Texas Power Outage Danger Until June 18th. Texans told to conserve energy!

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Keep your usage records. Not everyone wants to have solar panels, but many would like real savings. 

That’s a good idea!!

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

How about 50% demand met by offshore wind, 25% by onshore and 25% by solar? Making solar the same or less than coal. Especially considering that a very large proportion of solar can be distributed on rooftops. 

Would you consider coal mines as radioactive waste dumps? There would be way more than enough space. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Would you consider coal mines as radioactive waste dumps? There would be way more than enough space. 

It hardly matters what I think. I live closer to Yucca Mtn than any coal mine and the few people who live in Nevada wouldn't even accept it as a dump. But maybe Wyoming. What do you say @turbguy do you think your fellow citizens would like to use one of your obsolete coal mines for a radioactive waste dump?

Space isn't the issue for nuclear waste. All the waste the US has ever created would likely fit on three or four trains. The issue is a location which is geologically stable, without water flow and a long way from populations for when it fails. Not to mention the risk of a coal seam fire...

Edited June 30, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 6/28/2021 at 8:17 PM, nsdp said:

I always love it.... SNIP Stupidity ranting...

YOU SHOULD READ AND COMPREHEND THIS SECTION IN ITS ENTIRETY.

.3.1 Transition to Distribution Bidirectional Power Flow

"The short-circuit response of grid-forming inverters is an open question, and significant research is needed to characterize the short-circuit response of grid-forming inverters to many different abnormal grid operations (IEEE/NERC 2018). The short-circuit response should be well characterized and, if possible, increased using either software or hardware to approach the values provided by synchronous machines .

I can hear the jury laughing now.   You stopped reading  with the answer you liked before the physics got tough.

 

How good of you to quote what I was answering... Appears you can eventually read your own link after being called out. But it appears you then forgot what you were supposed to be replying to...  Did your mental capacity leave you while your embarrassment was still glowing?  I sure hope you aren't getting dementia. 

Rant on dude! 

[NickW + 2,714]

19 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Grazing really doesn't make much money. I ranch cattle, and to think of trying to round up cows in a field of solar panels sounds like a nightmare. 

Which is why I said small animals (sheep, goats, poultry). I don't think solar should go on A grade agricultural land full stop but it has its place on marginal land used for rough grazing / hay production

[Eric Gagen + 713]

13 minutes ago, NickW said:

Which is why I said small animals (sheep, goats, poultry). I don't think solar should go on A grade agricultural land full stop but it has its place on marginal land used for rough grazing / hay production

grass grows in dirt that gets sun and water.  If installed in an efficient way, solar panels shade the dirt, and ensure that it doesn't get any rain either.  If the solar panels don't cover ALL the available ground area on a site, the solar installation will be less efficient than one that does.  You could conceivable graze animals in the remaining space, but that wouldn't be a beneficial shared use - it would merely be creating a low efficiency solar farm so that you could also put grazing animals on it.  

[Boat + 1,323]

Your panels would be installed to match the needs of the product. Not as efficient to throw in crops or grazing as an afterthought. 
Matching enough solar with greenhouses keeps plants within a temperature range. This seems the most practical but hey, there are plenty of pics showing sheep among and around solar panels. 
Crops like cucumbers that like some shade would go great with panels like 10’ overhead. It would require control of water in the drip/runoff line.

With the way the climate is heating up, water conservation with shade will be more and more popular.

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

grass grows in dirt that gets sun and water.  If installed in an efficient way, solar panels shade the dirt, and ensure that it doesn't get any rain either.  If the solar panels don't cover ALL the available ground area on a site, the solar installation will be less efficient than one that does.  You could conceivable graze animals in the remaining space, but that wouldn't be a beneficial shared use - it would merely be creating a low efficiency solar farm so that you could also put grazing animals on it.  

In hot,  arid  climates midday shading actually benefits plants as it protects them from high noon scorch. Likewise with grazing,  the panels provide some shade for the animals so are beneficial

You need space between panels to clean them and even if they are together the the rain that hits them has to run somewhere - and thats over the sides so the plants still get the water .  

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

grass grows in dirt that gets sun and water.  If installed in an efficient way, solar panels shade the dirt, and ensure that it doesn't get any rain either.  If the solar panels don't cover ALL the available ground area on a site, the solar installation will be less efficient than one that does.  You could conceivable graze animals in the remaining space, but that wouldn't be a beneficial shared use - it would merely be creating a low efficiency solar farm so that you could also put grazing animals on it.  

