Japan studying disposal of highly radioactive waste under seabed

JIJI

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has started work on identifying the technical challenges of constructing a disposal facility under the seabed for highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.

A study group set up by the ministry is to finish the work by around summer.

The government would be able to skip potentially tough negotiations with landowners if it decides to build a disposal facility under the seabed.

But construction of such a facility would involve many hurdles.

At a meeting of the study group Tuesday, a ministry official stressed that nothing has been decided.

Such a facility would have to be connected to an onshore facility through a tunnel so as not to violate an international law that restricts dumping nuclear waste at sea.

Candidate sites are expected to be 10 to 15 km off the coast, an official from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan said at the meeting.

The ministry also plans to take into account nearby volcanos and active faults when it assesses candidate sites.

  • brwstacsj

    Really hasn’t the Japanese nuclear power gang done enough harm to the ocean? There’s still a ton of radioactive water pouring out daily from Fukushima into the Pacific. Nuclear power is not safe and nobody wants the by products. How many accidents will it take until humanity stops using it?

    • Starviking

      It’s a study. As for the “ton or radioactive water”, how much radioisotopes are in this “ton”?

      • Alan Robinson

        There are over 1,000 different radioisotopes. While levels may be deemed “low” per ton, that’s not the issue. The issue is bio-accumulation of the isotopes. They do not “dilute” as such, but, as heavy metals, travel in a “plume” which took around 3 years to reach the USA. As each sea creature consumes its smaller prey, the poison concentrates up the food chain. Guess what creature is at the top of the food chain? trivia* No baby killer whale (orca) has survived more than 1 year in the northern pacific since Fuku popped.

      • Jag_Levak

        “While levels may be deemed “low” per ton, that’s not the issue.”

        It is if the levels are low enough.

        “The issue is bio-accumulation of the isotopes.”

        Some do, some don’t.

        “As each sea creature consumes its smaller prey, the poison concentrates up the food chain.”

        Which is also the case for natural polonium 210. High radiation concentrations in bottom dwelling fish very near Fukushima have been found, but out in the larger Pacific, the radiation dose marine life receives from natural sources dwarfs any contribution from Fukushima.

        “No baby killer whale (orca) has survived more than 1 year in the northern pacific since Fuku popped.”

        It can sometimes be years between pregnancies in a pod. I think the three pods of the Southern Resident clan had no births from 2011 until Dec. 2014, and then had eight births by the end of 2015, following a good year for salmon. Until last month, your claim would have been true for the entire SRKW clan, even without any infant deaths. But all reports I’ve seen are that the babies of the 2015 boom are looking fat and healthy. That’s actually pretty unusual for orcas, because they have had high infant mortality rates for decades. One of the big problems is that they tend to accumulate and concentrate DDT and PCB’s. Orca corpses sometimes have concentrations of such chemical toxins high enough that they have to be disposed of in a hazardous waste site.

        Conversely, I have heard nothing about any orca corpses being found with significant levels of Fukushima radioisotopes. Have you?

    • vm0303

      \How many accidents will it take until humanity stops using it?\

      the same number of airline crashes before people stop flying

      • Sam Gilman

        Worse. Abandoning it would be like abandoning a Boeing 747 in favour of the Hindenburg.

      • Brad Dueringer

        It’s one thing for a person to be suspected of being ignorant, but to let them use a keyboard removes all doubt.

      • Sam Gilman

        So you’re a fan of burning coal?

      • Alan Robinson

        Dear Sam, its evident from your lack of response to my points, and only basically saying “yeah, but coals bad! Waahh!” that you need some information. I can help you.. Why yes indeed, coal is bad no doubt about it, I’m with you there. Lets stay on topic, OK?

      • Sam Gilman

        Hold on – you do realise that nuclear reactors actually have the function of producing electricity, don’t you? That’s the basic air travel thing. We’re not going to give up electricity.

        Japan has replaced nuclear with coal and gas. Germany explicitly made the choice between nuclear and coal and chose coal. They behave the same way on the grid.

      • Clickonthewhatnow

        Who let you use one?

      • Alan Robinson

        How so Sam? Your analogy is preposterous, as your simile fails on the basis of any logical test I can imagine.

