Yucca Mountain

Hubris Boy · 01-12-2002, 09:56 AM

On Wednesday, the Federal government finally got around to deciding on where to store the 77,000 tons of nuclear waste that have been accumulating in this country for the last 50 years. The plan is to move it from on-site cooling pools in 30-odd different states, where it currently resides, and bury it in a Tora-Bora-like complex under Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Naturally, a project like this is bound to provoke incredible volumes of bullshit statistics, "what about the children" whining, and just plain screeching... on both sides of the argument. On one side, the opponents argue that it will be dangerous to transport all that waste from all around the country and, once it's buried, it will eventually leach into the groundwater despite anyone's best efforts to prevent it. Oh... and the convoys will make great targets for terrorists.

On the other side, supporters contend that the current storage facilities are inadequate, and were never intended for long-term storage, and if you don't believe it... take a look at places like Hanford, WA. They argue that the risks associated with transporting the waste to Nevada are far outweighed by the benefits of having the waste contained in one place where it will be easier to monitor. Oh... and the widely-dispersed cooling pools where the waste lives now make great targets for terrorists.

I don't have any strong opinions about this either way... I think I can see the value of having all this crap consolidated in one place. Yucca Mountain certainly meets MY basic requirements for a nuclear waste storage facility:
A) It's far away from me and;
B) It's far away from me.

And, anything that upsets Tom Daschle and Greenpeace so much must have some redeeming value!

On the other hand, the idea of moving 77,000 tons of radioactive sludge strikes me as an incredibly dangerous proposition. I mean, Jesus! Have you BEEN to a truck stop lately? I wouldn't trust most of those people with a burnt-out match!

So... what do y'all think about this?

elSicomoro · 01-12-2002, 11:48 AM

I say it's better to have it in one central place. Easier to look after it all. Plus, I'm not planning on moving out west, so I'm down with it going to Nevada.

Most of Nevada is desert anyway, right? (I've never been there.)

tw · 01-12-2002, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
I don't have any strong opinions about this either way... I think I can see the value of having all this crap consolidated in one place. Yucca Mountain certainly meets MY basic requirements for a nuclear waste storage facility:
A) It's far away from me and;
B) It's far away from me.

The Soviets also thought it was a good idea to store waste all in one place. The resulting explosion contaminated an area I believe may be 100 miles in diameter.

Yucca Mountain - is it upwind of you?

Problem is that waste will remain radioactive for too many centuries. In the meantime, the containers that will hold waste in Yucca Mountain will deteriorate many times. This increases probability of a Soviet like explosion.

But what other options do we have? None. This was the defacto decision because after decades of mining, Yucca Mountain remains the only alternative.

BTW, just another reason why we so desperately need accelerated research in quantum physics. Just another problem that the ISS will not solve.

Hubris Boy · 01-12-2002, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw

The Soviets also thought it was a good idea to store waste all in one place. The resulting explosion contaminated an area I believe may be 100 miles in diameter.

Heh. Funny you should mention that... the same thing occured to me, shortly after clicking the 'submit' button. I assume we're both thinking of the Kyshtym explosion back in... oh... '59 or so? IIRC, Kyshtym was a loss-of-coolant accident, wasn't it? <sarcasm>The fact that the radioactives in question were able to reach critical mass was merely an unfortunate (and messy) side effect.</sarcasm> A little Strontium-90 in the food chain is good for diversity.

Seriously, though... that kind of accident would be pretty unlikely at Yucca Mountain, wouldn't it? If nothing else, wouldn't the impurities in the environment from the (by now decomposed) containment vessels be enough to prevent critical mass? Time to dig out the old physics textbooks... (Hmmmm... let's see... anything higher than 92 is bad, right?)

juju · 01-13-2002, 03:39 AM

Everyone seems to think this is a great idea except for the residents of Nevada, and they don't seem to be all that keen on the idea.