Here you go

Organic law mowers

Solar Grazing: Livestock as Landscapers at Utility-Scale Solar Arrays - Cornell Small Farms

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Here you go

Organic law mowers

Solar Grazing: Livestock as Landscapers at Utility-Scale Solar Arrays - Cornell Small Farms

Yep - like I said - low efficiency - fill those empty spaces in with more solar panels, and it's a better solar farm.  My suspicion is that this mixed solar and grazing land is a workaround to maintain agricultural tax exemptions and subsidies while getting a little bit of extra cash from the solar.  

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Yep - like I said - low efficiency - fill those empty spaces in with more solar panels, and it's a better solar farm.  My suspicion is that this mixed solar and grazing land is a workaround to maintain agricultural tax exemptions and subsidies while getting a little bit of extra cash from the solar.  

If you fill the grazed area with panels how are you going to access them for maintenance and cleaning (ok that could be done by a robot if the panels run continuously)?

[Eric Gagen + 713]

19 minutes ago, NickW said:

If you fill the grazed area with panels how are you going to access them for maintenance and cleaning (ok that could be done by a robot if the panels run continuously)?

You put them as closely together as possible - it's not some sort of unusual thing - you don't need 10 ft/3 meter wide paths between panel rows to get maintenance access.  1.5 meters/5 ft is plenty of space between rows, and if you get creative you can knock it down to 1 meter/3ft

[Ecocharger + 1,458]

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It hardly matters what I think. I live closer to Yucca Mtn than any coal mine and the few people who live in Nevada wouldn't even accept it as a dump. But maybe Wyoming. What do you say @turbguy do you think your fellow citizens would like to use one of your obsolete coal mines for a radioactive waste dump?

Space isn't the issue for nuclear waste. All the waste the US has ever created would likely fit on three or four trains. The issue is a location which is geologically stable, without water flow and a long way from populations for when it fails. Not to mention the risk of a coal seam fire...

Tell that to the Japanese.

[turbguy + 1,540]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It hardly matters what I think. I live closer to Yucca Mtn than any coal mine and the few people who live in Nevada wouldn't even accept it as a dump. But maybe Wyoming. What do you say @turbguy do you think your fellow citizens would like to use one of your obsolete coal mines for a radioactive waste dump?

Space isn't the issue for nuclear waste. All the waste the US has ever created would likely fit on three or four trains. The issue is a location which is geologically stable, without water flow and a long way from populations for when it fails. Not to mention the risk of a coal seam fire...

Actually, that is being considered in the Shirley Basin, north of Medicine Bow (which was also a uranium mining location) here in Wyoming.

Lotta wind turbines there, too.

[turbguy + 1,540]

14 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Would you consider coal mines as radioactive waste dumps? There would be way more than enough space. 

Actually, burial ground for landfill disposal of non-recycleable wind turbine blades is under consideration.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

12 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Actually, that is being considered in the Shirley Basin, north of Medicine Bow (which was also a uranium mining location) here in Wyoming.

Lotta wind turbines there, too.

Secret Wyoming nuke dump vote merits public outrage

Seven Republican legislators pulled a skunk out of a hat with a secret vote to once again explore storing nuclear waste in Wyoming. 

This must be the “Wyoming way” so many state lawmakers boast about when describing how they do the people’s work. 

The plan to store spent nuclear fuel rods at old uranium mines in the Gas Hills and Shirley Basin was hatched by Sen. Jim Anderson (R-Casper) and Rep. Mike Greear (R-Worland), co-chairmen of the Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee. 

The Legislative Management Council did not assign the topic to their committee or any other before the Legislature adjourned in March. There was no discussion of the topic in an open meeting, no posted notice that it was up for consideration and zero public input. Hiring the state out as a nuclear waste dump appeared in no legislative documents prior to the Management Council’s July 8 email vote to approve study of the matter.

The only reason anyone knows that we’re spending taxpayer dollars to study this hairbrained scheme is because WyoFile requested a record of all recent email votes by the Management Council.

House Speaker Steve Harshman and Senate President Drew Perkins, both Casper Republicans, didn’t talk about the proposed interim topic or announce the vote to the public. They just went along and passed it. 

House Majority Leader Eric Barlow (R-Gillette) joined five Democrats who opposed the measure.

