http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Aug-01-Thu-2002/news/19319084.html Study: Yucca volcano would be destructive THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- A volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain could do more damage than previously thought, possibly forcing radioactive waste from its burial site to the surface, according to a new study. If long-dormant volcanoes near the prospective high-level nuclear waste dump sprang back to life, molten rock moving at up to 600 mph could fill the repository deep beneath the Nevada desert within hours, said an article in the July issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. Intense heat and pressure could cause some canisters of spent nuclear fuel that are to be buried at Yucca Mountain to rupture and allow radioactive material to flow toward the surface, the article said. "It can potentially affect a large number of waste canisters," wrote a team of English, Dutch and American scientists that developed computer models to assess the risk of a volcanic eruption. Seven dead volcanoes are within 27 miles but the last eruption was 80,000 years ago. Project scientists calculate that the chance of one occurring within the waste repository over the next 10,000 years is 1 in 70 million. Previous government studies have said volcanic eruptions would do little damage to the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But project scientists who commented on a draft of the new study said it presents a potentially useful model for evaluating what could happen if an eruption were to occur. President Bush last week designated Yucca Mountain as the nation's lone long-term waste repository. ___________________________________________________ the anatomy of a brilliant idea: "So we got all this nuclear waste, Bob...where we gonna put it." "Lay it over there yonder by that volcano..no one goes near there."
yeah..but why risk it? I mean I'm not claiming to be as smart as the people who contributed to this decision, because I'm probably not. But is this really the best place for this stuff, even in a world where there's probably no good place? Have environmentalists limited the playing field of places for nuclear waste storage down to only seemingly dormant volcanos???
Extensive study was made before they made this site. For the deep, long term nuclear waste disposal it was deemed the best site. Far away from any people, hard bedrock with little to no seepage into the groundwater. A low water table. From what I understood, there really weren't that many locations that were even a possibility due to human occupation. I think they made a good choice.
you're probably right...admittedly, i'm pretty ignorant as to good locations for nuclear waste...it just seems that right by a volcano is not the best of ideas.
Yucca Mountain is 90 miles from Vegas. That is hardly 'far away from people.' In addition it is on a major fault line, and the likelihood of a major catastrophe from an earthquake is much higher than from a volcano. And that doesn't even START in on the problems with TRANSPORTING all this waste to Yucca. That's right, folks. Those really safe TRAINS will be spilling nuclear waste in your backyard soon. I think the best phrase I've heard attached to this plan is 'mobile Chernoby.'l
I saw a piece on TV about the transportation of the nuclear waste. They were saying how these trains could be terrorist targets and basically be a dirty bomb. Also the show pointed out how fast the mountain will fill up and that they are trying to expand it already. There is a lot of waste that needs to be disposed of at the existing nuclear plants. Hayes which fault line does the Yucca Mtn storage rest on? Is it the San Andreas? Also, the storage site is 27 miles from the 80,000yr old dormant volcanos - that isn't that close is it?
Where does France store all their nuclear waste? Or India? Or China? Japan- is there any room? Great Britain? Good Gosh, we've got nuclear waste all over the place. Didn't France do most of their nuclear testing around the beautiful South Pacific islands of Tahiti?
Well, since there is not much of a chance of the waste leaking into the groundwater, I think 90 miles is sufficient. Putting it on a fault does seem like poor judgement, but I think in this case they had to take the lesser of all evils. No matter where you put this stuff, there will be some risk. I took an environmental geology class in college not too very long ago, and I remember reading about this problem. From what I recall, because of the strict guidelines that they had to follow in order to store this stuff underground, there really wasn't that many places to choose from, and the Yucca mountains were the best choice. Do you know of a better place to put it all, Hayes?
I bet you don't live in Vegas. Well, therein lies the 'fix' I guess. Most experts I've read say that the waste can be safely stored on site. That it's just as safe as Yucca without the chance of an earthquake at Yucca or of transportation accidents/terrorism. There are also many technologies currently being developed to neutralize the waste, so storing it on site would not have to be a permanent solution. Of course Yucca is not a permanent solution either. You think the Strip glows now, just wait.
The problem, IF Yucca is not a permanent solution, is how in the hell do you move that stuff when you THINK of a permanent solution? I don't know where they should put the waste (if you could safely get it into space, dropping it into the sun would be ideal... no truly safe launch vehicle on the horizon, however), but if anyone thinks it's going anywhere once we put it underground at Yucca, your crazy (IMHO). That's why it's essential to get it as right as possible before we start. If we have to study this mess further, than we just have to take the time.
Those countries didn't have Jimmy Carter as president in the late 1970's. I don't remember which year he did it but in the late 70's (obviously) he signed a bill limiting how much the US could process uranium in power plants. I'm not a Nuc E so I don't know the numbers but by using the uranium to a certain extent you create much less waste. The tradeoff is that the waste could conceivably be used to make nuclear weapons if stolen/hi-jacked by terrorists. In effect Carter signed a bill that created much more waste but it can't be used to make bombs. We are the only nuclear power that does this, however, and those other countries haven't had any problems with stolen nuclear waste. So it appears that they definitely have the right idea regarding nuclear power. That's why you don't hear much at all about a shortage of storage in Europe; there ain't much waste to store.
It could be worse. They could bury it near our <a href="http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm">SUPER VOLCANO</a>!!!
I am pretty certain that most experts didn't believe that the waste could be stored on site when they chose Yucca. And I am also pretty sure that technologies currently being developed probably weren't being developed then. It sucks that that waste is over a fault, but I think at the time they just made the safe choice with the knowledge they had. It is good news that there might be new technology to neutralize it, though, because the waste at Yucca is long term and would take hundreds of thousands of years to degrade naturally, as I understood it.
More than likely those responsible for the decision liked the idea of putting the waste in someone else's backyard.
Yeah the years it will take the waste to decay is much longer than the life any container that we can currently make to contain the wastes. From what I remember, breeder reactors take the wastes their core makes and "recycles" it into reusable fuel. The technology also made it so that the new fuel isn't weapons grade. But we stopped building nuclear plants in America and the plants we have remaining still churn out tons of waste that needs to be disposed.