      • Sam Gilman

        Perhaps you don’t have a very good imagination. Think of something that kills more people per unit of electricity produced than nuclear. Coal for example, is far more deadly.

  • Ita Zura

    Nuclear technology is dangerous and not necessarily. Japanese government must understand this and stop this madness.

  • Roy Warner

    This idea comes from the people who allowed the Fukushima plants to be constructed upon a hill intentionally shaved down to the level of a tsunami flood plain. Highly radioactive waste under the seabed 15 km off the coast? Would anyone care for more sashimi?

    • Starviking

      The construction site was lowered to fix the plant to bedrock. That’s an anti-earthquake measure.

      As for the tsunami, the recurrent tsunami in the general area was not even known about when Di-ichi was being planned.

  • http://www.dcampeau.com Darren Campeau

    Please, no more radioactivity material threatening the sea life. Living in Japan, it’s important to pay attention to where one’s seafood is originating. I personally avoid anything from Miyagi, Fukushima and Chiba. But in restaurants there are no labels made available.

    • Sam Gilman

      The food from these regions is safe to eat. It is well monitored. All you are doing is kicking people in the teeth who have suffered enough.

  • http://www.dcampeau.com Darren Campeau

    Please, no more radioactivity material threatening the sea life. Living in Japan, it’s important to pay attention to where one’s seafood is originating. I personally avoid anything from Miyagi, Fukushima and Chiba. But in restaurants there are no labels made available.

  • vm0303
  • GWFHIB

    Out of sight, out of mind. Tectonic plates? Have there been any earthquakes on the seabed? Does Japan get to decide this all on their own?

  • Sam Gilman

    No, I’m being perfectly serious.

    My turn to ask you a question. Who owns and funds ENEnews?

    • Brad Dueringer

      Wow! Simply amazing

      • Sam Gilman

        ENEnews promotes stories that seek to shift the blame for problems in sea life caused by global warming onto Fukushima.

        Who owns and funds it, Brad? Can’t you tell me?

      • Brad Dueringer

        Let’s discuss global warming…. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the 80’s it released more CO2 than all of mankind in the all of the history of mankind. Pinatubo was not a super volcano. There are currently about 40 volcano’s erupting around the world. Do you still stand by global warming being caused by either man or CO2? If you do there is no point in any further discussion with you.

      • Sam Gilman

        Your Mount Pinatubo factoid is wrong. Does that help?

        http://www.wired.com/2015/04/volcanoes-still-not-source-increasing-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere/

        Brad, what’s your own personal explanation for why pretty much every major national science institution in he world has openly stated that the evidence for human-caused global warming is overwhelming? I’m just dying to know.

    • Alan Robinson

      I know, but I’ll let you do your own research, perhaps your interest will lead you towards some much needed education. Nice deflection and attempted ad hominem attack though… back to the point, you say the food from these regions is safe to eat? What, you mean less than 100 Bq/Kg? Do you even know what a becquerel is, Sam? … give me a break… tell the parents of the poor Japanese kids with thyroid nodules and now cancers “from these regions”, the 50% diabetes rate, and many many more facts. I know a LOT more about this issue than you, I have followed it objectively since day 1. Money talks, Sam, and the nuclear industry has an enormous amount of it. Governments don’t care, cancer and all the other illnesses (see the sailors of the USS Reagan) appear years later and don’t present a “Made in Fukushima” label on them, giving this evil industry plausible deniability. A Japanese law even makes it illegal to publish truth in this regard under the “state secrets” act – created after Fukushima. Global warming? That’s just, well, if you knew anything about this issue, Sam, absurd.

      • Sam Gilman

        Asking about the source of your information isn’t ad hominem. On the other hand, calling someone a shill and telling them they’re ignorant based on nothing, that is ad hominem.

        Now, apparently you know loads more than me. The thing is, you claim there is a law preventing the reporting of events on Fukushima. That’s not true. Here are some examples:

        Here is the Asahi collection of stories in English:
        https://ajw.asahi.com/category/0311disaster/fukushima/

        NHK:
        http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/nuclear.html

        Daily Yomiuri:
        https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=fukushima%20site%3Athe-japan-news.com&newwindow=1&gws_rd=ssl

        Prefectural paper Fukshima Minpo News:
        http://www.fukushimaminponews.com

        And for completeness, here is a google news link on the term 福島第一原発 which means “Fukushima No.1 Nuclear power station”. You can look at Twitter and other social media as well and see that people are discussing it and sharing reports.

