I worked nuclear waste storage over 40 years ago while I was employed at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Yucca Mountain in Nevada is a perfect place to store high level nuclear waste. There is the perfect geology combined with the perfect geography, which is why both Democrat and Republican presidents supported Yucca Mountain for decades. Obama did his best to kill it as a payoff to Harry Reed, the Senate Majority Leader from Nevada. There is NO technical issue with storing high level waste there!
Those who protest the loudest against nuclear seem to be unaware of the facts - that nuclear power plants are safer than ever, that nuclear radioactive waste is small and easily managed, and will be 10X smaller when fast neutron reactors use recycled nuclear waste, and that the high cost of building nuclear can be lowered by reducing unnecessarily strict regulations, and the cost will be worth it in the long run, with 100 year lifetimes. Dr. Hughes uses a double standard on waste. Cornell Prof. Howarth does have one thing right, though - building nuclear out is too slow to enable NY to reach their net zero goals. They won't reach them. Blackouts will soon enough make them rethink those ridiculous goals based on the fake science of global warming.
I want to respond to Tom’s editorial note. I agree that cost is more important than CO2 reduction because I do not think there is an existential climate crisis caused by human emissions of GHG emissions and even if there were New York emissions are too small to matter.
I want to point out that I have two issues with using natural gas in the electric sector. The first is that it relies on just in time pipeline delivery which adds reliability risks. The second is that it is too valuable to be used extensively for electric generation. As a peaking fuel backed up by oil it should be used to supplement baseload nuclear power. I think natural gas should be reserved for use in transportation, residences, and businesses. Environmental justice activists are concerned about diesel truck emissions but think that they can be replaced by battery electric heavy-duty trucks. I think that is absurd because the technology is immature, and recharging is problematic. On the other hand, compressed natural gas trucks are a viable solution. Diesel trucks can be adapted to use CNG, so we would only need to develop the infrastructure to provide fuel stations. Replacing natural gas in homes and businesses with technologies that are not as resilient and more costly is inappropriate.
I agree with Tom that development of both nuclear and natural gas is the best way forward.
I worked nuclear waste storage over 40 years ago while I was employed at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Yucca Mountain in Nevada is a perfect place to store high level nuclear waste. There is the perfect geology combined with the perfect geography, which is why both Democrat and Republican presidents supported Yucca Mountain for decades. Obama did his best to kill it as a payoff to Harry Reed, the Senate Majority Leader from Nevada. There is NO technical issue with storing high level waste there!
Those who protest the loudest against nuclear seem to be unaware of the facts - that nuclear power plants are safer than ever, that nuclear radioactive waste is small and easily managed, and will be 10X smaller when fast neutron reactors use recycled nuclear waste, and that the high cost of building nuclear can be lowered by reducing unnecessarily strict regulations, and the cost will be worth it in the long run, with 100 year lifetimes. Dr. Hughes uses a double standard on waste. Cornell Prof. Howarth does have one thing right, though - building nuclear out is too slow to enable NY to reach their net zero goals. They won't reach them. Blackouts will soon enough make them rethink those ridiculous goals based on the fake science of global warming.
I want to respond to Tom’s editorial note. I agree that cost is more important than CO2 reduction because I do not think there is an existential climate crisis caused by human emissions of GHG emissions and even if there were New York emissions are too small to matter.
I want to point out that I have two issues with using natural gas in the electric sector. The first is that it relies on just in time pipeline delivery which adds reliability risks. The second is that it is too valuable to be used extensively for electric generation. As a peaking fuel backed up by oil it should be used to supplement baseload nuclear power. I think natural gas should be reserved for use in transportation, residences, and businesses. Environmental justice activists are concerned about diesel truck emissions but think that they can be replaced by battery electric heavy-duty trucks. I think that is absurd because the technology is immature, and recharging is problematic. On the other hand, compressed natural gas trucks are a viable solution. Diesel trucks can be adapted to use CNG, so we would only need to develop the infrastructure to provide fuel stations. Replacing natural gas in homes and businesses with technologies that are not as resilient and more costly is inappropriate.
I agree with Tom that development of both nuclear and natural gas is the best way forward.
Thank you, Roger! Your site is a true public service!