Re: Well, two thoughts...
A lot of his "rebuttal" is simple bogus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eh?
I used to live about 10 miles from the UK's main enrichment plant at Capenhurst, It's in Cheshire, Close to Ellesmere Port. Here's the Google Maps link"
Well, good for you. Why don't you learn about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup/npl_sites.html
from
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup.html
"The total number of sites contaminated with radionuclides in the United States is in the thousands. Contaminated sites range in size from corners of laboratories to sprawling nuclear weapons facilities covering many square miles of land. The contamination extends to all environmental media, as well as to on site buildings and equipment."
The most damning point to your "reply" is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Resources_and_reserves
"In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Argentina (2.1%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts"
So you try to prove a point on how little environmental contamination occurs from uranium by quoting the fact that you live in a UK community. The UK does not even produce a major amount of uranium oxide for the entire world. Your statement is like saying that your life is so clean, that the world is so great...because China is handling all your toxic waste for you. Your UK comparison of "cleanliness" is completely irrelevant because the UK isn't even on the map in terms of having to deal with uranium processing cleanup in the first place.
Why don't you ask Russia and the United States about their nuclear processing and site cleanups? THEN you will have a sound argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again, eh?
within three years of being removed from a reactor, it's perfectly routine to move fuel into air-cooled natural storage circulation - a PWR or BWR assembly is making well under 100w of decay heat."
Is your argument simply trying to blind us with apparent slight-of-hand? 3 years of cooling, then moved to a (still controlled environment of air cooling, then moved to processing or further storage...you, somehow, did not mitigate my statements but only redirected to a non-solution.
After 3 years of active, highly monitored, power-sucking cooling, the fuel as per your own comment then gets moved - more energy - to highly monitored air cooling, either passive or active. Afterwards...where did the fuel go, exactly? Nowhere. Still must be dealt with by yet more means, doesn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"you do know [decommissioning] now been done at least a dozen times with LWRs in the US; here's a link to the highest profile example:"
Decommissioned sites? A few. What are the sites being currently USED for? Very, very little. Most of them are considered brownsites and, while they technically are classified as "clean", they are monitored and NOT used for other purposes.
https://forms.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/13/idUS178883596820110613
"To date, all 10 of the fully decommissioned plants have met the NRC requirements for unrestricted use, which means the sites are safe enough to be reclaimed for any purpose including agriculture, housing or green space.
In the second option, called SAFSTOR, the plant is closed and awaits cleanup at a later time, offering plants like Zion extra time to increase their decommissioning funds. The NRC gives utilities up to 60 years to complete decommissioning."
So the reply is proud of the fact that, in the cleanup he mentioned, it took 9 years. A decade to clean up. 10 out of 23 decommissioned areas in the U.S. are at "safe cleanup" stage. 10 out of 23. And the NRC allows up to 60 YEARS to handle the issue.
"Of the 13 reactors currently being decommissioned, six chose immediate decontamination and seven remain in SAFSTOR conditions."
So the writer is proud that, after initial shutdown, some of the plants can take up to 3/4 of a *century" to clean up.
Several "cleaned up" sites are being "reused" as nature reserves, thereby 'eliminating' the issue of their (human) reuse (try a Google on that). In the UK, according to
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Land_released_for_reuse_at_Magnox_sites-0302124.html
"In 2006, Berkeley became the first site to achieve delicensing since the NDA was formed.
...
Last year saw the first time that UK land had been fully released for further use, when two plots of land at Capenhurst, totalling seven hectares, were transferred to Urenco's neighbouring site."
So, with all the nuclear sites decommissioned = "[2011] saw the first time that UK land had been fully released"
Reason to be proud [/sarcasm]
Biting the hand that feeds IT