I think this is pretty funny -- I mean, if not Nevada, then where? Which state is going to take on this burden? Who the hell is going to want radioactive waste in their backyard? No one! Did we know this problem was going to occur before we created the waste? Of course we did. Did we care? Of course not. And now we have a game of radioactive potato.

elSicomoro · 01-13-2002, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by juju2112
I think this is pretty funny -- I mean, if not Nevada, then where? Which state is going to take on this burden? Who the hell is going to want radioactive waste in their backyard? No one! Did we know this problem was going to occur before we created the waste? Of course we did. Did we care? Of course not. And now we have a game of radioactive potato.

Well, they could put it in Delaware County, PA. For that matter, put it near Trenton. I don't mind if it's in my backyard.

tw · 01-13-2002, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
Seriously, though... that kind of accident would be pretty unlikely at Yucca Mountain, wouldn't it? If nothing else, wouldn't the impurities in the environment from the (by now decomposed) containment vessels be enough to prevent critical mass? Time to dig out the old physics textbooks...

We are at the mercy of those who run the place. They have a monopoly - the only realistic solution currently available. We can only assume they have taken into account what happens when contaiment vessels DO break down. They will breakdown long before the waste is safe. Containment vessels break down faster when exposed to high radioactive levels.

Of course that is the obvious stuff. What we really need to know is whether this stuff will be retreivable when it come time to apply new technology and reprocess the waste. Reprocessing, which is technically not yet possible, is really the only long term alternative. Yucca Mt must be structured to recover and reprocess the stored waste when technology becomes available.

Unfortunately, with all the contraversy, no one is asking this question. How is stored waste to be reclaimed for reprocessing or just for transfer to new containment vessels?

BTW, threat to ground water is a valid and serious problem. Containment vessels do break down.

Waste, currently stored on all nuclear reactor sites, was not guarded until this past year. In fact in years previous, the industry claimed the waste was not a viable terrorist target. For example, Yankee Maine, a shutdown nuclear reactor, had no full time guards and plenty of water stored waste in aluminum sheds.

verbatim · 01-13-2002, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore

Well, they could put it in Delaware County, PA. For that matter, put it near Trenton. I don't mind if it's in my backyard.

Delaware County? Lets do one better and put it in Perry County. One stop light and going strong...

But why not put it into space? It is (really) expensive, but at least we never have to deal with it again. Or put it high enough into orbit to have it burn up in the atmosphere.

Or what about the 'supposed' Area 51? If no-one knows whats there, then maybe if its loaded with nuclear waiste, maybe all those loonies will get the point to go away.

Just some thoughts.

01-13-2002, 02:13 PM

I think the problem with space might be "hey, what if the rocket pulls a Challenger on the way up? Are we all going to be contaminated?"

Nic Name · 01-13-2002, 02:26 PM

Tora Bora Mountains

01-13-2002, 02:28 PM

That'd make us look really bad though. Plus, Afghanistan is fucked up enough as it is. Like they need our nuclear waste there.

Nic Name · 01-13-2002, 03:28 PM

Truth is, Nevada makes perfect sense for nuclear waste disposal. The government already created America's nuclear no man's land there.

If you've got the bandwidth, see the movie, Welcome to Ground Zero also posted in Cellar IotD.

Don't expect intelligent solutions to nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear waste disposal, and nuclear defense anytime before Presidents of the United States learn to pronounce the word nuclear.

jaguar · 01-13-2002, 05:06 PM

Well Nevada is also home to some big-ass military classified installations, makes some sens i guess, why not just rope the whole state off

On the other hand most of the stories i've read about hte facalities that are there is that they're terrible maintained cans of bio/toxic waste lieing around.

Undertoad · 01-13-2002, 06:51 PM

Rope it off... but leave a circle in the rope for Las Vegas, please. Some things are sacred ground.

tw · 01-14-2002, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
Rope it off... but leave a circle in the rope for Las Vegas, please. Some things are sacred ground.

