Yucca Mountain Approved for US Nuclear Waste Storage 750
Cephalien writes "As reported by Reuters (The link is from AT&T Worldnet -- No registration required, etc, etc), looks like congress has pushed this through against Nevada's objections (NIMBY, anyone?). Now all that's left is the licensing from the NRC. I dunno about you folks, but I'm glad I don't live in Nevada." After 20 years in the making and 4 billion in studies construction on the $58b facility can begin. It was this or Cmdrtacos basement.
Finally. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good news for all involved.
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
A better place might be in the Middle East somewhere, but I think that might be politically motivated.
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
Re:Finally. (Score:3, Informative)
" If the spent fuel is later reprocessed, it is dissolved and separated chemically into uranium, plutonium and high-level waste solutions. About 97% of the spent fuel can be recycled leaving only 3% as high-level waste. The recyclable portion is mostly uranium depleted to less than 1% U-235, with some plutonium, which is most valuable."
Although, I think those ads that have been running the last week are pretty funny. "Casino Barons", yea, they are the ones controlling everything, right.
Re:Finally. (Score:2, Insightful)
> desolate as you can get? Hardly.
You're right. But as long as it's closer to the Running Rebels than the Wolfpack... *j/k*
> This is decision was about as political as you
> can get.
This is very true. This decision has more to do with:
1) the small population (read: fewer House votes)
2) certain limitations that were conditions of statehood, such as that the federal gov't gets all Nevada land not specifically claimed by the state.
> that nuclear waste needs to find a home other
> than Yucca Mountain.
As a Nevada resident for almost 25 years, I'm not holding my breath. There is no location within the continental U.S. that would work politically. And Alaska, Hawaii, or a territory would be too close to other countries: plain bad politics.
Radioactively yours,
Tim Hammerquist
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
Hawaii is not geographically stable. Bury your waste in a mountain and in some time less than 10000 years from now watch the ground spit it out again in a radioactive volcano eruption likely to awaken Godzilla [imdb.com]-King of the Monsters: we must never wake the sleeping beast.
Re:Finally. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally. (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait... already been tried. [space1999.net] Well, so much for that idea.
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad that tens of billions of dollars are going to this when there are millions of people who are dying of hunger.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the major reasons this has been put off so long is the fear mongering tatics of anti-nuclear groups. They have constantly opposed any permanant storage facility, AND used the lack of permanant storage as a reason to go "Nuke Free".
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Funny thing is, there's still gonna be a lot of the stuff all over the place in unsecure facilities. The stuff has to cool for 5 years before they can transport it. Then when they transport it, you have the potential for terrorists to have an easy way to detonate a dirty bomb. They just need to get a car full of explosives close enough to a transport truck and it's all over.
Nope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, several thousand tons of extremely nasty chemicals of all sorts (from caustics to poisons to explosives) are running down roads and railroad tracks at speeds of up to 100 MPH.
And at this very moment, over two BILLION gallons of a horrible chemical (poisonous, explosive, and carcinogenic) are currently being transported around the US in vehicles, and normal folks are allowed to handle the stuff with little or no formal training (at places they call "gas stations").
Re:Nope... (Score:2, Interesting)
A single mid-sized moving van took out the federal building in Oklahoma. I think something similar could be done to take out a transport truck.
Re:Nope... (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think the Fed building was designed (for the most part) to account for terroristic truck bombs.
Heck of a lot easier to make a dent resistent cask then building.
Re:Nope... (Score:3, Insightful)
So all the mid-sized van strikes I douby will do much.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Ar
"To wit: an eighteen-wheeler carrying a transport cask smashes into a 700-ton brick wall at a speed of 81 mph; testers drop a cask from 2,000 feet onto hard ground; and, a 120-ton locomotive train traveling at 80 mph rams a cask. In each of those cases, the scientists at Sandia determined that the casks would not have leaked any radioactive material.
In one case, however, a powerful explosive placed directly atop the cask managed to blow a small hole (less than an inch in diameter) in its exterior. Scientists estimated that about 0.03 percent of the radioactive substance might have leaked, resulting in an exposure level to those in the immediate vicinity just over what you get from several trips on an airplane.
Technological advances in the twenty years since those tests have made the transport casks virtually indestructible. The storage casks, by contrast, failed a test conducted in 1998 at Aberdeen Proving Ground, in which a TOW missile penetrated a cask. The obvious solution--store all waste in the tougher, transport casks--would be expensive but doable."
I know people think this waste will be housed in cardboard boxes, but that's not whats happening here
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:3, Funny)
The Capitol Building? Put it where it'll actually do some good.
I worked at a nuclear power station... (Score:4, Informative)
At the time, I naively bought into the propoganda of "clean energy, more radiation comes from the sun than a nuclear power plant," etc.
Even then, though, I'll never forget the response of one of the managers when someone asked "what about the waste?"
The reply was (paraphrased) "We can store about 20 years of waste here, on-site, but it's the government's job to find a perminent solution."
Unbelievable. An entire industry, creating some of the most toxic materials ever created by man, whose attitude was basically "don't worry, the government will clean up our mess." These are probably the same people who bitch and moan about "big government" and want less regulation, and frankly the entire nuclear storage facility is a huge government subsidy of a dangerous and economically unviable industry, demanded by said industry at the point of a radioactive gun.
