Slashdot Mirror
Shale: Good For Gas, Oil...and Nuclear Waste Disposal?
Lasrick writes: Chris Neuzil is a senior scientist with the National Research Program of the U.S. Geological Survey. He thinks the qualities of shale make it the perfect rock in which to safely and permanently house high-level nuclear waste. Given the recent discovery that water is much more of an issue than originally thought for the tough rock at Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Utah, the unique qualities of shale, along with its ubiquitous presence in the U.S., could make shale rock a better choice for the 70,000 metric tons of commercial spent fuel currently sitting above ground at nuclear power facilities throughout the country. France, Switzerland, and Belgium are all considering repositories in shale, but it hasn't been studied much in the U.S. "Shale is the only rock type likely to house high-level nuclear waste in other countries that has never been seriously considered by the U.S. high-level waste program. The uncertain future of Yucca Mountain places plans for spent nuclear fuel in the United States at a crossroads. It is an opportunity to include shale in a truly comprehensive examination of disposal options."
Not that it makes much difference, but the Yucca Mountain site is in Nevada, not Utah.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
3 mile island scale... you mean a media induced panic over a non-event that hasn't harmed anyone, compared to the absolutely devastating cost of coal alone to the environment and human life?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Why not? It's been our philosophy for centuries not to worry about the future and just expect that future generations will have more wits and basic decency than us.
That's an odd bit of sarcasm given that the grandparent post is actually worrying about the future in a constructive way. Fuel rod recycling is a rather odd thing to overlook.