Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congressmen Pushing To Reopen Yucca Mountain

Posted by Soulskill on from the for-all-your-one-stop-mutant-making-needs dept.

Bob the Super Hamste writes "CNN is reporting that a group of congressmen backed by the nuclear industry are pushing to reopen the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. The site has sat closed and uncompleted since the Obama administration scrapped the project. The article goes into the pros and cons of the Yucca Mountain site for storage and also brings up some interesting political issues involved in continuing development. It's also worth noting that there's been a fee on electric bills since 1983 for the building of the site."

10 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. About time by wbean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    About time. We are fussing about whether this will be safe after 10,000 years and meanwhile we store the waste in overcrowded pools spread around the country and continue to burn coal, which is an environmental disaster all by itself, never mind what it does to the climate.

    1. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And, as a bonus, if they start reprocessing the waste (and overturn Carter's executive order which outlawed the process), there will be enough storage in Yucca Mountain to store all the waste that will ever be made, until it's cooled, since most of the waste, by volume and mass, is just more fuel, and what IS really waste is hot enough to burn itself out on the scale of human life spans...

    2. Re:About time by cdrguru · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe regardless of the science and actual process for reprocessing it is simply an equivalence in many politician's minds of reprocessing == proliferation. I believe the truth is that you get plutonium out as a "waste product" from straight fuel rod reprocessing but with some new formulations of fuel rods you may end up putting the plutonium back in.

      My understanding of fuel reprocessing today is that it is somewhere around 97% of a fuel rod is available for using in a new fuel rod. In other words, only 3% of the mass of a fuel rod is truely "waste" and ends up needing to be buried somewhere for a long time.

      Of course it is idiotic to be storing fuel rods which require cooling and isolation when they could be reprocessed with 97% of them being reused. But the nuclear politics are filled with idiocy.

  2. It needs to be reopened, and spent fuel moved in. by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not perfect, but dry cask storage in Yucca Mountain is way better than rods in spent fuel pools in power plants.

    There's been worry about shipping spent fuel rods around, but the casks are very tough (they will survive being hit by a locomotive), and the worst cases are far, far less dangerous than a failed spent fuel pool at a power plant, as we now know.

  3. Thorium Reactors by RudyHartmann · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can burn the transuranics in a Thorium reactor and extract residual energy from them. Then the hazardous waste will be negligible by comparison. Google LFTR.

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
    1. Re:Thorium Reactors by bluemonq · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fun fact: the ban on reprocessing was lifted by Reagan. The government just isn't subsiziding it.

    2. Re:Thorium Reactors by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fun fact: the ban on reprocessing was lifted by Reagan. The government just isn't subsiziding it.

      "The technology was banned by President Carter due to proliferation concerns. President Reagan lifted the ban, and President Clinton later reinstituted it."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. THE US LACKS LONG TERM PLANNING by arcite · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the problem with the US IMO. They lack any long term planning. The political party in power at any given time is only obsessed and focused with getting themselves reelected in four years. Thus, planning is limited to FOUR YEARS. How can one run the last remaining superpower on a four year shedule? It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant. How long does it take to build other MEGA infrastructure projects? There are so many unemployed out there, the US should be doing like China and upgrading its ancient infrastructure and laying the groundwork for a high-tech, energy efficient 21st century. I would suggest to raise taxes, but so far that has only made banksters on wallstreet wealthier with zero economic impact. Where is the leadership?

  5. It really is a pretty safe facility by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Informative

    I remember working on some of the Yucca Mountain studies years ago and there really isn't a better place you could store nuclear waste. It's very stable geologically, and the storage medium leeching was practically non-existent, even if you stored the blocks under water.

    Most of the objections are NIMBY related and don't represent any realistic threat.

    I can promise you where nuclear waste is being stored now, where ever that is, is a lot less safe than it would be at Yucca Mountain.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:It really is a pretty safe facility by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can promise you where nuclear waste is being stored now, where ever that is, is a lot less safe than it would be at Yucca Mountain.

      But that's exactly why the anti-nuclear nutters oppose it; they love nuclear accidents because it helps them campaign to end nuclear power... the last things they want are safe reactors and safe waste disposal.