As you might have guess, over the years as I've grown older, and wiser, my opinion on nuclear power has changed 180 degrees.
You are right, we have only our "decision makers" to blame for this, but lets not forget that most of those decision makers are not government politicians so much as CEOs of large utility companies that have neglected their own, most basic responsibilities throughout this entire process.
Re:I worked at a nuclear power station... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well since the government has been collecting a waste disposal fee from the plants for years, it's hardly unreasonable for the nuclear industry to expect the government to spend the money on the disposal they have already charged for.
The anti-nuclear activists are the ones who originally said the nuclear industry couldn't be trusted to dispose of the wastes, and the government should handle it. Now that it's time for the government to live up to it's end of the bargain, suddenly we have anti-nuclear activists urging that the people they wanted to handle the waste refuse to do so.
Re:I worked at a nuclear power station... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't, as you frame it, blatant irresponsibility. According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, it is the federal government's job to construct a permanent storage site, and to have it operational by the end of 1997.
When the government passes a law binding itself to do something, it may be a little bit naive to assume it will come through on its end of the deal, but I don't think it's too much to ask of Congress to actually build infrastructure their own laws say they will build.
Agreed nuclear power is dangerous, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
How about that clean hydropower. Then look at what it does to fisheries, and the fact that the salmon no longer take their nutrient-laden bodies back up the river, where the bears catch many and fertilize the forests. Look at the silting problems in dams, and the lack of that necessary silt below the dam.
How about fossil fuels and global warming?
At this point, I don't even know about trusting either solar or wind power. Extensive use of solar power may well change the albedo of the Earth, or something odd like that, affecting the climate. Extensive use of wind power could conceivably affect climate, in addition to killing large numbers of birds.
I'd prefer we learn to live more efficiently and control our breeding.
Environmental damage, nuclear vs ... (Score:3, Insightful)
For comparative damage, look at the Pueblo Indians. According to an NPR report I heard several years ago, they lived in a lush forested area. They overcut the timber and without the trees shading/transpiring, etc, the water table dropped and the area turned into a desert. It's still a desert a good part of a thousand years later, and doesn't show signs of becoming lush again any time soon.
In the long term (Nature's time) I'd be far more worried about the biological impoverishment now being caused by global warming and other human activities. Genetic diversity is Nature's toolbox for recovering from catastrophies, and that's where we're doing the greatest damage.
Perhaps we should do nature a favor and put out radioactive caches to increase the mutation rates and improve diversity. (tongue slightly in cheek, here)
Did you know that canola oil (2nd best to olive oil) is "genetically engineered"? Prior to WWII, it contained a few harmful substances, and was used for lubricaton. After WWII they began bombarding seeds with radioactivity and sifting through what popped up. Eventually they came up with a breed that produced edible oil that's also relatively non-unhealthy. Enhanced diversity in action.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Insightful)
If we were serious about the situation, we would put it some place more populous.
Safety would have to be important then. Right now, we have this subconcious reassurance that it won't be that bad if we screw it up (again). If something leaks, it won't really affect anyone and won't attract much attention because it's out in the middle of nowhere (or at least *somebody else's* somewhere).
Let's hold our own feet to the fire on this one. I say, build a museum to the stuff, and plop it down right in the middle of Indianapolis (or some other reasonably-sized city where the real estate costs won't dwarf everything else). Have schoolkids come to it on field trips. Let everybody see how much work/expense/effort it takes. None of this out-of-sight-out-of-mind crap.
The stuff will be with us for thousands of years, let's start acting like it!
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Re:If I had a dime every time I heard this.... (Score:3, Informative)
This is actually not true. To build a new nuclear reactor today, the capital cost per KWH would be about $2K, compared to only $1200 for coal plants and $500 for gas-based plants (this from a 2001 study titled "Nuclear Power in the OECD" from the International Energy Agency). Of course, fuel costs are much cheaper, but the capital expense can destroy the profitability of a nuclear plant before it's even built.
However, the real costs in nuclear power are hidden in subsidies. Of course, Yucca mountain is one huge subsidy. Other examples are liability insurance. For example, in the USA, the Price-Anderson Act limits a plant's liability for catastrophe to $10bn, which is pretty small (Chernobyl's costs were significantly higher than 10bn). Without that Act, nobody would invest in nuke power at all because they wouldn't be able to get insurance from the private sector. And that is a huge subsidy, because if the private sector won't insure the plants, it means that the public sector is insuring them.
Yet another subsidy is research costs. Upwards of $150bn has been spend on nuclear research by OECD governments since 1974. Even today, half of all government energy R&D is typically spent on nuclear research, which is another lopsided nuclear subsidy.
Once a plant is paid for, it is dirt cheap to run, which is why Three Mile Island is hugely profitable today. But, it took a significant number of subsidies to get TMI to where it is today, and those subsidies have not been repaid.
Without these subsidies, nuclear power is simply not competitive with coal, hydro or gas power.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee..there's a great idea! While we're keeping things where they were generated, let's rip down all the power lines and water pipes that allow Nevada to actually have a population. And everyone can quit travelling to Vegas and spending their money there.
