
Do you honestly think that this technology does not currently exist outside of Vernon Vt? Of course you don't, it's just one more scare tactic based on your smoke and mirrors circumstantial evidence based case for closing the plant.

Well, if you don't like the environmental impact statement for Minnesota Xcel Energy, why not present your argument?

estanson wrote:

<quoted text>
you seem like an expert...is nuclear waste dangerous after 500 years?

Depends on the waste.

estanson wrote:

<quoted text>
would you want that in your neighborhood?
also makes a pretty good target...
so your solution to the waste problem is to pile it up all together in one place...forever...THAT shouldnt be expensive or dangerous...
i know...smoke and mirrors right?

What neighborhood? The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is located in a desert on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada, about 80 miles northwest of the Las Vegas metropolitan area.

So just leave the casks at Vermont Yankee, no problem!

The first storage installation was licensed by the NRC in 1986 at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant in Virginia.
NRC: Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/l...

33 states have at least one ISFSI

Alabama has 2, Arizona 1, Arkansas 1, California 4, Colorado 1, connecticut 2, florida 1, Georgia 1, Idaho 2, Illinois 3, Iowa 1, Louisiana 1, Maine 1, Maryland 1, Massachusetts 1, Michigan 2, Minnesota 2, Mississippi 1, Nebraska 1, New Hampshire 1, New Jersey 2, New York 2, North Carolina 1, Ohio 1, Oregon 1, Pennsylvania 3, south Carolina 3, Tennessee 1, Utah 1 Vermont 1, Virginia 2, Wahsingotn 1 Wisconsin 1.
That's 15 site specific License and 39 General License.

The nuclear republicans in Yucca mountain blew it with their ideology....their work didn’t contain enough credibility to carry the project.

Mike Mulligan wrote:

The nuclear republicans in Yucca mountain blew it with their ideology....their work didn’t contain enough credibility to carry the project.

"Do you oppose the Obama National Energy Tax, also known as, "cap and trade," which would skyrocket your utility bills and destroy jobs while having virtually no impact on the enviroment?" RNC-2009

Pointing fingers, name-calling and insults will not resolve the difference of opinion. Some of us believe it is short-sighted to keep producing radioactive waste without an absolutely secure storage system available; and that the true cost of nuclear energy must include all aspects of producing nuclear energy: from mining uranium, building reactors, building storage facilities, financing long-term maintenance, transportation of fuels, and insurance costs based on unbiased risk-assessments. Many intelligent,reasonable people who do not consider themselves fear-mongerers, are eager to see Vermont Yankee retired, not out of any animosity toward anyone, but out of respect for newer safer technologies.

estanson wrote:

<quoted text>
its ultra hazerdous material maybe?
equating those things to spent rods is like equating matches to dynamite...
the other things, if released, would not make me glow green...for generations!
nuclear is currently only half a plan...no plan for the waste...
how can anyone argue that nuclear is cheaper when it stores its waste on -site without a plan for permanent disposal...the plan isnt finished yet how could it purport to have a total cost?

You are absolutely correct about this.

Bill of Rights wrote:

<quoted text>
"Do you oppose the Obama National Energy Tax, also known as, "cap and trade," which would skyrocket your utility bills and destroy jobs while having virtually no impact on the enviroment?" RNC-2009

I would actually...because there is no regulation of the language or required definitions in green energy...that the interest of the grid would have to abide by.