        Even junk science reports claiming mad excess rates of cancer and nosebleeds don’t cause arrests.

        You seem to claim that 100 becquerels per kilo is dangerous. First, definitions. One becquerel is one nucleus disintegration per second. The thing is, 100 Becquerels per kilo, the generic limit on food, is roughly the same as the radioactivity level of human bodies.

        The 50% diabetes rate seems to be sourced to the Journal of Made Up Stuff on the Internet.

        The thyroid cancer screening programme thus far seems to have only found a lot of adult thyroid cancers early, not radiogenic cancers from exposure . The age, gender and geographic profile of victims and the size and type of tumour all confirm this. I can go into detail about this if you wish.

        To be honest, you’re not getting a good strike rate on the whole “knowing lots about this” thing. Perhaps you would like to revisit that claim?

  • mothman777

    They are clinically insane. No one should put nuclear waste in any oceans. Hasn’t the massive die off of sea life from Fukushima taught them anything?

    If they make radioactive waste, then they should store it on land in glass inside lead inside reinforced concrete, maybe in a hollowed-out granite mountain, until such time as technology is invented to dispose of it safely.

    If they put it in the ocean, they will never be able to access it to do this, and then the containers holding the dumped material in the oceans will be eroded and will eventually pollute and kill the ocean life. We are going to see this also from nerve and poison gas dumped after WWI and WWII in the oceans, which will cause catastrophic loss of life when the containers all get eroded away and release the chemical weapons.

    All species of marine life in the North Sea and Barents Sea for instance will be killed if just 17% of the containers of poison gas eventually get damaged by erosion, and then there is the Gulf Stream ocean current to carry that totally lethal poison round the world, so much for ocean dumping. None of these idiots should use the oceans as toilets, those fools are not fit to occupy positions of power where they can make such idiotic decisions.

  • mothman777

    They are clinically insane. No one should put nuclear waste in any oceans. Hasn’t the massive die off of sea life from Fukushima taught them anything?

    If they make radioactive waste, then they should store it on land in glass inside lead inside reinforced concrete, maybe in a hollowed-out granite mountain, until such time as technology is invented to dispose of it safely.

    If they put it in the ocean, they will never be able to access it to do this, and then the containers holding the dumped material in the oceans will be eroded and will eventually pollute and kill the ocean life. We are going to see this also from nerve and poison gas dumped after WWI and WWII in the oceans, which will cause catastrophic loss of life when the containers all get eroded away and release the chemical weapons.

    All species of marine life in the North Sea and Barents Sea for instance will be killed if just 17% of the containers of poison gas eventually get damaged by erosion, and then there is the Gulf Stream ocean current to carry that totally lethal poison round the world, so much for ocean dumping. None of these idiots should use the oceans as toilets, those fools are not fit to occupy positions of power where they can make such idiotic decisions.

  • Alan Robinson

    Dear Tim et al, I think you are not considering the risk/reward ratio. Nuclear plants are designed for a certain lifetime, these have been extended greatly in order to foster profit, however the neutron bombardment of the containment vessel creates brittleness and safety concerns. One accident and you have a major disaster, not to mention they are terrorist targets. Do you know how close Japan came to actually having to EVACUATE TOKYO? They are not clean at all, the complete fuel cycle is extremely dirty, the mining, milling, extraction and transportation (risks), electrical power required for all this, and then refueling (which invariably leaks tritium), not to mention the perpetual issue of waste storage. Japanese attempt at a breeder reactor (Monju) FAIL – extremely expensive.
    BTW, recent samples of vacuum cleaner dust from Tokyo has shown radiation levels over 30,000 Bq/Kg. Have some with your fish?

    • Sam Gilman

      Do you know how close Japan came to actually having to EVACUATE TOKYO?

      ME SIR I KNOW SIR: nowhere near close.

      Alan, at least some of the people you’re talking to live here, and were here during the initial crisis. You might be more careful checking your facts.