There's nothing childish about it. Waste disposal is an issue that won't go away by ignoring it. Several sites were initially studied. Yucca Mountain was the only one to not be eliminated for serious concerns, which led to a full site study and then design of the facility. The fact that it's on federal land which is already highly restricted is a bonus. The fact that it's in a state with a low population is simply another bonus in terms of risk management.
it's all scary (Score:5, Insightful)
That might make it more scary living around Las Vegas, and the opposing members of congress argued about the danger of transporting waste there, one calling it the "Terrorist Facilitation Act", lets get back to the original point - Nuclear Waste is currently stored in many places around the nation.
I'd rather have killer defense protection around Yucca Mountain than wonder about how the protection is at umpteen other sites around the country.
Re:it's all scary (Score:2)
Keep worrying. The waste will still be sitting in storage all over the country. They have to keep the stuff submerged in water to cool for 5 years after it comes out of the reactor. After that, they can move it to Yucca.
Why so scary? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for terrorists, Yucca would not be very amenable to either car bombs or diving planes into. So we're talking a different scale of terrorism than currently prevalent.
If I lived downwind from Yucca Mountain, I think I'd invest in a geiger counter, but other than that, all the fearmongering surrounding it seems like mostly ignorance to me. Realistically and based on statistics, I'd be a lot more worried for my own and my family's safety living in San Francisco or other earthquake-prone parts of California.
Re:it's all scary -threats of terrorism and wrecks (Score:3, Insightful)
Chris Mattern
Have cake... eating it too? Hmmm.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Nevada senators have been protesting over this storage site non-stop recently... funny that I didn't hear all these objections when the govt. was pumping billions of bucks into the state economy during its construction.
Only now that it's going to be used for it's stated purpose do we hear the objections...
Anybody with any better ideas of where to store such nasty stuff? May not be ideal, but seems to beat the alternatives...
*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously... Let's get realistic. "Let's not build anything big, because it might be a target for terrorists. Let's all live in flat houses that all look alike, and we can each keep a little bit of nuclear waste in our backyards so that it's take FOREVER for the terrorists to build a bomb. That way we can all get cancer together."
Get a life, protest groups. Nuclear waste is nasty stuff, and it'll be around for thousands of years. We can either trust thousands of people in thousands of places to keep it under lock and key, or we can pile all of it under one mountain and know FOR SURE that it'll be safe forever.
Duh.
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
More importantly, I would suggest that the shipments will not become targets for terrorists for the simple fact that it will be tightly controlled and secured. Any terrorist in need of nuclear waste for any sort of weapon would simply visit Russia or any of the other nuclear countries less-secure storage facilities and transportation. I can guarantee that grabbing some nuclear waste from norther Siberia would go largely unnoticed - and it's certainly a lot safer than trying to attack an armed convoy on US soil.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep.
I don't know how many people here have actually met/worked with DOE guards. Trust me on one thing: They're not the rent-a-cops at the mall. DOE security is where Navy SEALS go when they leave the Navy. They tend to be better trained and equipped than my department's SWAT team.
I'm in reasonably-good shape. At 35, I still run a 24-minute 5K, bench my own weight for seven, etc. And from duty gear, I can put two into an index card, two seconds at five yards. And the DOE guys I've met pretty much all run, lift, and shoot circles around me.
I pity the dumb-assed terrorist who tries to hijack one of these convoys. It'll be a quick trip to Allah, is for damn sure.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
Terrorists want *headlines*, not stockpiles of hard to hide nuclear waste!
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Check this [ymp.gov] out. That's what casks have to be able to survive, an excerpt:
- a 30-foot free fall onto an unyielding surface, landing on the cask's weakest point, which would be equivalent to a crash at 120 miles per hour into a concrete bridge abutment;
- a puncture test, during which the container must fall 40 inches onto a steel rod six inches in diameter;
- a 30-minute exposure to fire at 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit that engulfs the entire container; and
- submergence of the same container under three feet of water.
To achieve certification, a cask must prevent harmful release of radioactive material even when subjected to each of these tests.
Convoys transporting radioactive materials have been in several accidents over the years and in none of them has radioactive material been released. The casks they use for transport are stronger than a main battle tank. Terrorists would nearly need a nuclear weapon to crack one open.
Worrying about a boogie man under your bed is more rational than worrying about terrorists obtaining (or releasing) radioactive material from these convoys.
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
> A 30 foot free fall is less than 40mph, this is nonsense. I calculate it is about 21 mph just before impact. However, you are neglecting the point that velocity doesn't cause the damage; the damage is caused by the impact forces, aka deceleration. The more sudden the deceleration, the more damage the impact will cause. A 100 mph impact into a giant air mattress will cause very little damage--human stuntmen make such impacts on a regular basis. A 15 mph impact into a steel wall can seriously hurt or kill a human. So, it isn't the speed that matters, but the rate of acceleration (or deceleration) that matters.
When DOE says that the 30-foot drop *is equivalent to* a 120 mph crash into a concrete pillar, they aren't referring to velocity, but to deceleration. It doesn't matter what the speed of the container was before impact; it only matters what acceleration forces it experienced at impact.
