PopSci Poll

[Tom McCurdy]

What do you think?

[Tom McCurdy]

Full Question: The U.S. Generates more than 2,000 tons of Nuclear Waste every year. Should We [U.S.] store it in Nevada's Yucca Moutain.

[Tom McCurdy]

The U.S. Department of Energy began studying Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in 1978 to determine whether it would be suitable for the nation's first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Currently stored at 131 sites around the nation, these materials are a result of nuclear power generation and national defense programs.

On July 23, 2002, President Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87, allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository in which to store our nation's nuclear waste. The Department of Energy is currently in the process of preparing an application to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to proceed with construction of the repository.

Yucca Mountain is located in a remote desert on federally protected land within the secure boundaries of the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada. It is approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada.

Source:http://www.ocrwm.doe.go

[Tom McCurdy]

Facts about Location:
Location:
View maps Yucca Mountain is located on federal land in a remote area of Nye County in southern Nevada, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada.
Land withdrawal area The proposed Yucca Mountain repository withdrawal area would occupy about 230 square miles (150,000 acres) of federal land that is currently under the control of the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Air Force, and the Bureau of Land Management.
Population: No one lives at Yucca Mountain. The closest year-round housing is about 14 miles south of the site, in the Amargosa Desert.

Geology: Yucca Mountain is a ridge comprised of layers of volcanic rock, called “tuff.” This rock is made of ash that was deposited by successive eruptions from nearby volcanoes, between 11 and 14 million years ago. These volcanoes have been extinct for millions of years.
Elevation: At its crest, Yucca mountain reaches an elevation of 4,950 feet.
Climate:
View current weather
conditions Yucca Mountain receives less than 7.5 inches of precipitation on average per year.

The mean annual temperature is about 63° Fahrenheit.

Natural Resources There are no known natural resources of commercial value at Yucca Mountain (such as precious metals, minerals, oil, etc.).

[theCandyman]

Just dump it in the ocean.

I'm kidding if you didn't know. The thing is, I would rather research go into finding a way to make the waste harmful. If we say "Ok, lets dump this here" there might be pretty bad consequences in the future. My friend worked at a plant where waste was stored but leaked and it became a huge project to clean up the area. I'm for it being a temporary storing place though.

[Tom McCurdy]

What are some of the other methods of dealing with Nuclear waste besides burying it in some remote location?

[Gokul43201]

Shoot it into space ?

[Leong]

That's the problem with people. know how to use; don't know how to get rid.

[Morbius]

That's the problem with people. know how to use; don't know how to get rid.

Leong,

Actually - nuclear waste disposal has been a political problem - not a
technical problem for some time.

First - it's not like we had a choice of solving the problem or just foregoing
nuclear power. The production reactors of the Manhattan Project created
a big chunk of the problem. So we already had the problem courtesy of
World War II - so there was really no choice but to solve it.

The solutions to the nuclear waste "problem" have been studied for years.
It was almost 50 years ago that the National Academy of Sciences made
the recommendation for "geological disposal" - their term for burial.

[On a political note, I always have to shake my head in wonderment
every time John Kerry states that he'll stop the Yucca Mountain Project
and ask the National Academy of Sciences to study the problem. It's
really indicative of how little he knows - the National Academy of
Sciences made the original recommendation nearly 50 years ago.

The National Academy has reviewed and approved all the research at
Yucca Mountain. So does John Kerry really expect a different answer
than the one that's currently being implemented? ]

The storage of waste at Yucca Mountain has been very thoroughly
studied and modeled by computer for many years into the future:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Glassley.html

http://ymp.llnl.gov/about.html

Laboratory scientists made their recommendation 4 years ago:

http://www.llnl.gov/PAO/Newsstand/articles/2000/9-29-00-kohler.html

In addition to laboratory studies and computer modelling, there's also
the data from the Oklo and Gabon "natural reactors". The fissile isotope
Uranium-235 decays faster than Uranium-238. Although U-235 is today
about 0.7% concentration in natural uranium - many years ago it was
a larger fraction. When U-235 amounted to about 3-4% of all natural
uranium [ about the same percentage as the fuel in U.S. power reactors ],
a few areas naturally had the correct concentrations of uranium and
water to "go critical" - and operate as nuclear reactors. These natural
reactors operated for many years - and produced Plutonium and nuclear
waste just like a modern power reactor.

In spite of the fact that the nuclear waste from these reactors was not
encased in any type of barrier to prevent its migration, that waste has
had millions of years of opportunity to migrate into the environment.
However - that's not what happened!! The waste basically stayed right
where it was. So much for the typical scare-tactics of "leaking" waste.