  • Alan Robinson

    Dear Tim et al, I think you are not considering the risk/reward ratio. Nuclear plants are designed for a certain lifetime, these have been extended greatly in order to foster profit, however the neutron bombardment of the containment vessel creates brittleness and safety concerns. One accident and you have a major disaster, not to mention they are terrorist targets. Do you know how close Japan came to actually having to EVACUATE TOKYO? They are not clean at all, the complete fuel cycle is extremely dirty, the mining, milling, extraction and transportation (risks), electrical power required for all this, and then refueling (which invariably leaks tritium), not to mention the perpetual issue of waste storage. Japanese attempt at a breeder reactor (Monju) FAIL – extremely expensive.
    BTW, recent samples of vacuum cleaner dust from Tokyo has shown radiation levels over 30,000 Bq/Kg. Have some with your fish?

  • Sam Gilman

    I can give you the current prime minister, someone who has actually won elections standing as candidate for prime minister, who by all measures far more clearly has had the support of people than Kan, saying it’s under control. That’s not an endorsement of Abe at all, it’s just plain fact about his record compared to Kan’s.

    Would that stronger “argument” change your mind? Of course not. Why not? Because it’s not a genuine argument. If Kan said Fukushima was under control, you would completely dismiss what he said and accuse him of being part of the great nuclear-funded conspiracy you have recently outlined.

    (And what kind of person takes their science from politicians?)

    I realised that perhaps you’re not familiar with the anti-vaccine movement, so I’ll bring a comparison you may be more familiar with. Japanese nationalists dismiss any criticism of Japan’s history as the work of some great Korean conspiracy. What’s the difference between that logic and your logic that any scientist who produces evidence you don’t like must be part of the great nuclear conspiracy? I’d love to hear your explanation because I genuinely don’t see a difference in the logic. To me they’re both extreme cases of motivated cognition.

    • Brian Victoria

      Dear Sam,

      Once again you refuse to respond to a very clear statement by former PM Naoto Kan:

      “There is no doubt” radioactive materials have been seeping into the sea after mixing with underground water, Kan, who has been a vocal critic of nuclear energy since the accident, told the National Press Club in Washington on Tuesday. . . . The accident is still unfolding” at the nuclear plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co., Kan said.”

      1. Do you deny, Sam, that “radioactive materials have been seeping into the sea after mixing with underground water”?

      2. If you admit this is the case, then can the situation at Fukushima Daiichi be rightfully claimed to be “under control”?

      3. Finally, WHAT RIGHT, SAM, DOES JAPAN OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY HAVE TO RADIOACTIVELY POISON THE PACIFIC OCEAN WHICH IS THE COLLECTIVE HERITAGE OF ALL LIVING CREATURES ON THIS PLANET?

      Please answer the pertinent questions, Sam, and drop diversions about Japanese nationalists, et al.

      • Sam Gilman

        First of all, there is no need to shout.

        I addressed your usage of Kan as a reliable source directly. Everyone can see that, Brian. I note, however, that yet again, you do not respond to the main point in my reply to you. If you think that the mention of Japanese nationalists was a distraction, then you didn’t understand what is a very simple argument. Do they not do analogies in Zen Buddhism?

        So, to your numbered points:

        1. Is there radioactive material in the groundwater is getting into the ocean? Yes.

        2. Is it causing the wider oceans to be dangerously contaminated? No. How do I know this? I read reports on monitoring. The levels of contamination in the sea outside the artificial barrier have been dropping. Readings of marine life have been dropping. Fishing is beginning again close to the plant:

        http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/27/national/fukushima-fishermen-to-expand-operations-off-crippled-nuclear-plant/

        Will you join me in welcoming a further chance for these people, in a region where 16,000 people lost their lives four years ago, to rebuild their lives? I really think that would be appropriate.

        So “under control” doesn’t seem like a wild mischaracterisation, unless you have a special meaning for “under control” for which you have evidence that Abe intended (if we’re going to go with your use of politicians as scientists). It doesn’t mean there isn’t a long clean up ahead, and it doesn’t mean that it isn’t hazardous for people working at the plant, but in terms of it being a threat to the wider area (let alone the Olympics) , which is the context I understood his remarks to be in, I’m not sure what the problem is. But then, that’s because I actually read the reports.

        3. No one claims it’s a good thing that radioactive material is going into the sea. The issue is how much of a threat it poses to marine wildlife. It appears to be too small to have any such effect.