- a puncture test, during which the container must fall 40 inches onto a steel rod six inches in diameter;
> This really isn't any big deal compared to a heavy armour-piercing round is it?
Of course you can buy those from just any Wal-Mart, right? I don't think so.
The casks they use for transport are stronger than a main battle tank.
> Anti-tank rounds anyone?
What are you going to do? Pick up the round with your bare hands and slam it into the side of the container with your brute strength? That's assuming you actually got a live round in the first place.
Here's a scenario: You get a tank from someplace, a tank with a working main gun. You drive this tank up by the freeway without being noticed. Then, when the shipping container comes by, you take careful aim and shoot. Your aim is good, your shot punctures the side of the container. There is a spill of radioactive material. The freeway is shut down. The world panics, and everyone commits suicide. The end.
Is that how your story works?
> Your comment just convinces me that a terrorist with access to the right heavy weapons could take out one of these casks rather easily.
Anti-aircraft rounds can put a hole in the side of the shipping containers. However, such rounds would result in the release of a quantity of radioactive material the size of a man's thumbnail.
Nothing can ever be made absolutely foolproof. However, there is such a thing as reasonable risk, just as there is such a thing as obstructionism and fear-mongering. This waste needs to be buried, and this is the best solution to achieving that task. The risk is reasonable. It's the anti-nuke crowd that isn't.
(Number of post attempts before this message posts: 1)
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
You think? Remember who trained al-Queda: US special forces and CIA agents. Plus al-Queda are experienced in fighting Soviet Spetsnaz (special forces) troops who, while not as glamorous as the Navy SEALs, are probably comparable in terms of skill.
Thinking of them as half-assed amateurs from the mountains will only breed complacency.
One more thing: they didn't even try to steal the World Trade Center, they got what they wanted by just destroying it. Your friends hopefully have SAMs in their truck!
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
What we have to worry about is the green protesters. These "pro-environment" idiots in Germany were cutting sections of track ahead of a train carrying nuclear waste. They complained about the possibility of accidents, and then tried to cause one themselves! You want the shipment to be safe? Then stay the hell out of the way and let the train go in peace.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
Let's all live in flat houses that all look alike, and we can each keep a little bit of nuclear waste in our backyards so that it's take FOREVER for the terrorists to build a bomb.
They aren't worried about terrorists stealing the shipments. They're worried about the terrorists driving up alongside one of the trucks in a car loaded with explosives. Voila! Instant dirty bomb.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
I've read about the bird problems. Not sure how they plan to deal with it yet. As for being big and ugly, I don't know where you got that from. They're quite beautiful, IMO. Mesmerizing when you see vast stretches of them like they have in Texas. On the power generation issue, they work quite well when they're built in the right areas. Some areas have a lot higher average winds than other areas. They build in areas with class 4 or 5 winds. I live in a class 1 area, so it's not likely that I'll see a wind farm around here anytime soon.
10000 years (Score:4, Insightful)
For goodness sake, my local council doesn't even know where all its buried services are located under the roads and pavements. Do we really think we can preserve data and ensure political stability for 10000 years?
This has to be the biggest argument against nuclear power. Forget the operational safety aspects. We just can't guarantee the long-term safety of the waste.
Re:10000 years (Score:2)
Re:10000 years (Score:3, Informative)
Re:10000 years (Score:2, Insightful)
What happens if some geologist of the future unknowingly takes a core sample in just the wrong place, to name just one of many not entirely unlikely scenarios.
They'll get sick and die. Unfortunate. Others will take note, and declare the place dangerous. If they don't, then they're stupid and I just can't bring myself to caring about it.
I don't think it's necessary to make huge precautions about warnings and such, just leave a sample in a hallway before the main storage, entities entering the facility should be able to take note of the fact that there is danger ahead and proceed with caution, regardless of their technological level.
For goodness sake, my local council doesn't even know where all its buried services are located under the roads and pavements. Do we really think we can preserve data and ensure political stability for 10000 years?
Of course not, you tit.
This has to be the biggest argument against nuclear power.
Yes it, in fact, is, but it's WAY too late in the game to ponder it, the waste is there and something has to be done about it. And any new amounts of waste will not make much difference, so continuing to use nuclear power is just as ecologically sound as it ever was.
Forget the operational safety aspects.
The what?
Re:10000 years (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, you raise one of the WEAKEST arguments against nuclear power. Weigh the benefits against the possible negatives, and it's obvious that the health of future lost geologists (yeah, 5000 years from now and they're not going to use sensors we haven't even DREAMED of yet?) is a small problem.
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, the biggest argument against nuclear power is that it's mostly too damn expensive (yeah, even when you factor in the cost of the damage of burning fossile fuels). I suppose it might be nice to have some capacity on reserve in case foreign oil imports are cut, or something, but it'd probably still be cheaper just to stockpile a few years worth of oil.
Re:10000 years (Score:2)
Re:10000 years (Score:2)
I did a google search and came up with this [salon.com] and this [marsearthconnection.com]. It is unfortunate that the image link [archaeology.org] in the second one appears to be broken, however, because I'd really like to see what this thing looks like. Quoting from this latter:
To me, putting nasty sharp scary-looking things all over a a desolate part of the wilderness seems likely to say to future treasure-seekers "Yo, don't dig here because these here fantastic riches belong to ME!"
