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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom McCurdy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the proposal for the U.S. to store its nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Participants explore various aspects of this topic, including the feasibility, safety, and political implications of establishing a long-term repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the historical context of Yucca Mountain's study by the U.S. Department of Energy since 1978 and the political decisions surrounding its potential use as a repository.
  • Others express concerns about the safety and long-term implications of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, referencing past incidents of waste leakage and the need for thorough research.
  • A few participants propose alternative methods for dealing with nuclear waste, such as recycling, temporary storage, or even more unconventional ideas like shooting it into space.
  • Some argue that the nuclear waste issue is more political than technical, citing historical decisions made during the Manhattan Project and the ongoing debate about nuclear energy's future.
  • Participants mention geological studies and modeling that have been conducted regarding the safety of Yucca Mountain, while also questioning the reliability of these predictions based on past findings of plutonium migration in the area.
  • There are suggestions that the waste could be stored at existing civilian sites, which some believe may be safer than centralizing it at Yucca Mountain.
  • One participant sarcastically notes the U.S. practice of sending waste to the UK for reprocessing, indicating skepticism about current waste management practices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether Yucca Mountain is a suitable location for nuclear waste storage. Multiple competing views are presented, with some advocating for its use while others propose alternative solutions or express concerns about safety and political implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various studies and historical decisions that influence the current debate, highlighting the complexity of the issue and the unresolved nature of the technical and political challenges involved in nuclear waste management.

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
  • #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...
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #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 .

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

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?
 
  • #36
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?
 
  • #37
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.
 
  • #38
Political Prodigy said:
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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
13K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
16K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K