Anderson told WyoFile reporter Angus Thuermer Jr., who broke the story about the vote, that “temporarily” storing the spent nuclear fuel rods here could bring in up to a billion dollars a year from the federal government.

Wyoming could have been making a haul off nuclear waste for decades, Anderson added, if “environmental terrorists” hadn’t stopped the so-called Monitored Retrievable Storage site in Fremont County. Then-Gov. Mike Sullivan, responding to polls that showed four-fifths of Wyomingites opposed the project, wisely halted it in 1992.

“I think they’ll be back terrorizing us again,” Anderson told Thuermer. It’s nice to know what he thinks of opponents to a project he tried to hide. 

Oh, there will be protests all right. Now that the public knows what’s been going on behind their backs, people will be able to decide for themselves who is truly concerned with trying to protect Wyoming’s priceless environment and who is trying to make billions of quick bucks putting it at risk.

Is it too much to ask for legislators to give us a break on this issue and bury it instead of highly radioactive nuclear waste? It’s long worn out its welcome.

Sullivan did the right thing when he listened to residents’ concerns about safety, including the transportation by trains or trucks of highly radioactive material across the state. He knew that the proposal was wholly contrary to the Equality State’s environmental values. 

Yet literally every time Wyoming’s economy hits the skids due to energy development woes, industry and lawmakers dust off proposals that have been soundly rejected for good reasons since the early 1990s. 

Granted, the state is facing a larger hurdle than it has in decades, trying to develop ways to make up for the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars annually in coal severance taxes. These revenues help pay for the bulk of state government operations.

Tourism is Wyoming’s second largest industry by revenue and with King Coal on its deathbed it should be the industry we’re most focused on developing. But who wants to visit a state whose major claim to fame isn’t its scenic beauty or its wonderful, abundant wildlife but how it’s living off revenue from a nuclear waste dump? 

The fact is, nobody else wants to keep this stuff. Nuclear waste is now being stored at 121 sites, mostly at commercial nuclear power plants and military installations. They are de facto permanent repositories because there is no permanent storage facility. The officials who run these sites would be ecstatic to see their waste taken to Wyoming, or anywhere else in the world. 

Anderson said it should be no big deal to the state because the material may only be here five to 10 years before it’s shipped to a permanent location.

He’s either joking or Anderson takes all Wyoming residents for fools who can’t read or follow the news. Congress selected Yucca Mountain in Nevada as its permanent nuclear waste repository in 1982. In 2015, after years of protests by Nevada residents and environmental groups and scientists worldwide, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely stopped the Yucca Mountain licensing process.

So, once it’s in Wyoming, it’s not going anywhere. We’d clearly be stuck with it, and our brainy state lawmakers who created this mess would no doubt be trying to get more while claiming they neatly solved our budget crisis.

Anderson said he wants his panel’s six-person subcommittee to “just explore the facts.” Well, here’s one of his own to debunk: He claims Wyoming would only store spent fuel rods in casks with walls two feet thick. “There’s nothing here about storing nuclear waste,” he said.

But spent nuclear fuel rods are classified as “High-Level Waste” by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As in “highly radioactive,” toxic waste. 

Anderson seems to believe nuclear waste would just be out of sight, out of mind, because he said no one even knows where the uranium mines are located. He did concede that maybe a fence could be put up around the areas. His security concerns are touching, aren’t they?

The Minerals subcommittee will probably meet once or twice with the U.S. Department of Energy, the co-chairman said, and report back to the full panel when it meets in November. A bill could be drafted, passed by the committee and sent to the full Legislature next February.

When the subcommittee drops what is sure to be a bombshell report, the public should be ready to pounce and help kill this deranged idea before it goes any further. Environmental groups, scientists and economists should lead a roar of opposition from the public, which needs to weigh in as loudly as possible.

And if the Minerals Committee approves a bill, the email boxes and voicemails of every legislator need to be jammed to help convince thoughtful lawmakers to vote no.

Opponents should be prepared to be called “environmental terrorists.” In fact they already have.

So, call me a terrorist. I don’t mind at all, if that moniker means I’m opposed to environmentally harmful projects.

This is supposed to be how we solve our economic crisis, by begging the federal government to let us take other states’ nuclear waste? It would make us the laughingstock of the nation, and deservedly so.