Now I'm beginning to wonder what might be buried beneath Stonehenge...
Re:10000 years (Score:2)
It would also be surprising if some better way of disposing of nuclear waste isn't found in less than 1000 years.
We need a method of producing energy that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels. Nuclear seems to be relatively clean, even with the nuclear waste, at least when used in moderation. Conservation and more efficient production from fossil fuels also play an important role in reducing polution, but the problems of producing energy don't just go away because you don't like the thought of someone possibly dieing 1000 years from now. If we didn't have electrisity, a lot more people would die now. There is no perfect, safe answer, so a REASONABLE answer must be found. Nuclear is a reasonable answer.
Re:10000 years (Score:2)
Re:10000 years (Score:3, Informative)
Re:10000 years (Score:5, Informative)
I Have visited Nagasaki. It's a thriving modern city and the only "ruins" are the walls of an old fortress that were left in place as part of Peace Park a memorial to those who died in the bombing. The Park is 600 meters from ground zero, and is visited by thousands daily with ZERO danger from radiation.
However your post does serve as an excellant example of the mindless fear mongering that that antinuclear people use in place of facts.
Re:10000 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Also people seem to be forgetting the dozens of above-ground nuclear weapons tests we had right here in the good ol' US of A, complete with fallout. Not that I'm advocating such things, but we have survived without major consequences.
Re:10000 years (Score:2)
Isn't that rather a huge leap of faith? So far, there is nothing known in science to suggest that this might be even in-principle possible. Have a look at a basic course in Quantum Mechanics. It seems altogether far more likely that we will develop some novel and absolutely safe non-nuclear power source before then, probably based on black holes and perpetual motion 8-)
Re:10000 years (Score:2)
It is not impossible to imagine some nuclear reactor of the distant future which uses the excess radiation from the active fuel source as a means of rendering safe the spent fuel.
Re:10000 years (Score:5, Informative)
Actually half the reason we have as much waste as we do is because of the moratorium on breeder reactors. The U-238 (nuclear waste/depleted Uranium) coming out of traditional Light Water Reactors can be used in Breeder Reactors to generate more power (and reducing the need to store waste materials). This end product of the process, however, is weapons grade Plutonium-239 and some more U-238 (a smaller amount of U-235 is required as an initiator for the reaction).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene
What alarmists also fail to note is that the resulting Plutonium can be used to fuel yet another form of nuclear reactor. Plutonium Pellet based reactors are not only very efficient, but also one of the safer forms of reactor.
Unfortunately concerns about both weapons grade and reactor grade plutonium (the latter produced in small amounts by standard reactors) being potentially used in nuclear weapons has prevented the widespread construction of breeder reactors and a number of moratoriums for such projects came into being.
Most of the problems occurring in areas such as Iraq caused by depleted uranium dust are related to children ingesting it from untreated drinking water that has become contaminated by UN/NATO forces spent ammunition.
The "military" aspect is also at the root of the public's biggest misconception about plutonium; that the radiation off of plutonium is the "strongest". Plutonium in fact gives off mostly alpha particles which can be stopped by shielding as weak as a piece of normal writing paper or the layer of dead skin cells that covers your body.
Plutonium is however very toxic and radioactively hazardous if ingested or placed on open wounds/etc.
http://www.vnh.org/BUMEDINST6470.10A/Plutonium.ht
Something else that bothers me about everyone screaming bloody murder over the Yucatan and similar storage facilities is this bizzare belief by people that these materials are somehow magical evil concoctions that were given form in a lab. Most people honestly do not understand that uranium [cdc.gov] is mined from the ground like any other ore. And that the danger posed by nuclear waste is less one of radiation than of toxicity (radioactive damage stems mainly from consumption or absorbtion into the bloodsteam). The concept of shorter half-lifes being more radioactive also seems to elude people.
You are in far far more danger from walking into your house [epa.gov] then you are from nuclear storage.
Most people in the US that are getting into a panic over relatively safe nuclear materials being stored in secure facilities many miles away are not even aware of how near they live to a superfund [epa.gov] site. Most superfund sites revolve around heavy metals and other exceedingly toxic substances and are far more common [epa.gov] than people think.
Nuclear power is (right now) one of the cleanest and safest power sources available. Too many people are stuck in some sort of a terrified cold war stupor and have been failing to do enough research.
And everyone reading this has to go read Zodiac [barnesandnoble.com]
Re:10000 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are only elements heavier than iron capable of having fissionable isotopes?
What nuclear forces are responsible for the binding energy released by induced nuclear fission?
Don't know? Then how do you know nulcear power is NOT safe?
alt.nuclear.power (Score:5, Interesting)
silly, isn't it ?
Re:alt.nuclear.power (Score:2)
Fusion has been possible for quite a while now, but previously it took a lot more energy to keep the fusion going on than what it generated. Nowadays the state-of-the-art fusion generators are producing about as much energy as they consume. I've heard an estimate that fusion energy would start being profitable when it generates about 10 times as much as is consumes.
Currently there is a project in Europe to build one of the first reactors which generates more than consumes, to prove that it works. But they, too, are having some budget problems. (I'm not sure whether the US is also funding the project, or are they rivals.)
Re:alt.nuclear.power (Score:2)
Re:alt.nuclear.power (Score:2)
That means that the fusion reactor itself becomes radioactive- and the reactor is going to have a finite life. Therefore fusion reactors end up as hazardous, radioactive waste.
Also some schemes for making energy involve irradiating material in a fusion reactor, and then putting it into a fission reactor, and boiling steam in the conventional way to make electricity. That also gives radioactive waste.
Bottom line: fusion is never going to be truly clean
re: never really clean (Score:2)
But the half life of the fuel is something like 8 DAYS, not 10,000 YEARS.
Re:alt.nuclear.power (Score:3, Funny)
Re:alt.nuclear.power (Score:2)
'heating' in dutch is 'opwarmen'... that's why the mixup
Re:alt.nuclear.power (Score:2)
A small step (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless, of course, there's an accident, but I don't really see how. Worst case, you contaimate a tiny fraction of a small part of one state of the US. It'd hardly be a disaster for Nevada, never mind the rest of us.
Eventually, of course, nuclear waste could always get tossed into space headed for Alpha Centauri (takes less energy than dropping into the sun, and by the time it gets there, the colonists will welcome the supplies of iron!). It's even safe, because the way they package nuclear waste, it can easily survive re-entry at several multiples of the maximum speed it COULD obtain. Indeed, the nuclear power pack for a sattelite dropped into the ocean a few decades back. They fished it out, stuck it back into another sattelite, and launched it again.
Does it really have to be isolated for 10K years ? (Score:4, Interesting)
The same sort of wild claims with lots of zeroes have been bandied about in relation to nuclear fallout - but people reside in Hiroshima and Nagasaki , I can go scuba diving at Bikini Atoll
Re:Does it really have to be isolated for 10K year (Score:2)
Re:Does it really have to be isolated for 10K year (Score:2)
The half life depends solely on what the material is, as it is governed by the stability of the nucleus. The only things that could cause a difference in the amount of time for an accident site and a dumping site to become safe is the amount and type of material involved, and the dispersion.
In an (explosive) accident or weapon detonation, material tends to be spread out a lot, and so the concentration is lower. This reduces the amount of activity, and so the site is safer, quicker. In the case of a waste disposal site, there is clearly a much higher concentration of material, and so the overall level of radioactivity is potentially much higher. It is stored more safely, of course, but you don't want to go opening stuff up...
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Does it really have to be isolated for 10K year (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is that fallout and such is dispersed by wind and rain and tides, etc. so it can reach safe concentrations relatively quickly by comparison without waiting for large quantities of the material to decay. Also, the threshold to be considered "safe" radiation exposure has been revised upward several times over the last century as we have gotten more familiar with radiation. Exposure limits (US standard) are currently about 20 times the average background exposure from natural sources. Some research suggests that the safe threshold may reasonably be a factor 2 or 5 times higher than that. How long it must be stored before it becomes safe obviously depends on how you define safe, but even so it's still reasonable to think we are looking at a long time for such concentrated waste.
Incidently there are a number of serious proposals that broad dispersal or dilution may be a suitable alternative for some kinds of radioactive waste.
Considering... (Score:2)
Earthquake! (Score:2, Informative)
We *have* to have a place to dump used nuclei (Score:5, Informative)
I'm glad I don't live in Nevada.
I would gladly locate the national nuclear waste repository within 1/2 mile of my home if the alternative is to leave it where it is. My home town of Portland, OR is about 30 miles from the Trojan nuclear power plant, a now-defunct power reactor whose pool is being used as its spent-fuel storage facility. The pool is a few hundred yards from the Columbia river. Given that situation, IMHO almost any sensible thing one could do would be an improvement.
CmdrTaco's basement (Score:2)
But we *need* nuclear energy (Score:5, Insightful)
Here you have over 40 thousand people perish in the US 'automobile holocaust' every friggin year and nobody ever protests that - but take an industry with an incredibly safe track record and the mere mention of some activity brings out the placard waving idiots in droves.
Re:But we *need* nuclear energy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But we *need* nuclear energy (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever heard of a place called THREE MILE ISLAND?
I lived downwind during the accident. Number of deaths: 0 Number of injuries: 0
CHERNOBYL?
A bad reactor design that exists in only one place in the US (Hanford), now shut down. No containment vessel, and the accident was the result of utter stupidity on the parts of the operators.
Yes, we do need to be an informed public. That does not mean we need to blatantly disregard the very real dangers of nuclear energy.
Fine. What's your solution to the need for power?
Yeah, nukes aren't 100% safe. Nothing is.
Nuclear power (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno about you folks, but I'm glad I don't live in Nevada.
Amen to that. And it got me thinking again.
It's funny in a way. All across the world the same thinking is prevalent (I do not accuse the previous poster of thinking like this). "Nuclear power is good and safe and perfect, but don't even think of storing all the waste near where I live!"
