Should the U.S. store its Nuclear Waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain?

  • Thread starter Tom McCurdy
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Nuclear
In summary: Africa. The natural reactors there created about4,000 metric tons of nuclear waste, all of which has been safely stored atthe Gabon site. In summary, the United States generates more than 2,000 tons of nuclear waste every year. Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has been studied to see if it would be a suitable location for the nation's first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 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.

Should the U.S. store its Nuclear Waste in Nevada's Yucca Moutain? (2,000+tons/year)

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 73.1%
  • No

    Votes: 7 26.9%

  • Total voters
    26
  • #1
Tom McCurdy
1,020
1
What do you think?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
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.).
 
  • #5
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, let's 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.
 
  • #6
What are some of the other methods of dealing with Nuclear waste besides burying it in some remote location?
 
  • #7
Shoot it into space ?
 
  • #8
That's the problem with people. know how to use; don't know how to get rid.
 
  • #9
Leong said:
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 [Broken]

Laboratory scientists made their recommendation 4 years ago:

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

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
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.
 
  • #11
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.
 
  • #12
It is much safer to leave all that waste at thousands of low [er, non-existent] security civilian sites spread all across the country.
 
  • #13
Put it all onto ships and send it to the UK for reprocessing. Oh no wait, that's what the US do already...

</sarcasm>
 
  • #14
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.
 
  • #15
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/plut01.htm

Here is an article about plutonium migration and tritium.
 
  • #16
Here is the lead into 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.
 
  • #17
Dayle Record said:
Here is the lead into 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
 
  • #18
Reasons for geological isolation of glass waste packages

Morbius said:
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?
 
  • #19
hitssquad said:
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".
 
  • #20
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.
 
  • #21
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>
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Spent fuel - launching, recycling, and burying

brewnog said:
how much it costs to take a certain amount of "stuff" into space?
$10,000 per pound.



number of tonnes of nuclear waste that is produced globally each year?
American commercial nuclear power plants produce 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 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 [Broken]. 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
brewnog said:
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
 
  • #24
hitssquad said:
This is explained in detail in Garwin's 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 [Broken]. 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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Needed repository volume a function of waste volume or of waste heat

Morbius said:
hitssquad said:
waste reprocessing does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal
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.
...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. 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 radioactive
Yes. 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.
 
  • #26
hitssquad said:
...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. 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
 
Last edited:
  • #27
OK, then now reprocessing has another point in its favor.
 
  • #28
hitssquad said:
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
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Power-wall multimonitor clusters for supercomputer data visualization

Morbius said:
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
  • 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 http://ncmir.ucsd.edu/Research/Highlights/2004_BioWall.htm [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Jeez, I should have 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):
Caim said:
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.
Brewdog said:
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 http://www.npca.org/across_the_nation/visitor_experience/code_red/conclusions.asp [Broken].
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Ehi men, do you know how much it costs to put something in orbit?

Actually it is about 10000 to 50000 Eur for each Kg 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...
 
  • #32
hitssquad said:
  • 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 http://ncmir.ucsd.edu/Research/Highlights/2004_BioWall.htm [Broken].

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
russ_watters said:
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 [Broken]

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
Political Prodigy said:
use the jettison it into space idea.
What purpose might that serve?
 
<h2>1. What is Yucca Mountain and why is it being considered as a storage site for nuclear waste?</h2><p>Yucca Mountain is a ridge located in Nevada that has been proposed as a potential storage site for the United States' high-level nuclear waste. This waste is currently being stored at various sites across the country, but the government is looking for a long-term solution. Yucca Mountain was chosen due to its remote location and geological stability.</p><h2>2. Is storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain safe?</h2><p>The safety of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is a highly debated topic. Proponents argue that the site has been thoroughly studied and deemed suitable for storage, with multiple layers of protection in place to prevent any leakage or environmental impact. However, opponents point to concerns about the potential for earthquakes and groundwater contamination. Ultimately, the safety of the site is still being evaluated and debated.</p><h2>3. What are the potential risks associated with storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain?</h2><p>The potential risks of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain include the possibility of earthquakes or volcanic activity disrupting the storage site, which could lead to the release of radioactive materials into the environment. There are also concerns about the transportation of the waste to the site, as accidents or spills could have serious consequences. Additionally, there are concerns about the long-term stability of the storage containers and the potential for leakage over time.</p><h2>4. What are the alternatives to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain?</h2><p>One alternative to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is to continue storing it at various sites across the country, though this is seen as a temporary solution. Another option is to reprocess the waste to reduce its volume and make it easier to store. However, this process is controversial and expensive. Some also suggest the possibility of storing the waste in deep underground repositories, though this would also face opposition and challenges.</p><h2>5. Who is responsible for the decision to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain?</h2><p>The decision to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain ultimately falls to the U.S. government, specifically the Department of Energy. However, there are many stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, including state and local governments, Native American tribes, and environmental groups. Ultimately, any decision to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would likely face legal challenges and public opposition.</p>

1. What is Yucca Mountain and why is it being considered as a storage site for nuclear waste?

Yucca Mountain is a ridge located in Nevada that has been proposed as a potential storage site for the United States' high-level nuclear waste. This waste is currently being stored at various sites across the country, but the government is looking for a long-term solution. Yucca Mountain was chosen due to its remote location and geological stability.

2. Is storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain safe?

The safety of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is a highly debated topic. Proponents argue that the site has been thoroughly studied and deemed suitable for storage, with multiple layers of protection in place to prevent any leakage or environmental impact. However, opponents point to concerns about the potential for earthquakes and groundwater contamination. Ultimately, the safety of the site is still being evaluated and debated.

3. What are the potential risks associated with storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain?

The potential risks of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain include the possibility of earthquakes or volcanic activity disrupting the storage site, which could lead to the release of radioactive materials into the environment. There are also concerns about the transportation of the waste to the site, as accidents or spills could have serious consequences. Additionally, there are concerns about the long-term stability of the storage containers and the potential for leakage over time.

4. What are the alternatives to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain?

One alternative to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is to continue storing it at various sites across the country, though this is seen as a temporary solution. Another option is to reprocess the waste to reduce its volume and make it easier to store. However, this process is controversial and expensive. Some also suggest the possibility of storing the waste in deep underground repositories, though this would also face opposition and challenges.

5. Who is responsible for the decision to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain?

The decision to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain ultimately falls to the U.S. government, specifically the Department of Energy. However, there are many stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, including state and local governments, Native American tribes, and environmental groups. Ultimately, any decision to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would likely face legal challenges and public opposition.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
32
Views
12K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
30
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top