Whatever happened to trying to diversify Wyoming’s economy and getting us off the taxes on fossil fuels that have served as our state government gravy train since the 1970s? Are we ready to abandon efforts like the fledgling Economically Needed Diversity Options for Wyoming (ENDOW) and other programs?

Instead of schemes like nuclear fuel dumps, Wyoming lawmakers should devote their time to fixing the state’s tax structure. That will take some sacrifices from middle-class taxpayers, to be sure, but the bulk of new revenues need to be raised from our wealthiest individuals and corporations, who must start paying their fair share of taxes.

The legislators who voted for the nuclear waste “study” didn’t only show poor judgment; they violated the public trust by advancing a terrible idea in the dark.

Leaders don’t hide in the shadows and cast votes by email. They do their work in public. If it earns them some lumps instead of praise, so be it. That’s part of their job. Let’s put them on notice: We’re watching now

https://www.wyofile.com/secret-wyoming-nuke-dump-vote-merits-public-outrage/

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

47 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Secret Wyoming nuke dump vote merits public outrage

Seven Republican legislators pulled a skunk out of a hat with a secret vote to once again explore storing nuclear waste in Wyoming. 

This must be the “Wyoming way” so many state lawmakers boast about when describing how they do the people’s work. 

The plan to store spent nuclear fuel rods at old uranium mines in the Gas Hills and Shirley Basin was hatched by Sen. Jim Anderson (R-Casper) and Rep. Mike Greear (R-Worland), co-chairmen of the Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee. 

The Legislative Management Council did not assign the topic to their committee or any other before the Legislature adjourned in March. There was no discussion of the topic in an open meeting, no posted notice that it was up for consideration and zero public input. Hiring the state out as a nuclear waste dump appeared in no legislative documents prior to the Management Council’s July 8 email vote to approve study of the matter.

The only reason anyone knows that we’re spending taxpayer dollars to study this hairbrained scheme is because WyoFile requested a record of all recent email votes by the Management Council.

House Speaker Steve Harshman and Senate President Drew Perkins, both Casper Republicans, didn’t talk about the proposed interim topic or announce the vote to the public. They just went along and passed it. 

House Majority Leader Eric Barlow (R-Gillette) joined five Democrats who opposed the measure.

Anderson told WyoFile reporter Angus Thuermer Jr., who broke the story about the vote, that “temporarily” storing the spent nuclear fuel rods here could bring in up to a billion dollars a year from the federal government.

Wyoming could have been making a haul off nuclear waste for decades, Anderson added, if “environmental terrorists” hadn’t stopped the so-called Monitored Retrievable Storage site in Fremont County. Then-Gov. Mike Sullivan, responding to polls that showed four-fifths of Wyomingites opposed the project, wisely halted it in 1992.

“I think they’ll be back terrorizing us again,” Anderson told Thuermer. It’s nice to know what he thinks of opponents to a project he tried to hide. 

Oh, there will be protests all right. Now that the public knows what’s been going on behind their backs, people will be able to decide for themselves who is truly concerned with trying to protect Wyoming’s priceless environment and who is trying to make billions of quick bucks putting it at risk.

Is it too much to ask for legislators to give us a break on this issue and bury it instead of highly radioactive nuclear waste? It’s long worn out its welcome.

Sullivan did the right thing when he listened to residents’ concerns about safety, including the transportation by trains or trucks of highly radioactive material across the state. He knew that the proposal was wholly contrary to the Equality State’s environmental values. 

Yet literally every time Wyoming’s economy hits the skids due to energy development woes, industry and lawmakers dust off proposals that have been soundly rejected for good reasons since the early 1990s. 

Granted, the state is facing a larger hurdle than it has in decades, trying to develop ways to make up for the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars annually in coal severance taxes. These revenues help pay for the bulk of state government operations.

Tourism is Wyoming’s second largest industry by revenue and with King Coal on its deathbed it should be the industry we’re most focused on developing. But who wants to visit a state whose major claim to fame isn’t its scenic beauty or its wonderful, abundant wildlife but how it’s living off revenue from a nuclear waste dump? 

The fact is, nobody else wants to keep this stuff. Nuclear waste is now being stored at 121 sites, mostly at commercial nuclear power plants and military installations. They are de facto permanent repositories because there is no permanent storage facility. The officials who run these sites would be ecstatic to see their waste taken to Wyoming, or anywhere else in the world. 

Anderson said it should be no big deal to the state because the material may only be here five to 10 years before it’s shipped to a permanent location.