It kind of takes the edge of people's strong position for nuclear power. Accepting risks is always easy when it's not yourself taking the risk.
I personally do not oppose nuclear power. It's better than the current alternatives (no pun intended ;-). But there is a way to lessen nuclear waste: save power.
From what I've seen from here across the pond, there doesn't really seem to be a strong discussion in the US whether nuclear power (or any other power for that matter) is good or bad. People just simply consume enormous amounts of electrical power because it's there in the socket and just waiting to be consumed.
At least in Sweden, low-power lamps, TV:s with negligible stand-by power consumption and other similar products sell. Saving energy is something positive, something people want. Consumers can even accept a slight price increase if it means that we save energy. And part of that is that people know there's no way of disposing of nuclear waste.
The US seems to be dominated by a) big power companies that tells people to consume and b) overzealous protest groups that nobody takes seriously. And that's really sad, because the US is such a large country...
Not least was this visible, of course, when the neighbouring global problem with carbondioxide emissions was discussed recently. About every nation except the US (which by itself makes something like 25% of the worlds CO2-emissions if memory serves) accepted taking steps to reduce the emissions. The US had powerful oil companies which saw a potential risk of losing profit, and refused. Of course the public argument was something like "we won't reduce emissions because X won't", where X is your country of choice. Weak argument in the eyes of global climate.
Perhaps we can hope that the same oil companies will be put out of business because of creative bookkeeping. That would be a win for the world. ;-)
The waste is the problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is the waste, radioactive material that will be active for hundreds or thousands of years, where do you leave the waste? Nobody wants it in their backyard and how do we safely transport it and savely store it until it is no longer harmful?
In my opinion this is why we need to look for alternative sources of power, so eventually we will no longer have to use nuclear power. The best thing to do is stop using it now, so the amount of waste will not grow anymore, simple math: when we stop using nuclear power in 50 years from now, we will have at least twice the amount of waste we have now(nucelar power is around for about 50 years). But stopping to use nuclear power now is impossible and imho it will still be around for the next 50 years.
The solution? Keep the powerplants we have until their designed lifetime is up, and keep looking for alternatives, nuclear fusion might be one, but I don't think that will happen this century or ever (because we won't need it anymore->read on). For alternative powersources I'm putting my money on the fuel cell, the cleanest form works on hydrogen but that still has some storage problems. Running the fuel cell on natural gas(GM already has one of 7kW that can be installed at your home) is easier (natural gas is already available in many homes) and a bit saver. However, eventually we need to run the fuel cells on hydrogen only, it is widely available(water) and the "waste" is pure and clean water. In the meantime we need to create a way to safely store and distribute hydrogen, this certainly can be done in the next 50 years or so...
Oh, and by the way: the efficiency of the average fuel cell is already at 40% and can still increasing.
Is it so bad? (Score:2)
The reality is, we have to put the waste somewhere, and under the desert floor is as good as any (and better than most). Except for the waste, fission is an incredibly safe form of power. Properly disposed of, the waste can be pretty benign. Yucca mountain is a good place for the waste, and were I to live near there, personally, I wouldn't worry about it. But that's me, knowing what I know.
Once we can safely and cheaply launch it into space, we can simply fire it off at the sun where it will do nothing. Until that day, we need a place here to store it.
Trade it to the Saudis for their oil (Score:3, Funny)
Bully (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting too that Nevada doesn't have any commercial reactors, yet they get stuck with the waste. In fact the bulk of the nuclear material and programs within the state are federal.
Yup, the waste has to go somewhere. So in this case someone shits in New Jersey and it ends up in Nevada's back yard.
10000 years in NOT the half-life for plutonium (Score:5, Informative)
Anyhow, I see people getting moderated up for saying that the 10000-year life span of the Yucca mountain facilities was determined by half-life.
Not true!
The 10000-year service life of the Yucca Mountain facilities was decided upon by the fact that there likely won't be a DOE to monitor the site or a government, as we know it, to control it. In a nutshell, "After 10000 years all bets are off" was the decision.
As a rule, a radioactive substance has to go through 10 half-lives to become harmless. The higher the radioactivity an element has the shorter its half-life. The converse is true as well. Plutonium has a half-life of 24000 years. 24000 x 10 = 240000 years before it becomes harmless. Uranium is less radioactive than plutonium (but still incredibly deadly) so it has a much greater half-life.
So really, for plutonium were looking at an additional 230000 years after the facilty might/will fail before its contents are harmless. Longer for the uranium.
Don't fool yourselves into thinking the facilty will be safe after its design life has expired. In fact, the Yucca Mountain facilty is only designed to last for 4.17% of the time period when the plutonium stored there will be deadly.
Why is anyone glad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Expert: So, since nuclear waste is so dangerous, we are planning to seal it up into containers and drop them to the bottom of the ocean.
Student 1: What about the fishes?
Expert: Don't be stupid, the containers are sealed, there is no way the nuclear waste could get out.
Student 2: What if the container breaks?
Expert: It can't break.
Student 2: But what if it does?
Expert: It can't.
Student 2: But, what I mean to say it, what if it does break?
Expert: But, you see child, it simply can't break. It's a foolproof system.
Uh huh...