Whenever someone opposes storing waste at Yucca Mountain - I always
ask them what their solution is. It's not like we can do anything to
"magically" make the problem go away. The usual answer I get is one to
rewrite history ["Dont' generate it to begin with!"] - which I find
"impractical".

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

[russ_watters]

I voted "yes", with the caveat that we should really be recycling it... but like Morbius said, that's a political problem that at this point appears to be unsolvable.

[Mk]

I read about the theory of shooting the waste into the sun via rocket, the relativley low level of failed rocket missions in which the rocket had a violent ending is much much too high for the launching of nuclear waste.

[Chronos]

It is much safer to leave all that waste at thousands of low [er, non-existent] security civilian sites spread all across the country.

[brewnog]

Put it all onto ships and send it to the UK for reprocessing. Oh no wait, that's what the US do already....

</sarcasm>

[Cosmo16]

I still say shoot into space. heck, Columbia had radioactive matirial in already anyway.

Is there any way to get at least some pwr. from it. If there is we could pwr. a mission out of the solar system with it.

[Dayle Record]

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/plut01.htm

Here is an article about plutonium migration and tritium.

[Dayle Record]

Here is the lead in to that story regarding fast groundwater under Yucca Mountain.

In September, 1997, scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories reported that plutonium from an underground nuclear weapons test at Pahute Mesa on the Nevada Test Site had migrated almost a mile from the where the test took place. This finding contradicts DOE predictions about how fast plutonium can move through the underground rock. Until now, DOE and its scientists had contended that plutonium movement would be very slow - several inches or feet over hundreds of years. The discovery that plutonium has moved almost a mile in less than 30 years has major implications for DOE's plans to isolate spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, since such wastes contain nearly 1,000 tons of plutonium that remains extremely dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

[Morbius]

Here is the lead in to that story regarding fast groundwater under Yucca Mountain.

In September, 1997, scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories reported that plutonium from an underground nuclear weapons test at Pahute Mesa on the Nevada Test Site had migrated almost a mile from the where the test took place. This finding contradicts DOE predictions about how fast plutonium can move through the underground rock. Until now, DOE and its scientists had contended that plutonium movement would be very slow - several inches or feet over hundreds of years. The discovery that plutonium has moved almost a mile in less than 30 years has major implications for DOE's plans to isolate spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, since such wastes contain nearly 1,000 tons of plutonium that remains extremely dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

Dayle,

I'm sorry but this is just another of a long series of the media's
misquoting and distorting the words and conclusions of the scientist's
statements.

In regard to the nuclear test that your speak of - there was a fault line
that went undetected when the test was prepared. The nuclear explosion
opened up the fault line and provided a path for the plutonium to migrate.

Yucca Mountain will NOT be subject to a nuclear explosion that will
open the fault line. Additionally, the waste at Yucca mountain does NOT
rely on the soil to contain the waste - the waste is encapsulated in a
matrix of borosilicate glass protected by a steel container.

You also have to not accept the pablum that the anti-nukes have been
foistering that nuclear waste is highly dangerous for tens of thousands
of years. That's a distortion. It would taked tens of thousands of years
or even longer for every last atom of radioactive material to decay.

However, that should not be the standard. The original uranium mined
from the ground was also radioactive - but we don't worry about that
because the level of radioactivity is so low. A better metric would be -
"How long will the waste be more radioactive than the uranium that was
originally dug from the ground?" You will find that the answer to that
question is a small fraction of the time that the anti-nukes like to quote.

The level of radioactivity is chiefly characterized by the decay of
Cesium-137; which has a half-life of 30 years. THAT'S the decay rate
that one should be using - not the ridiculous claims of the anti-nukes.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory

[hitssquad]

Additionally, the waste at Yucca mountain does NOT rely on the soil to contain the waste - the waste is encapsulated in a matrix of borosilicate glass protected by a steel container.Then why store it inside a mountain?

[Morbius]

Then why store it inside a mountain?

You really don't have to.

Yucca Mountain doesn't rely on the mountain soil for containment - it
has the engineered barriers of borosilicate glass and steel.

However, it doesn't hurt to have the mountain there just for good measure.

Things are done like that in the nuclear industry [ and airline industry...]
all the time. Something is put there for "good measure" - but that doesn't
mean that it's "needed".