He’s either joking or Anderson takes all Wyoming residents for fools who can’t read or follow the news. Congress selected Yucca Mountain in Nevada as its permanent nuclear waste repository in 1982. In 2015, after years of protests by Nevada residents and environmental groups and scientists worldwide, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely stopped the Yucca Mountain licensing process.

So, once it’s in Wyoming, it’s not going anywhere. We’d clearly be stuck with it, and our brainy state lawmakers who created this mess would no doubt be trying to get more while claiming they neatly solved our budget crisis.

Anderson said he wants his panel’s six-person subcommittee to “just explore the facts.” Well, here’s one of his own to debunk: He claims Wyoming would only store spent fuel rods in casks with walls two feet thick. “There’s nothing here about storing nuclear waste,” he said.

But spent nuclear fuel rods are classified as “High-Level Waste” by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As in “highly radioactive,” toxic waste. 

Anderson seems to believe nuclear waste would just be out of sight, out of mind, because he said no one even knows where the uranium mines are located. He did concede that maybe a fence could be put up around the areas. His security concerns are touching, aren’t they?

The Minerals subcommittee will probably meet once or twice with the U.S. Department of Energy, the co-chairman said, and report back to the full panel when it meets in November. A bill could be drafted, passed by the committee and sent to the full Legislature next February.

When the subcommittee drops what is sure to be a bombshell report, the public should be ready to pounce and help kill this deranged idea before it goes any further. Environmental groups, scientists and economists should lead a roar of opposition from the public, which needs to weigh in as loudly as possible.

And if the Minerals Committee approves a bill, the email boxes and voicemails of every legislator need to be jammed to help convince thoughtful lawmakers to vote no.

Opponents should be prepared to be called “environmental terrorists.” In fact they already have.

So, call me a terrorist. I don’t mind at all, if that moniker means I’m opposed to environmentally harmful projects.

This is supposed to be how we solve our economic crisis, by begging the federal government to let us take other states’ nuclear waste? It would make us the laughingstock of the nation, and deservedly so.

Whatever happened to trying to diversify Wyoming’s economy and getting us off the taxes on fossil fuels that have served as our state government gravy train since the 1970s? Are we ready to abandon efforts like the fledgling Economically Needed Diversity Options for Wyoming (ENDOW) and other programs?

Instead of schemes like nuclear fuel dumps, Wyoming lawmakers should devote their time to fixing the state’s tax structure. That will take some sacrifices from middle-class taxpayers, to be sure, but the bulk of new revenues need to be raised from our wealthiest individuals and corporations, who must start paying their fair share of taxes.

The legislators who voted for the nuclear waste “study” didn’t only show poor judgment; they violated the public trust by advancing a terrible idea in the dark.

Leaders don’t hide in the shadows and cast votes by email. They do their work in public. If it earns them some lumps instead of praise, so be it. That’s part of their job. Let’s put them on notice: We’re watching now

https://www.wyofile.com/secret-wyoming-nuke-dump-vote-merits-public-outrage/

So, wheres the study that says any of the environmental terrorist's claims will come to fruition if spend fuel rods are stored in old uranium mines? 

There isn't any. Also, this article is so slanted left that a spent fuel rod would fly right off it. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

40 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

So, wheres the study that says any of the environmental terrorist's claims will come to fruition if spend fuel rods are stored in old uranium mines? 

There isn't any. Also, this article is so slanted left that a spent fuel rod would fly right off it. 

That was the entire point. The public perception is extremely strong, even in Wyoming in regard to an old uranium mine. Coal mines in any US state are completely out of the question.

@QuarterCenturyVet Why hasn't your state stepped up and taken the money for hosting the nation's radioactive waste dump? It would be very patriotic of you.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

23 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That was the entire point. The public perception is extremely strong, even in Wyoming in regard to an old uranium mine. Coal mines in any US state are completely out of the question.

@QuarterCenturyVet Why hasn't your state stepped up and taken the money for hosting the nation's radioactive waste dump? It would be very patriotic of you.

My "state" is not a state at all. It's a province within a nation. Besides that, there was no study done because of negative public perception due to outlandish environmental terrorist's claims. You surely want to follow the science and not some sycophantic claims, right? 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

59 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

My "state" is not a state at all. It's a province within a nation. Besides that, there was no study done because of negative public perception due to outlandish environmental terrorist's claims. You surely want to follow the science and not some sycophantic claims, right? 