Sacred ground? What happened to the Mustang Ranch?

01-12-2002, 09:56 AM	#1
Hubris Boy Keymaster of Gozer Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Patapsco Drainage Basin Posts: 471	Yucca Mountain On Wednesday, the Federal government finally got around to deciding on where to store the 77,000 tons of nuclear waste that have been accumulating in this country for the last 50 years. The plan is to move it from on-site cooling pools in 30-odd different states, where it currently resides, and bury it in a Tora-Bora-like complex under Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Naturally, a project like this is bound to provoke incredible volumes of bullshit statistics, "what about the children" whining, and just plain screeching... on both sides of the argument. On one side, the opponents argue that it will be dangerous to transport all that waste from all around the country and, once it's buried, it will eventually leach into the groundwater despite anyone's best efforts to prevent it. Oh... and the convoys will make great targets for terrorists. On the other side, supporters contend that the current storage facilities are inadequate, and were never intended for long-term storage, and if you don't believe it... take a look at places like Hanford, WA. They argue that the risks associated with transporting the waste to Nevada are far outweighed by the benefits of having the waste contained in one place where it will be easier to monitor. Oh... and the widely-dispersed cooling pools where the waste lives now make great targets for terrorists. I don't have any strong opinions about this either way... I think I can see the value of having all this crap consolidated in one place. Yucca Mountain certainly meets MY basic requirements for a nuclear waste storage facility: A) It's far away from me and; B) It's far away from me. And, anything that upsets Tom Daschle and Greenpeace so much must have some redeeming value! On the other hand, the idea of moving 77,000 tons of radioactive sludge strikes me as an incredibly dangerous proposition. I mean, Jesus! Have you BEEN to a truck stop lately? I wouldn't trust most of those people with a burnt-out match! So... what do y'all think about this?

01-13-2002, 03:39 AM	#5
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Everyone seems to think this is a great idea except for the residents of Nevada, and they don't seem to be all that keen on the idea. I think this is pretty funny -- I mean, if not Nevada, then where? Which state is going to take on this burden? Who the hell is going to want radioactive waste in their backyard? No one! Did we know this problem was going to occur before we created the waste? Of <i>course</i> we did. Did we care? Of <i>course</i> not. And now we have a game of radioactive potato.

01-13-2002, 03:28 PM	#12
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Truth is, Nevada makes perfect sense for nuclear waste disposal. The government already created America's nuclear no man's land there. If you've got the bandwidth, see the movie, Welcome to Ground Zero also posted in Cellar IotD. Don't expect intelligent solutions to nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear waste disposal, and nuclear defense anytime before Presidents of the United States learn to pronounce the word nuclear. Last edited by Nic Name; 01-13-2002 at 03:36 PM.

01-13-2002, 05:06 PM	#13
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Well Nevada is also home to some big-ass military classified installations, makes some sens i guess, why not just rope the whole state off On the other hand most of the stories i've read about hte facalities that are there is that they're terrible maintained cans of bio/toxic waste lieing around. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

01-12-2002, 11:48 AM	#2
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	I say it's better to have it in one central place. Easier to look after it all. Plus, I'm not planning on moving out west, so I'm down with it going to Nevada. Most of Nevada is desert anyway, right? (I've never been there.)

01-13-2002, 02:13 PM	#9
dave Guest Posts: n/a	I think the problem with space might be "hey, what if the rocket pulls a Challenger on the way up? Are we all going to be contaminated?"

01-13-2002, 02:26 PM	#10
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Tora Bora Mountains

01-13-2002, 02:28 PM	#11
dave Guest Posts: n/a	That'd make us look really bad though. Plus, Afghanistan is fucked up enough as it is. Like they need our nuclear waste there.

01-13-2002, 06:51 PM	#14
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Rope it off... but leave a circle in the rope for Las Vegas, please. Some things are sacred ground.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)