        Of course, nothing I say, no scientific evidence I bring will ever convince you. You have failed to set out the criteria by which evidence could change your mind, and appear unable to apply the ones I suggested to you.

  • Jag_Levak

    “The oceans are estimated to contain 1,000 times as much uranium as is buried in deposits on land”

    I don’t think so. That would mean terrestrial deposits only have around 4.5 million tonnes of uranium, but just the already identified economically recoverable uranium reserves (at current prices) are around 5.9 million tonnes. I’ve seen estimates of continental uranium in excess of 10 trillion tons (100 trillion tons for crustal uranium to 25 km depth) so it is more likely there is more than 1000 times as much uranium on land as in the oceans.

    • Joffan

      Yes, it doesn’t quantify the depth considered on land, but considering any sensible depth taking into account the depth already used in current uranium extraction would likely lead to a balance in favor of land uranium.

      However seawater extraction has the advantage that the oceans do (slowly) mix on their own, bringing new uranium relatively quickly into accessibility.

      • Jag_Levak

        “seawater extraction has the advantage that the oceans do (slowly) mix on
        their own, bringing new uranium relatively quickly into accessibility”

        Plus, no tailings, no dust or runoff pollution, and the “orebody” provides the energy to transport itself through the binding medium. I definitely wasn’t knocking seawater extraction. I just thought that factoid needed some context. If anything, the vastly greater supply of terrestrial uranium is a plus for seawater extraction because that means it has a huge reserve to replenish itself from–at a rate of around 10,000 tonnes per year from river water alone.

      • Joffan

        Yes – I have occasionally argued that seawater uranium is in fact “renewable energy” on the basis of river replenishment. :-)

        Also often-ignored, on the land side of operations, is in-situ extraction, which also leaves no dust, no tailings and (done correctly) no runoff. Rather than move rock, you just move an active solution through porous rock. All this is feasible because the chemical energy expended in extracting the uranium is a tiny fraction of the nuclear energy that is the actual benefit.

      • Joffan

        Yes – I have occasionally argued that seawater uranium is in fact “renewable energy” on the basis of river replenishment. :-)

        Also often-ignored, on the land side of operations, is in-situ extraction, which also leaves no dust, no tailings and (done correctly) no runoff. Rather than move rock, you just move an active solution through porous rock. All this is feasible because the chemical energy expended in extracting the uranium is a tiny fraction of the nuclear energy that is the actual benefit.

      • Jag_Levak

        “seawater extraction has the advantage that the oceans do (slowly) mix on
        their own, bringing new uranium relatively quickly into accessibility”

        Plus, no tailings, no dust or runoff pollution, and the “orebody” provides the energy to transport itself through the binding medium. I definitely wasn’t knocking seawater extraction. I just thought that factoid needed some context. If anything, the vastly greater supply of terrestrial uranium is a plus for seawater extraction because that means it has a huge reserve to replenish itself from–at a rate of around 10,000 tonnes per year from river water alone.

      • Jag_Levak

        “seawater extraction has the advantage that the oceans do (slowly) mix on
        their own, bringing new uranium relatively quickly into accessibility”

        Plus, no tailings, no dust or runoff pollution, and the “orebody” provides the energy to transport itself through the binding medium. I definitely wasn’t knocking seawater extraction. I just thought that factoid needed some context. If anything, the vastly greater supply of terrestrial uranium is a plus for seawater extraction because that means it has a huge reserve to replenish itself from–at a rate of around 10,000 tonnes per year from river water alone.

  • GWFHIB

    Nice fact but what is your point? Will Japan disperse it to the same levels as it is found in the ocean?

  • GWFHIB

    Is the radiation found naturally in the ocean enriched as it is from Fukushima? I rather doubt it.

    • Jag_Levak

      Enrichment only applies to modifying the ratio of uranium isotopes. This is irrelevant to the radionuclides released from Fukushima for 2 reasons. 1) There are hundreds of millions of tonnes of uranium already dissolved in the Pacific. Even if all the uranium from both Fukushima complexes were dissolved into the ocean, it wouldn’t be enough to noticeably budge the Pacific from its natural isotopic ratios. And 2) hardly any uranium was released from Fukushima.