[Caim]

My opinion is that we could send it on space shuttles to the sun. I know it may sound farfetched but right now it is 100% possible. The only problem is that US space missions fail like 1/100 flights. One single failure will spread nuclear waste all over the US.

[brewnog]

Enigma, you're a rockety type aren't you?

Would you care to estimate (vague, very vague) how much it costs to take a certain amount of "stuff" into space? I'm guessing mass is more critical than volume here.

And Morbius (or anyone else), would you care to estimate the number of tonnes of nuclear waste that is produced globally each year?

I think the above two features *might just* rule out the ethically sound issue of "let's deal with this problem by just shooting it into space", before the safety issue has even been considered. Besides, we (in the UK) reprocess a shedload of our waste, why aren't you folks over the pond doing this on your back doorstep?

<edit> Heh, just seen the other thread about recycling... </edit>

[hitssquad]

how much it costs to take a certain amount of "stuff" into space?$10,000 per pound (http://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+%2410000+pound).



number of tonnes of nuclear waste that is produced globally each year?American commercial nuclear power plants produce (http://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+%22tons+of+waste+each+year%22+wor ldwide) about 2,000 tons of waste each year. There are 103 reactors in the United States, and ~430 worldwide, so worldwide nuclear waste production is perhaps around 8,000-9,000 tons per year.



we (in the UK) reprocess a shedload of our waste, why aren't you folks over the pond doing this on your back doorstep?This is explained in detail in Garwin's Megawatts and Megatons (http://print.google.com/print?id=1YgBR6shTckC&lpg=8&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dmegawatts%2Band%2Bmegatons&pg=0_1&sig=wK_6CIs-Xm-Mit2wkbS1T-ZQqxI). It is also explained in detail in MIT's recent comprehensive fuel-cycle strategies analysis. The short answer is that waste reprocessing does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal, is not necessarily a clean process (significant volumes of waste may be produced in the process of trying to reduce waste), is not necessarily economical, does not necessarily reduce proliferation potential, does not necessarily reduce threats to public safety in the form of environmental contamination, does not necessarily expand potential fuel reserves, and does not necessarily provide better spent fuel disposition options.

[Morbius]

And Morbius (or anyone else), would you care to estimate the number of tonnes of nuclear waste that is produced globally each year?


Because the USA outlawed reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste -
the total amount of nuclear waste that we have on hand at present -
generated over the last 60 years due to both defense and commercial
nuclear power and destined for Yucca Mountain is about 77,000 tonnes -
approximately.

This includes both commercial waste and defense waste.

We are no longer producing Plutonium for weapons - so there's no
yearly increase in defense waste.

A typical reactor discharges about 30 tonnes of spent fuel per year -
and the USA has about 103 operating reactors. So there will be a
yearly production rate of about 3,000 tonnes per year.

Now if the USA reprocessed and recycled spent nuclear fuel - then
that 3,000 tonnes per year could be drastically reduced.


I think the above two features *might just* rule out the ethically sound issue of "let's deal with this problem by just shooting it into space", before the safety issue has even been considered. Besides, we (in the UK) reprocess a shedload of our waste, why aren't you folks over the pond doing this on your back doorstep?

<edit> Heh, just seen the other thread about recycling... </edit>

You have the advantage of having politicians with working forebrains!

In 1978, in order to dissuade the U.K and France from reprocessing and
recycling spent nuclear fuel - then President Jimmy Carter got our
Congress to pass a law which he signed that OUTLAWED reprocessing in
the USA. The plan was for the USA to "lead, by example".

Well, the English and the French are too smart to just follow the USA
like a bunch of lemmings - they didn't foreswear reprocessing just
because the USA did. Just because the USA did something stupid, the
English and the French didn't "follow suit".

So the USA certainly has the technology to reprocessess - we invented it -
but we are now saddled with the consequences of an ill-considered
policy that didn't work - the English and French were not dissuaded and
as brewnog points out - still reprocess spent fuel.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

[Morbius]

This is explained in detail in Garwin's Megawatts and Megatons (http://print.google.com/print?id=1YgBR6shTckC&lpg=8&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dmegawatts%2Band%2Bmegatons&pg=0_1&sig=wK_6CIs-Xm-Mit2wkbS1T-ZQqxI). It is also explained in detail in MIT's recent comprehensive fuel-cycle strategies analysis. The short answer is that waste reprocessing does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal...

hitssquad,

This last point is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!

About 95% of the nuclear waste is U-238 which has NOT been transmuted
to Plutonium. Therefore, it is only slightly radioactive - no more
radioactive than when it was dug out of the ground.