This has nothing to do with me. I was pointing out reality. What you can't get through your head is that this is about the science of economics and the reality that being the nation's radioactive dump is bad for business. That is not an outlandish claim, it is a very obvious claim to anyone living in the state. Ultimately the people you are calling environmental terrorists are the majority of voters in the state.

I'm sure we would gladly pay your province the same to take the waste. Your new slogan could be "America's Radioactive Toxic Waste Dump"

 

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[-trance + 114]

15 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

I'm sure we would gladly pay your province the same to take the waste.

International agreements prohibit most imports and exports of hazardous waste.  If they were not in place rich nations would indeed use poor nations as their trash can (more than they already do).

Here is our Canadian version. Export and import of hazardous waste and hazardous recycling material regulations https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-149/

 

[turbguy + 1,540]

2 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

So, wheres the study that says any of the environmental terrorist's claims will come to fruition if spend fuel rods are stored in old uranium mines? 

There isn't any. Also, this article is so slanted left that a spent fuel rod would fly right off it. 

They would be (most likely) stored on the surface.  The mining for Uranium in the Shirley Basin was mostly done in-situ (where they pump acids underground, and retrieve the resultant "goo" for processing.

 

Here's a view of a very small section of the area on WY 77 from a recent motorcycle day trip.  The road's closed in winter, and the state is going to just let it degrade to gravel.  No fences, gotta watch out for stock!

About 20 miles west of here is Wyoming's "Miracle Mile" fishing haven.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by turbguy

[nsdp + 449]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

Actually, burial ground for landfill disposal of non-recycleable wind turbine blades is under consideration.

Solves the problem of unrestored coal mines across the whole US. Those mines would hold a lot of pulverized blades.

 

3 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

My "state" is not a state at all. It's a province within a nation. Besides that, there was no study done because of negative public perception due to outlandish environmental terrorist's claims. You surely want to follow the science and not some sycophantic claims, right?

Maybe your ecoterrorists  know more about the geology of your country and don't  want to be come the dumping ground for US radioactive waste. Wyoming isn't a particularly great site given what we know today-about  what happened to the coal seams during the Permian extinction. As it has volcanic hot spots like current Yellowstone or Devils Tower and parts of east is not the geological wonderland to be storing fissile material.  Nevada is heavily faulted  near Yucca mountain. NASA"s geophisical surveys of the earths crust with U-2s found that tidbit. Geophysics was still in diapers when that site was chosen in the 1980's pre plate tectonics.   With what we have learned about the earth's crust in the last 20 years, the only basins that are stable enough to still have the earth's original crust are Hudsons Bay and surrounding areas in the Canadian Shield, the Western Australian Desert and the Karoo Basin in South Africa.

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

Solves the problem of unrestored coal mines across the whole US. Those mines would hold a lot of pulverized blades.

 

Maybe your ecoterrorists  know more about the geology of your country and don't  want to be come the dumping ground for US radioactive waste. Wyoming isn't a particularly great site given what we know today-about  what happened to the coal seams during the Permian extinction. As it has volcanic hot spots like current Yellowstone or Devils Tower and parts of east is not the geological wonderland to be storing fissile material.  Nevada is heavily faulted  near Yucca mountain. NASA"s geophisical surveys of the earths crust with U-2s found that tidbit. Geophysics was still in diapers when that site was chosen in the 1980's pre plate tectonics.   With what we have learned about the earth's crust in the last 20 years, the only basins that are stable enough to still have the earth's original crust are Hudsons Bay and surrounding areas in the Canadian Shield, the Western Australian Desert and the Karoo Basin in South Africa.

Eco-terrorists are the luddites that demand zero waste, but are then shocked when 10× the land is needed to produce intermittent electricity from solar and wind generation instead of nuclear power, but then whine about the nuclear waste, that in its entire existence, could be stored in a football stadium. Ontario has been doing it successfully for their own nuclear plants for decades. If Wyoming can charge a premium to idiot states to store a few thousand square yards of waste, why not?

Oh, because the same eco-terrorists have urban white liberals to do the negative public perception work for them, and you all are just gargling the same spam. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

9 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

If Wyoming can charge a premium to idiot states to store a few thousand square yards of waste, why not?

Because all those white urban liberal Wyoming voters don't want to?

Edited July 1, 2021 by Jay McKinsey