Uranium hasn’t been discussed much at this site, mostly because I don’t feel that I know enough about the topic to really make sense. But I am focused on getting up to speed after the disaster in Japan and the announcement that the first new uranium mill in the US was approved for a site that is just down the road a bit.

Today the story that caught my eye on the topic was put out by an expert at Carnegie Mellon University. “Shifting from nuclear to other types of power plants could affect the reliability of the electricity supply, electricity costs, air pollution, carbon emissions, and the reliance on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, the researchers said.” Whoa buddy that’s a lot of pain and suffering for both the planet and the economy.

The argument presented in the story is that if nuclear plants shut down, more coal and natural gas plants would need to be fired up, causing air and water pollution, climate change, and higher electricity costs. Evidently it costs more to run coal and gas fired plants than it does to run nuclear plants. I find that hard to believe. For one thing people don’t need to wear mini Geiger counters just to go to work in a coal or natural gas fired plant.  And I doubt the people of Japan are going to find clean up of their nuclear disaster in any bargain basement.

Having said that, the scientists who analyzed the impact of a shutdown, seem to be credible, and the study was “supported by the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making through a cooperative agreement between the National Science Foundation and Carnegie Mellon University.”

You decide.

Homework:

January 2011 NYTimes Story About Colorado Uranium Mill

Carnegie Mellon Analysis of Economic Impacts of Nuclear Plants

Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making

National Science Foundation

I haven’t blogged much about uranium tailings, even though they have been an issue for decades in this Senate District. Not all that long ago, Grand Junction’s streets and sidewalks were dug up in order to replace the uranium tailings that had been their base.

A story in the Denver Post today reminded me that uranium waste is still worth thinking about.

Evidently Cotter Corp is refusing to pump waste water out of a Uranium mine that is leaching water into Ralston Creek, which feeds into Denver’s water supply. Ralston Creek flows through Arvada. My family lived in Arvada for many years, so the story seemed pretty personal to me. My brother used to catch crawdads in Ralston Creek.

Cotter Corp. is cleaning up some leach ponds, and is being reimbursed for some of their work by the federal government. To the extent that the uranium was produced in support of Department of Defense projects, the DoD is paying for the mill tailings clean-up. But the company has control over how quickly the work gets done, and can prioritize the work based on their own criteria. Their top reason for picking a site for clean-up seems to be if someone else is paying for it.  The current estimate for when Cotter Corp’s clean-up will be complete is 2027.

So, from now until 2027, Denver’s drinking supply is threatened with water leaching from a uranium mine that the federal government is not paying to clean up, and kids playing along Ralston Creek are being exposed to radiation.

I’ve heard a lot of politicians lately talk about using all available energy sources, including nuclear. Generally I support that policy, but we need to give a lot more thought to how uranium is produced, and what is done with the mining waste as well as with the spent nuclear fuel before we get too much farther down that path. Water in the West is too precious to endanger it with radioactive waste.

Homework:

Radio Active Ralston Creek

Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes