Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yucca Mountain Approved for US Nuclear Waste Storage

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the it's-about-time dept.

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.

23 of 631 comments (clear)

  1. Finally. by ObviousGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's got to go someplace and the Yucca Mountains are as desolate as you can get. A good storage facility will be a huge boon to the energy industry and our computers will continue running unabated.

    Good news for all involved.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Finally. by nathanm · · Score: 4, Insightful
      90 miles from a city of 1+ million is as desolate as you can get? Hardly.
      Sure it is. It's the middle of the desert, near where they used to test nuclear detonations. There are lots of mountains between Las Vegas & the Yucca Mountain site.
  2. Unfortunately... by neksys · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The nuclear waste has to go somewhere. I sincerely feel horrible for the people of Nevada, but the fact remains that a decision had to be made. If it were left up to debate, the waste would continue to build up in unsecure storage facilities. It's a shame that we've let ourselves get to this point, but if not Yucca Mountain, then where? South Dakota? Florida? Canada? The fact remains that a permanent storage facility is desperately needed - and we've only ourselves to blame (or more specifically, our decision-makers) for our lack of foresight into the long term storage needs of our nuclear industry.

    It's sad that tens of billions of dollars are going to this when there are millions of people who are dying of hunger.

    1. Re:Unfortunately... by thales · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "The fact remains that a permanent storage facility is desperately needed - and we've only ourselves to blame (or more specifically, our decision-makers) for our lack of foresight into the long term storage needs of our nuclear industry."

      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".

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
  3. *sigh* by alfredw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Opponents, including a number of environmental groups, argue Yucca Mountain and shipments of nuclear waste to it would provide an inviting target for terrorists.

    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.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, sig types you!
    1. Re:*sigh* by neksys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good point.

      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.

    2. Re:*sigh* by Misuta+Supakulo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yeah, I'd like to see them try to blow it up. It would be amusing. Do you think they ship nuclear waste on the interstate highway system inside carboard boxes or plastic buckets? Apply a little critical thinking, perhaps even use that research tool that everyone's talking about, "the internet", to get some real information. Nuclear waste is transported in "casks" that are incredibly strong.

      Check this 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.

      --

      --
      He lied to us through song. I hate when people do that!
    3. Re:*sigh* by Pooua · · Score: 3, Insightful
      - 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 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)

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
  4. 10000 years by iangoldby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll admit that this site is probably about as good as any, but the idea that you have to keep 77000 tons of deadly radioactive material isolated for the next 10000 years just scares me. Civilizations rise and fall in such timescales. Who is going to know it is there, even 1000 years from now? 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.

    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.

    1. Re:10000 years by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      However your post does serve as an excellant example of the mindless fear mongering that that antinuclear people use in place of facts.

      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.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    2. Re:10000 years by moogla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quick, what's the difference between beta decay and gamma emission?

      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?

      --
      Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
  5. Re:space... by kawaichan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reasons

    - 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

    --

    kawai
  6. Nope... by cirby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'd have to be a helluva big car, with some really bad-ass explosives. Six inches of Very Hard Steel, with a lead liner and a thick energy-absorbing outer casing. A simple bomb would just push the thing over. You'd need a shaped charge just to poke a hole in it, and all that would do would be to let some nasty stuff out (which would contaminate a few hundred meters of ground). Collisions? They tested the cask design by running a locomotive into it at 60+ MPH, and all it did was bounce the thing along the track.

    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").

    1. Re:Nope... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but the storage barrels can take a TOW anti-tank missile and only get a very minor leak.

      So all the mid-sized van strikes I douby will do much.

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Art ic les/000/000/001/438jlpwd.asp

      "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

  7. But we *need* nuclear energy by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to run my electric air conditioner to keep me cool from the global warming caused by all the fossle fuel emissions from conventional power plants because of the enviro idiots who won't permit more safe, clean nuclear power plants to be built. There's still way too much irrational fearmongering about nuclear materials, most of it second hand propaganda spread by entertainers w/o a clue looking for some 'cause celeb' to vent about and completely misleading the public. People who are steadfastly opposed to anything associated with nuclear to such a degree that they tremble with fear over getting a completely safe "nuclear magnetic resonance imaging" scan really should do the intelligent world a favor and study the enemy and get over their misconceptions - get a damn geiger counter and /measure/ what the heck your afraid of, get some low level uranium glass or pitchblende samples and play with it, notice the everpresent background radiation that occurs in nature, measure how fast radiation falls off when you get just a few inches away. Read about the history of radioactivity, Mme Curie, prospecting, etc. Otherwise you're just a clueless puppet of an even more ignorant leadership that show your lack of knowledge with every empty-minded protest. Democracy only works with an educated public - that's why people who know what they're doing are so frustrated by an ill informed public who start wearing black skeleton suits and mushroom clouds at the mere movement of a railroad car.

    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.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  8. Nuclear power by viktor · · 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. ;-)

  9. Re:So.. by uncleFester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, what a nice step one towards fixing that whole "hated on a global stage" thing.

    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.

    --
    -'fester
  10. Re:I worked at a nuclear power station... by shimmin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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."

    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.

  11. Why is anyone glad? by sean23007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hear a lot of people saying that they're glad they don't live in Nevada. Why? What's the difference? If something goes wrong with the storage, wouldn't it affect a lot more than just Nevada? I mean, if there was a leak, wouldn't the entire western half of the US be in danger? And please don't tell me it's all foolproof, because nothing is. Any time someone says that it reminds me of a discussion my class had in 6th grade with some nuclear waste disposal expert:

    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...

    --

    Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  12. Environmental damage, nuclear vs ... by dpilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't know that I agree, at least by "nature's perspective." I don't disagree in the slightest that nuclear waste is bad, but it's also "point contamination" and affects limited localities. Even considering leaching the area is still comparatively limited. Even if it is radioactive, part of nature's perspective is more like tens of thousands to millions of years. That's enough time for decay, and in the meantime there will be mutations and evolution-fodder, conceivably a good thing. It's only on puny human time scales that it's really a problem, and presumably we should be able to handle it over our own time scales. Part of the objection was, "What happens in a thousand years?"

    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.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  13. Re:damn, get over that illusion by overunderunderdone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't have the worlds largest GNP

    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.

  14. Waste shipping routes by ccwaterz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    mapscience.org Type in your addy and find out how close the waste pass you by.

  15. Re:damn, get over that illusion by gorilla · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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%

    I get the worldwide average of 2.6%.