The WIPP as a function of environmental politics. (Score:3, Informative)
(Full title: Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Sandia Report SAND92-1382 - UC-721)
It serves to remind me that people may quote statistics in an attempt to support their positions, but in the end, they're just statistics.
The report as a whole is interesting, I suggest you read it - but remember that the authors forgot the cardinal rule of 'scientific' study: never interject your opinions into research. Even if it doesn't color your results, it will give the appearance of bias.
Shoshone (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.indiancountry.com/?1022253815 [indiancountry.com]
Waste shipping routes (Score:3, Insightful)
Facts (truth) vs. what you hear on the street (Score:3, Informative)
The canisters that ship the waste are impact tested and yadda yadda yadda. They have to withstand heat, drops, etc. all sorts of stuff.
Used up nuclear fuel wont go critical. The k effective of all the waste to go in the mountain must be 0.95 or lower. The cores must be designed such that they wont go critical.
Here is more:
The effective multiplication factor (keff) is less than or equal to 0.95 under assumed accident conditions, considering allowance for the bias in the method of calculation and the uncertainty in the experiments used to validate the method of calculation
For all techies, read this:
The science and engineering report
http://www.ymp.gov/documents/ser_b/index.
Here is an FAQ of almost every possible question i could think of that anyone could ask.
http://www.ymp.gov/documents/feis_a/index_v
I hope these words have sparked your intrest to read on.
I would suggest reading these materials.
Re:The overlooked problem... (Score:2)
Re:The overlooked problem... (Score:2)
Re:The overlooked problem... (Score:2)
Transporting Waste vs. Fuel (Score:3, Interesting)
If transporting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain is such a big risk, then why isn't anyone talking about transporting nuclear fuel to the power plants? Isn't the original fuel just as radioactive/dangerous as the waste?
I don't know much about transporting nuclear materials (if I did, I probably wouldn't be allowed to write this :-), but if we assume that in the United States there are only a couple sources for nuclear fuel, then it makes sense that the fuel is already being transported across the country using many of the same transportation methods as would be used for the waste, using major routes, through population centers, etc. Why isn't this considered to be a problem? Where's the web site that let's me type in my zip code and then see how close I am to a likely nuclear fuel transportation route?
The lack of attention that the anti-Yucca groups are giving to transporting nuclear fuel makes me wonder whether transporting nuclear waste is really a new and unique problem. No doubt there are risks, but focusing on the waste while ignoring the fuel makes me question the credibility of the arguments.
Re:space... (Score:3, Insightful)
- It costs too much (we are talking about thousands of tons here, not a couple of grams)
- It's too dangerious (if the launch fails, oh boy, that's gonna be some firework)
Sticking it in the mountain is probably the cheapest way to go
Re:So.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, okey. So, we'll keep all the monentary outlays to ridiculous notions such as the World Court and the United Nations.
It's funny how the US is so 'hated on a global stage' until you need US funding for some earthquake, natural disaster, peacekeeping mission, etc etc... but if you don't want our help, that's fine. Stop asking for drugs. Stop asking for aid. Stop asking for money. I'm tired of subsidizind your asses anyway.
Re:damn, get over that illusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of curiosity who does? I can't find any country that even comes close to the USA's $9.6 Trillion (year 2000 current US$). Japan comes closes with $4.5 Trillion (which is larger than Germany, France and the UK combined). Even the combined total of the European Monetary Union is only $6.6 Trillion.
you're not the leading edge in science or economics any more.
Well I think we have settled the economics side of things so I'll be generous and grant you the scientific leading edge since I'm not exactly sure how to measure that. I'm still not sure who IS on the leading edge though. Europe taken as a whole seems the only likely contender - still it seems that Europe and the US are peers in terms of scientific research and advances rather than one dominating the other.
Except for your oversized bloated miliary you're just an average western industrial nation.
I'll grant you we have a bloated military, in fact we account for about 37% of ALL military spending in the entire world. Then again we can afford it - we only spend about 3% of our GDP on the military which is less than the worldwide average of 3.8%. and significantly less than Russia's 5%. In terms of sheer numbers our military (1,369,000 men under arms) is dwarfed by china (2,310,000) and even Europe's combined total is larger (3,459,000) so despite our massive spending we don't have an inordinately large military just a spectacularly well equipped one
The problem (if it is a problem) is America's hegemony is a fact that flows naturally from the vast size of it's economy. Despite all the resentments and sour grapes this engenders elsewhere in the world we are probably all lucky that it is the USA that weilds such an unbalanced economic (and thus military and cultural) power. There are other nations and other cultures that would not have been so restrained in the use of such dominance. Considered through the lense of history America has been remarkably restrained, if she wanted she has the resources to be an actual empire in FACT not just in her opponents rhetoric. All the weight that is thrown around is only a fraction of what it could be - with military spending only 3% of GDP it could double or even triple without much effort (It was 6% in 1985, at the same time the soviet Union was spending better than 12% of their GDP on the military). Fortunately American culture ISN'T militarised or imperialistic.
Re:damn, get over that illusion (Score:3, Insightful)
I get the worldwide average of 2.6% [sipri.se].
Re:Nuclear Waste Disposal in France (Score:2)