      • GWFHIB

        In your humble opinion. I am glad that you have found the safest place for the world to rid of their nuclear radio active waste.

      • Jag_Levak

        Yes, that was my opinion. But I try to have opinions that are well-supported by science, evidence, and reason. If anyone can point out how a different opinion is better supported, I’ll switch.

        And no, I don’t think burying barely-depleted fuel is a particularly good use for it. And I’m not claiming that operating a facility and working under the sea floor in a tectonically active region is safe. I don’t know enough about it to make such a claim. I’d be nervous about working in such a facility, but then, I’d be nervous about being in a tall building in an earthquake zone too.

      • Jag_Levak

        Yes, that was my opinion. But I try to have opinions that are well-supported by science, evidence, and reason. If anyone can point out how a different opinion is better supported, I’ll switch.

        And no, I don’t think burying barely-depleted fuel is a particularly good use for it. And I’m not claiming that operating a facility and working under the sea floor in a tectonically active region is safe. I don’t know enough about it to make such a claim. I’d be nervous about working in such a facility, but then, I’d be nervous about being in a tall building in an earthquake zone too.

      • GWFHIB

        In your humble opinion. I am glad that you have found the safest place for the world to rid of their nuclear radio active waste.

    • GRLCowan

      A reasonable doubt. About a year ago, based on numbers from “One-year, regional-scale simulation of 137Cs radioactivity in the ocean following the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident”, which is free on the web, I compared the power of the radioactivity from FD1 — 1400 watts in March 2011, since reduced to 600 watts — to the power from naturally present potassium (1800000000 watts) and uranium (425000000 watts).

      We can call 1400 W of marine ionizing radiation a fukushima, and give the natural uranium contribution in this unit: 300,000 fukushimas. Natural radiopotassium, 1.3 million fukushimas.

      The contamination from FD1 no longer being what it was when it came out, it no longer is 1 fukushima; it’s down to about 0.4.

  • GWFHIB

    Is the radiation found naturally in the ocean enriched as it is from Fukushima? I rather doubt it.

  • At Times Mistaken

    Did no one see the movie Godzilla?
    I’m pretty sure this is how it starts.

  • John Higson

    Some of the posters here are seriously deluded. The monetary and energy of extracting Uranium from seawater makes it absolutely pointless! It would take more energy to extract it than you would get from the Uranium in a nuclear reactor! If it was such a good idea don’t you think somebody would have extracted all the Gold, Platinum and Silver by now? After all there must be hundreds of millions of tons in the sea!

    Also, Seabed disposal of toxic radioactive wastes is a reasonable idea if the disposal site were to be subducted into the mantle. Of course it would need to be unbelievably secure and preclude any crustal accretion of the toxic waste! I don’t know if this is feasible, but it should be studied. The waste exists, it has to go somewhere!

  • John Higson

    Also, seawater extraction is never going to happen for uranium the EROEI is just not worth it! Never will be and is a pipedream. Almost like the boosters who claim that if the price of oil gets too high you can just make it from CO2 and H2O! It is a net energy sink! Pointless but possible!

    ‘since in reality seawater-derived uranium costs much less than even the cheapest fossil fuel.’

    Simply don’t believe it. There is no way that seawater extracted U is cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL!

    FULL CYCLE from producing the infrastructure to extract the U to building the powerplants to putting the U in a state to be fissioned to decommissioning the power plant at the end of it’s life to dealing with the wastes after it’s been exhausted. No flocking way there is net energy from seawater extracted Uranium. NO WAY!

  • John Higson

    Also, seawater extraction is never going to happen for uranium the EROEI is just not worth it! Never will be and is a pipedream. Almost like the boosters who claim that if the price of oil gets too high you can just make it from CO2 and H2O! It is a net energy sink! Pointless but possible!

    ‘since in reality seawater-derived uranium costs much less than even the cheapest fossil fuel.’

    Simply don’t believe it. There is no way that seawater extracted U is cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL!

    FULL CYCLE from producing the infrastructure to extract the U to building the powerplants to putting the U in a state to be fissioned to decommissioning the power plant at the end of it’s life to dealing with the wastes after it’s been exhausted. No flocking way there is net energy from seawater extracted Uranium. NO WAY!

  • Joffan

    Proof by exclamation points is even lazier than proof by scary adjectives.