So much for a Nissan Leaf!

[houstonscott]

It's been researched, studied, and built, it's in NV. Put it there! It's done. HS

 

[Tollster]

Nuclear safety: Much safer reactors are available today and some are fail safe.

There is nothing in the world that is fail safe, only accidents that have not been realized.
Fail safe is a very poor sell to anyone in this day and age regarding any business that has holdings on wall street, As the median between safety and profits are weighed by bean counters within the utility.
While the inherent design of new facility's are more redundant, efficient, and safer than those built 30 years ago, they are only as safe as those who manage and over see operations.

 

[Loren49]

It's been researched, studied, and built, it's in NV. Put it there! It's done. HS

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear waste storage: Why did Yucca Mountain fail, and what next?

Yucca Mountain Project: Failed Nuclear Waste Site Should Be Replaced, Panel Says

WASHINGTON The United States should immediately start looking for an alternative to replace the failed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada, which cost an estimated $15 billion but was never completed, a presidential commission said Thursday.

In its final report, the 15-member commission said the government also must prepare for the eventual large-scale transportation of spent nuclear fuel from storage sites across the country to the new site or to interim storage facilities yet to be built.

Nuclear Waste Will Never Be Laid To Rest At Yucca Mountain - Forbes
Yucca Mountain may get studied some more. But it will never be used as a permanent nuclear waste storage facility. Too many political, economic and engineering hurdles stand in the way. The time spent examining the issue, though, has not been wasted. The lessons learned are that 250-year disposal sites that are regionally placed could be more practical.

» If not Yucca Mountain, then what?
It is premature at this time to select actual repository sites or even to engage in a site selection process. Finding an appropriate repository site is a very difficult and complex process that must balance a wide range of considerations, including sound science, which has not yet been completed.

This fact sheet was written by Lisa Ledwidge of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research for the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and was based largely on IEER materials, especially High-Level Dollars, Low-Level Sense and Science for Democratic Action Volume 7, Number 3.



You overstate things a bit.

Loren

 

[mikehaugen]

So it seems that the problem with the Yukka site is about the locals not wanting it there, not so much that it isn't a good idea. Though it will add greatly to the cost, why not a place like antarctica? A place for the whole world to use.

 

[DarkBlack]

I thought mankind discovered/invented rocketry so we had a way to rid ourselves of nuclear waste. Load it up, light it off, send it.:laughing:

 

[buickanddeere]

Why send valuable fuel into space.
The greenpeace line is foolishness. If you knew anything about half life decay . They are talking decay to lead. Do you realize how radioactive that granite, grinding wheels and bananas are ? Do you know how radioactive it is while driving the highway near Elliot Lake?
Radiation will go way. You still don't want to admit that more dangerous compounds such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, asbestos, and organic chemicals such as dioxins are here to stay.
Don't blame me for mismanagement of anything. We store fuel that is 10+ years old, welded into steel and concrete flasks. Then we will bury them in impenetrable rock layers . So do most other responsible nations.
Being that you actually have no first hand knowledge and experience about radiative substances. Why don't why get over being scared and find out instead?

 

[Tollster]

I concur Yucca MTN is the best place currently available in the US for spent fuel casks, I bet if they paid people who lived nearby...voices would change.


How to Get a Community to Accept Nuclear Waste - Pacific Standard: The Science of Society


TAX FREE though!

 

[Loren49]

Why send valuable fuel into space.
The greenpeace line is foolishness. If you knew anything about half life decay . They are talking decay to lead. Do you realize how radioactive that granite, grinding wheels and bananas are ? Do you know how radioactive it is while driving the highway near Elliot Lake?
Radiation will go way. You still don't want to admit that more dangerous compounds such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, asbestos, and organic chemicals such as dioxins are here to stay.
Don't blame me for mismanagement of anything. We store fuel that is 10+ years old, welded into steel and concrete flasks. Then we will bury them in impenetrable rock layers . So do most other responsible nations.
Being that you actually have no first hand knowledge and experience about radiative substances. Why don't why get over being scared and find out instead?

References to support your claims would give them some validity. I did not blame anyone for anything. I found information from what appear to be reasonable sources.

I'm not opposed to Yucca but realize from the information that it is not ready to go on many levels.

NRC: Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste
Transuranic wastes, also called “TRU,” therefore account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after a thousand years.
Radioactive isotopes will eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. However, while they are decaying, they emit radiation. Some isotopes decay in hours or even minutes, but others decay very slowly. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (that means that half the radioactivity of a given quantity of strontium-90, for example, will decay in 30 years). Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years.
High-level wastes are hazardous to humans and other life forms because of their high radiation levels that are capable of producing fatal doses during short periods of direct exposure. For example, ten years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 10,000 rem/hour, whereas a fatal whole-body dose for humans is about 500 rem (if received all at one time). Furthermore, if constituents of these high-level wastes were to get into ground water or rivers, they could enter into food chains. Although the dose produced through this indirect exposure is much smaller than a direct exposure dose, there is a greater potential for a larger population to be exposed.

Radiation | Nuclear Radiation | Ionizing Radiation | Health Effects

Coffee and granite?

Loren

 

[Pilot]

Remember plutonium and uranium are very heavy, so the total volume of the stuff the industry has created isn't very large:

"Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 71,780 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep." Or another way, a cube about 98 feet on each side. http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

The tonnage sounds scary, but the volume isn't much.

Wind and solar on a nationwide scale are just not practical. Wind is unreliable--we were in one of the best wind power areas, the Columbia River Gorge on Saturday, and there was no wind. Solar and wind require millions of acres, much of which would have environmental problems. A couple decades back a solar project in SoCal had to deal with the desert tortoise. For timber sales we had to deal with numerous threatened or endangered plants as well as the spotted owl. The owl has shut down timber management on much of California, Oregon and Washington, among the best timber producing areas in the world, and for much of that it was politics at work, not real science--I know, I was there.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Friends of the Earth are not objective organizations, they are environmental groups with biases just like industry. If you don't trust industry you shouldn't trust environmental groups either, they both tilt and spin to support their own objectives.

 

[buickanddeere]

References to support your claims would give them some validity. I did not blame anyone for anything. I found information from what appear to be reasonable sources.

I'm not opposed to Yucca but realize from the information that it is not ready to go on many levels.

NRC: Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste
Transuranic wastes, also called “TRU,” therefore account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after a thousand years.
Radioactive isotopes will eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. However, while they are decaying, they emit radiation. Some isotopes decay in hours or even minutes, but others decay very slowly. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (that means that half the radioactivity of a given quantity of strontium-90, for example, will decay in 30 years). Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years.
High-level wastes are hazardous to humans and other life forms because of their high radiation levels that are capable of producing fatal doses during short periods of direct exposure. For example, ten years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 10,000 rem/hour, whereas a fatal whole-body dose for humans is about 500 rem (if received all at one time). Furthermore, if constituents of these high-level wastes were to get into ground water or rivers, they could enter into food chains. Although the dose produced through this indirect exposure is much smaller than a direct exposure dose, there is a greater potential for a larger population to be exposed.

Radiation | Nuclear Radiation | Ionizing Radiation | Health Effects

Coffee and granite?

Loren

I work with the stuff. Don't waste my time with your fear mongering. You are scared of something you don't understand.
How radioactive after 250-500yrs?
How radioactive is a banana.