Perhaps I could, but your address doesn't appear to be a valid one so I'll just post as OT response...I guess if you want to followup you could go to alt.engineering.nuclear.
Re the question, I wasn't totally clear what was meant either, hence the multiple question marks. I thought I'd take a chance however and was alluding to the cessation of consideration for review and ultimate approval/licensing by the NRC of reprocessing which was one of Mr Jimmy's edicts and which ultimately ended up in monitored retrieval and the snafu at spent fuel pools...
As for your apparent wish for an unspecified something else, I'll simply note the investment in environmental cleanups for fossil isn't inconsequential, either, and aren't over. That ratepayers will pay for power costs is a given in a market economy. I'm not sure exactly what your contention is here in order to actually respond....
Then can you post the bounce message so I can investigate? I have my blacklists set to Tag not block and in any event they should not be bouncing anything back to you.
Fuel reprocessing creates more readioactive waste, not less. The fission products and decay daughters, which are the hottest (highest specific activity) materials in the fuel rods are not reused and so must then be disposed of after separation from unspent fuel and U-238. And since they are no longer contained inside of sealed control rods the reprossing expands the volume of material contaminated with those decay daughters.
On the plus side, those are shorter lived than the Uranium and Plutonium.
As you may recall Jimmy Carter's stated reason for killing reprocessing was concern that creating a Plutonium-based nuclear power economy would necessitate much trasnportaion of Plutonium which has terrible potential for misuse if diverted to organizations like Al Queda, or rogue nations like North Korea or Iraq.
Notably, those nations that have developed the bomb, aside from Israel, most likely have all done so without material diverted from US sources.
I do not know what snafu you refer to, could you elaborate on that now?
You totally lost me here, I do not recall stating a wish for anything else specified or not.
My point about ratepayers was in response to the comment "It looks like the electric utility industry is trying to get the public to pay for the clean up costs"
My point is, "of course". No matter how the costs are paid for, the money will be coming from the public via one route or another. The public will pay for it through taxes, or rates, or if the utilities are forced to divert investment capital into clean-up activities THAT will reduce their investment money for other improvements that would have kept rates down so the public still pays.
One of my biggest gripes with both utilites and the PUCs is their short-sightedness. Although utilities ARE very farsighted IRT reliability, they typically will not commit investor's money to improvements without an expected return on investment in nine months. This, for plants with a
40 year design lifetime. Meanwhile the PUCs typically will not allow ratepayer dollars to be used for capital improvements.
One consequence of the synergy of these two idiocies is that there were still coal-fired power plants using volumetric feeders decades after it was clearly demonstrated that conversion to gravimetric feeders reduced fuole used by at least
20%. Fuel costs ARE passed straight through to the ratepayers, so a capital investment that reduces fuel costs, even if it reduces those costs to ZERO, has no directly return on investment at all, let alone one in nine months.
Meanwhile, the PUCs would not allow the utilities to bill the ratepayers in the short term for improvements which would save them quite a bit in the future, plus provide all the environmental benefits associated with burning less coal.
That is the way it was when I left that industry 20 years ago. For all I know now, there may STILL be power plants using volumetric feeders, or there may be better technology than gravimetric feeders that is not being implimented for the same reasons.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.