Personally been reading the stories from both sides of this debate of nuclear power, but being raised in Idaho with the first atomic reactor in the nation you get to know a few of the items.

The Idaho National Engineering Environmental Labs (INEEL) has been having the waste of the military and other sources coming in since the 70's.  They have it out there sitting.  As of 1995 the INEEL had the technology to turn this waste from a liquid to solid form then be able to bury it in the New Mexico WIPP salt mine project.

The company that was being funded by the Department of Energy (D.O.E.) was all set to start cleaning up the area in Idaho and bring forward the technology to others.

The DOE however did not go forward with the project at that time, even though there was enough waste that if this project had been started, with the project running 24/7 it would have provided jobs for the next 20 years.  Then the waste would have been cleaned up.

However if this had been done then one part of this issue would have had some resolution, now who was responsible for not starting this project?  It is labeled as the government but it is believed to be the feud of big oil and environmental groups and who pays more money.

The state government of Idaho has worked with D.C. to try to solve this issue so that this project can be updated and used. 

I don't know if the NM WIPP area is still valid.

As Silver has stated is it cleaner than fossil?  If the waste can be turned from liquid to solid so that it doesn't drift, YES.

Is it more economical?  With coal, oil and natural gas being used in the whole world and the supply (as they tell us) is running out.  So if it keeps the price per kilowatt down then, YES

Is it safe? The big question there are no absolutes in man made anything but with the right training and the technology in use today. YES.


mtvlm mtvlm
41-45, M
2 Responses Mar 16, 2009

WOW. Do you have the link to the story? I would like to read that......

I have worked in coal, hydro, and nuclear power plants. Of the three I would prefer the hydro plant, But as far as the choice between nuclear,coal,nad gas plants. Hands down nuclear plants. They are much cleaner, and safer. I have worked in most of the power plants in this country. Nuclear would be the way to go. However. I read in nat.geo a few years back that there was a process that for a few seconds produced ten times more eletricity than all the power plants in the world combined. They were having problems harnessing the power.