So when one reprocesses and recycles - one can eliminate 95% of the
mass of material from the waste stream.
See the following from the MIT Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy
Systems (CANES):

E. Shwageraus, P. Hejzlar and M. Kazimi, "Optimization of the LWR
Nuclear Fuel Cycle for Minimum Waste Production", MIT-NFC-PR-060
(October 2003).

The true nuclear waste are the fission products - the remnants of the
fissile materials that were fissioned to produce energy. Fresh LWR
fuel is only about 3% fissile material. If you fission it all - then you
will get about 3% of the total mass of the fuel in fission products.

You will also get fission products from Plutonium that was created
from neutron capture on U-238, and that subsequently fissioned.
That gives you about another 2%.

Therefore the true nuclear waste is only about 5% of the total mass
of discharged fuel. If one separates the fission products from the
spent fuel - one SURELY reduces the mass and volume of waste.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

[hitssquad]

waste reprocessing does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposalthe true nuclear waste is only about 5% of the total mass of discharged fuel. If one separates the fission products from the spent fuel - one SURELY reduces the mass and volume of waste....And doing that does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal:

...the amount of space needed in the repository is determined primarily by the heat produced by the fission products and the need not to overheat the rock.(Richard Garwin. Megawatts and Megatons (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375403949). p144. {To read the book online, click on "Search inside this book"})



About 95% of the nuclear waste is U-238 which has NOT been transmuted to Plutonium. Therefore, it is only slightly radioactiveYes. Virtually all of the heat power produced by spent fuel is the responsibility of the ~5% "real waste" which, so it might be buried by itself, reprocessing promises to isolate. According to Richard Garwin, since this reduced-volume waste produces heat at virually the same rate as the original waste, the repository volume needed to contain it is virtually the same.

[Morbius]

...And doing that does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal:

...the amount of space needed in the repository is determined primarily by the heat produced by the fission products and the need not to overheat the rock.(Richard Garwin. Megawatts and Megatons (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375403949). p144. {To read the book online, click on "Search inside this book"})

hittssquad,

Garwin's book is out of date - it was out of date the day it was published.

The current repository design for Yucca Mountain doesn't rely on
the rock for containment - so that doesn't matter.

The containment in current designs are totally provided by the
engineered containment systems - borosilicate glass, metal containers...

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

[hitssquad]

OK, then now reprocessing has another point in its favor.

[Morbius]

OK, then now reprocessing has another point in its favor.

hittssquad,

Reprocessing has ALWAYS made sense.

You can read about the research into how heat affects the repository,
and how it is modeled at:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Glassley.html

Some earlier research was published in the March 1996 issue of S&TR:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/03_96.1.pdf

which states:

"Elevated rock temperatures can be advantageous because heat acts
as a barrier in a repository. Heat dries nearby rock and keeps
moistrue away"

and

"The series of enginnered barriers combined with natural barriers
show in Figure 2 will further delay interactions with water. Through
the cumulative effects of these and other factors, we can delay the
transport of radionuclides by water for perhaps tens of thousands of
years according to our current models. During that time span, the
radioactivity of the wate will decay to low levels - to about
one-ten-thousandth of the original levels of radioactivity, or less"


Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

[hitssquad]

You can read about the research into how heat affects the repository,
and how it is modeled at:
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Glassley.htmlThe team hopes to use a power wall, which is an array of monitors pieced together into one giant monitor, to project the true wealth of detail generated by the code.

I have been reading about these power walls recently. There is a biology team that calls their's the BioWall (http://ncmir.ucsd.edu/Research/Highlights/2004_BioWall.htm).

[russ_watters]

Jeez, I shoulda been paying more attention. I didn't expect the pseudo-science to get into this thread. Anyway, for the scietific questions (that haven't already been answered):My opinion is that we could send it on space shuttles to the sun. I know it may sound farfetched but right now it is 100% possible. The only problem is that US space missions fail like 1/100 flights. One single failure will spread nuclear waste all over the US. It's not quite that bad - that's the rate for space shuttle flights (including re-entry), not all flights. Besides, you can make a canister that can survive re-entry (we already do).

My opinion is that sending the waste into the sun is better than putting it under the Yucca mountains (it could actually be cheaper), but neither is the right thing to do: reprocess it. The Yucca mountain's thing is all about politics. It isn't even necessary. And Morbius (or anyone else), would you care to estimate the number of tonnes of nuclear waste that is produced globally each year? Morbius provided the raw numbers, I'll provide the PERSPECTIVE (http://www.npca.org/across_the_nation/visitor_experience/code_red/conclusions.asp). Pollution streaming from more than 200 million vehicles and 26 different categories of industry, from power plants to smelters to refineries, amounts to more than 160 million tons yearly, not counting carbon dioxide pollution. Carbon dioxide pollution from power plants alone amounts to more than 2 billion tons annually. Morbius's 3,000 tons per year, which could be significantly lower if the "environmentalists" didn't stand in the way, is absolutely trivial compared to the billions of tons of pollution from fossil fuels that gets into the environment every year. And remember, none of that 3,000 tons of nuclear waste gets into the environment.

Dayle, throw a dozen or two "if's" together and in a thousand years, the Yucca mountans containment, if badly botched, could put a similar amount of waste into the environment as fossil fuels will put this year.


The dirty little secret of the anti-nuclear power crowd is that being anti-nuclear power kills upwards of 20,000 Americans every year.

[airbuzz]

Ehi men, do you know how much it costs to put something in orbit?????

Actually it is about :surprised 10000 to 50000 Eur for each Kg :surprised you want to take up.

And you leave it in a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) or in the best case ine a GTO (an elliptic orbit with perigeum LEO orbit and apogeum GEOstationary orbit).
And then it is not that easy to "escape" from the earth. You should contruct a spacecraft that will be lost.

Believe me, at this moment this solution is absolutely not feasable, there are thousand of engineers trying to study how to travel at lower costs in the space (me too) and how to take off from the earth...

[Morbius]

The team hopes to use a power wall, which is an array of monitors pieced together into one giant monitor, to project the true wealth of detail generated by the code.

I have been reading about these power walls recently. There is a biology team that calls their's the BioWall (http://ncmir.ucsd.edu/Research/Highlights/2004_BioWall.htm).

hittsquad,

Here's an article that shows one of our Powerwalls at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Quinn.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

[Morbius]

Morbius's 3,000 tons per year, which could be significantly lower if the "environmentalists" didn't stand in the way, is absolutely trivial compared to the billions of tons of pollution from fossil fuels that gets into the environment every year. And remember, none of that 3,000 tons of nuclear waste gets into the environment.


Russ,

Exactly!

The anti-nukes are so afraid of radioactivity and radiation - but the fools
don't understand that fossil fuels put more radioactivity into the
environment than does nuclear!

From scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Fossil fuels like coal contain trace amounts of radioactive uranium and
thorium. Because we burn BILLIONS of tonnes of coal each and every
year - THOUSANDS of tonnes of radioactive uranium and thorium go up
the stack into the environment!!

Quoting from the Oak Ridge article:

"Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher
radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet
government regulations"

and

"The population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times
that from nuclear plants"

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

[Political Prodigy]

I think they should until an easier, cheaper, way of disposing it is found. If it wasn't so expensive I would rather use the jettison it into space idea.

[hitssquad]

use the jettison it into space idea.What purpose might that serve?

[Political Prodigy]

So long as it was out of Earth's gravitational field it would no longer cause problems here on earth. We already messed up our planet a great deal, why not litter the whole galaxy? :wink:
If it was sent straight into the sun or another star that would be a whole lot better but much more of a pain to calculate would it not?

[brewnog]

It's not the calculations which are a pain Prodigy. It's a tremendous amount of completely unnecessary cost, and as has been repeatedly pointed out, incredibly dangerous too.

[Morbius]

So long as it was out of Earth's gravitational field it would no longer cause problems here on earth. We already messed up our planet a great deal, why not litter the whole galaxy? :wink:
If it was sent straight into the sun or another star that would be a whole lot better but much more of a pain to calculate would it not?

Political Prodigy,

The calculations are fairly trivial.

But you have NO IDEA how much energy one has to expend to de-orbit the
waste into the Sun. [ The waste is already in orbit around the Sun,
because it is on Earth which is in orbit around the Sun. ]

It is extremely expensive to put the waste into the Sun - as well as the
risk of a launch failure.

And to what purpose?

Geologic disposal in Yucca Mountain is safe - it has been endorsed by
the National Academy of Scientists, plus the scientists in the national
laboratories that have studied this.

As far as messing up the galaxy with our nuclear waste - that is one of
the most ridiculous contentions I've heard. The average supernova
spews a TREMENDOUS amount of nuclear waste into the galaxy - an
amount more than tens of millions of Earths worth!!

The total amount of nuclear waste that the USA has generated from
the Manhattan Project plus nearly 50 years of nuclear power generation
would fit in a high school gymnasium!!!

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory