[Kosh]

No waste in Yucca mountain

Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama won’t let nuclear waste be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, rejecting the project after 20 years of planning at a cost of at least $9 billion.

Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu “have been emphatic that nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain is not an option, period,” said department spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller. The federal budget plan Obama released today “clearly reflects that commitment,” she said.

“The new administration is starting the process of finding a better solution for management of our nuclear waste,” Mueller said in an e-mail today.

Obama’s decision leaves unresolved a long-term plan for nuclear waste, primarily from power plants, even as utility companies seek to build more reactors.

I really think this was a bad call. Thoughts?

[Hellstryker]

No waste in Yucca mountain

Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama won’t let nuclear waste be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, rejecting the project after 20 years of planning at a cost of at least $9 billion.

Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu “have been emphatic that nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain is not an option, period,” said department spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller. The federal budget plan Obama released today “clearly reflects that commitment,” she said.

“The new administration is starting the process of finding a better solution for management of our nuclear waste,” Mueller said in an e-mail today.

Obama’s decision leaves unresolved a long-term plan for nuclear waste, primarily from power plants, even as utility companies seek to build more reactors.

I really think this was a bad call. Thoughts?

Any better ideas on what to do with it? 

[Dilmah G]

Yeah exactly. Now what the hell do they do with it, eat it?

[BloodEagle]

I suppose we could sell it to terrorist groups. 

In all seriousness, he just lost the thin shred of hope that I had for him. 

[StarSlayer]

load it into rockets and send it into the sun

[Galemp]

Umm.

Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama won’t let nuclear waste be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, rejecting the project after 20 years of planning at a cost of at least $9 billion.

20 years of planning at a cost of at least $9 billion.

That's... that's kind of a big thing to just say 'no' to. Particularly if you don't have any alternatives lined up. Y'know, it's just the kind of thing you ought to... think about before jumping to a conclusion, y'know?

[Herra Tohtori]

Technically if there is an earth quake risk, it actually might be a sound decision, but only if there are significant groundwater deposits at the site. The biggest risk in deep geological storage are that the containers might be breached due to some event (crushed by some force of geological scale) and dissolve into water that would flow around them. But I don't really know if these risks truly apply to Yucca Mountain's location. To me, the decision does sound a bit strange, but at least it's the kind of that is easy to reverse later on (I doubt anyone is willing to waste money on dismantling all that has been prepared on the location).

Geologically, an ideal place for end placement/disposal location would be something like Canada, Australia or Scandinavia even (or some place in Russia - but the management issues with those guys would super seriously bite anyone in the arse, what with their book-keeping records and stuff) with essentially one stable block of bedrock, as far from any significant tension points as possible. Nevada is (if I recall US geography correctly) not too far from California and San Andreas, so there might be some validity to earthquake risk claims, but I just don't have enough information on that. Any geologists here with better knowledge of US geological structure? And as far as terrorist threats go, which is in the end easier to guard - dozens of temporary locations as the problem is discussed in committees indefinitely, or transportation to one site and guarding that spot?

Besides, if some terrorist organization wants to create a dirty bomb, they can have much easier time of getting the ingredients from Russia, they don't particularly need to go to USA to get the active materials for it, and moving the stuff through and from the Russian Federation would likely be successful with any decent planning... whereas moving the stuff from the theft site to the target area would be much more difficult in USA.

I would like to hear more about the reasons behind it, but as it is, it does sound more like caving to the demands popularized by the rabid "green" lobbyists, from what I can read from that article:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, hailed the decision in a statement on his Web site. “Make no mistake: this represents a significant and lasting victory in our battle to prevent Nevada from becoming the country’s toxic wasteland,” Reid said.

...excuse me, one radioactive waste disposal site is not physically capable of turning a whole friggin state into a toxic wasteland, or even radioactive wasteland. Not even in any kind of worst case scenario. The physical amount of waste are actually pretty low, and it's only really a danger if it's vaporized or blown into air as particles, or when it's dissolved into drinking water (or if someone is dumb enough to steal a high-active, used old strontium battery from a soviet lighthouse... in which case it's a danger mostly to themselves). And slippery slope doesn't really work here because it's not like they were designing to make a smooth layer of the waste over the state.

[chief1983]

Heh I thought this had something to do with TBP.

[Kosh]

To me, the decision does sound a bit strange, but at least it's the kind of that is easy to reverse later on (I doubt anyone is willing to waste money on dismantling all that has been prepared on the location).

Given that the environmentalists and nuclear scaremongers have been fighting this, it seems more like political pandering to me.

[Nuke]

****ing hippies

[Herra Tohtori]

Given that the environmentalists and nuclear scaremongers have been fighting this, it seems more like political pandering to me.

Well... I always did think Obama was a populist (though aren't all politicians to a degree or another) and the fact that it's easy for him to do so and still appear as a good guy doesn't diminish the fact that he's still a populist in the core.

I did say during the long election run multiple times that I don't trust either candidates longer than I could throw them, but that I still thought Obama a better choice over the two. Mainly because the Republican party and their candidate would have been more likely to mainly continue on the lines of Bush administration, and we all know how that went... but we'll never see how that would've gone down, and only the future will show how Obama administration can handle the massive swirling vortex of defecation that the country and the world is in.

Overall, matters like nuclear waste disposal are at the moment probably pretty low on priority anyway... although that doesn't mean the issue should be covered by a carpet, that stuff needs to go somewhere, and in the light of the fact (?) that he doesn't seem to have an option to suggest, it does sound a bit strange to simply say no go to a solution that has been prepared for years.

I would still like to give him a benefit of doubt, though, as I do not have any illusion of knowing all the facts regarding the matter (and I sincerely hope Obama does...).

Nevertheless I tend to think that Obama's decisions are probably a lot less affected by lobbyists and other powers that be than McCain's would have been... and by different factions than Bush administration was affected by. We'll just have to wait and see how they deal with things I suppose... It's not like we can judge Obama as a president just yet. Although with the information given, the decision does seem somewhat dubious as I already said.

[Kosh]

Mainly because the Republican party and their candidate would have been more likely to mainly continue on the lines of Bush administration, and we all know how that went... but we'll never see how that would've gone down, and only the future will show how Obama administration can handle the massive swirling vortex of defecation that the country and the world is in.

I'm honestly not sure it would have made any difference. From what I heard about the stimulus package, most of its provisions don't take effect until 2011, conveniently in time for the next election. If that wasn't enough it was loaded with so much pork for the lobbyists everyone in the world can have a christmas ham.

Overall, matters like nuclear waste disposal are at the moment probably pretty low on priority anyway...

Yeah but to simply ditch 20 years of planning, construction, and so many billions of dollars when the facility would have opened in less than 10 years anyway makes no sense.

[Fury]

Heh I thought this had something to do with TBP.

As much as TBP gained attention recently, it's not fair to confuse it with TPB. Which has happened a lot recently
(see, I can spell a lot correctly! )

[iamzack]

The Yucca Mountain thing has been having problems for a decade.

Wikipedia:

The Department of Energy was to begin accepting spent fuel at the Yucca Mountain Repository by January 31, 1998 but has yet to do so because of a series of delays due to legal challenges, concerns over how to transport nuclear waste to the facility, and political pressures resulting in underfunding of the construction.

Nevada ranks third in the nation for current seismic activity. Earthquake databases (the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network) provide current and historical earthquake information. Analysis of the available data in 1996 indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain. Reported underground nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada Test Site have been excluded from this count.

DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. Rises in the water table caused by seismic activity would be, at most, a few tens of meters and would not reach the repository. The fractured and faulted volcanic tuff that comprises Yucca Mountain reflects the occurrence of many earthquake-faulting and strong ground motion events during the last several million years, and the hydrological characteristics of the rock would not be changed significantly by seismic events that may occur in the next 10,000 years.

I'm leaning pretty strong towards the "Obama done made a mistake" side of things. Nevadans are all pissed off about storing nuclear waste when they don't have any plants themselves, but we do nuclear testing around yucca all the time, so whatever.

Obama should probably get some new advisors. I have a feeling he doesn't know a goddamn thing about the Yucca Mountain thing.

[lostllama]

I'll try and add to this discussion but I can't fully recall the relevant info I learned during my lectures on the subject of nuclear energy and waste...ugh and it wasn't that long ago either. Those were cool lectures. I'm not that knowledgeable about Nevada's geology, but isn't that area mostly a salt basin? Salt deposits indicate a lack of groundwater.

I remember learning about ideas on disposal involving drilling into the oceanic crust at subduction zones and leaving the waste there, so it eventually ends up in the upper mantle. Of course that has potential problems, not just with leakage into the ocean but also with what ends could end up erupting out of the volcanic arc on the other side.

[Inquisitor]

I was going to write this myself, but it appears that the same wiki article already did it for me:

The volcanic units have been tilted along fault lines, thus forming the current ridge line called Yucca Mountain. In addition to these faults, Yucca Mountain is criss-crossed by fractures, many of which formed when the volcanic units cooled. While the fractures are usually confined to individual layers of tuff, the faults extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 1,000 feet (300 m) below.

The volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain is appreciably fractured and movement of water through an aquifer below the waste repository is primarily through fractures.[36] Future water transport from the surface to waste containers is likely to be dominated by fractures. There is evidence that surface water has been transported through the 700 vertical feet of overburden to the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain in less than 50 years.

When welded tuff fractures, it basically turns into stratigraphic popcorn. A sandstone, or other sedimentary unit, may be naturally porous, but its usually pretty consistent, volcanic units like these tuffs are often all or nothing, and were originally selected because of their "all" characteristic of being natively a-porous. The problem is it doesn't stay in its native state in an active tectonic region. One big earthquake and pow, you might lose the water table. Pretty big risk. Burying this stuff sounded like a plausible idea 30 years ago, but I think you will be hard pressed to attend a GSA meeting and find that "most" geologists think its a good idea. Everyone wanted Yucca Mountain to work, and usually when everyone wants something, they turn a blind eye to problems with the plan.

Yucca Mountain has been a(n arguably) very expensive study in hydrodynamics, seismology and stratigraphy. We've learned a great deal. And some of the evidence points to potential catastrophe. Maybe preventing bad things isn't a bad investment...

Other ideas floated by researchers I have heard are: Bury it in salt formations, drop it in the Marianas (sp?) trench, or shoot it into the sun. Each has some unique, potentially catastrophic problems of their own.

The stuff is nasty, and nobody has a safe way to get rid of it (except build bombs with it, but that's stretching the "safe" definition). The disposal debate has been going on since there were reactors.

-edit-
Salt deposits actually don't contra-indicate groundwater, but salt in and of it itself is basically a big fluid, the geology and hydrology can get complex. But that can be another post if people really care about the science behind it.

FYI, I spent 1984-1995 as an academic studying high temperature geochemistry and structural geology and have done field work on similar/related volcanic units to the Yucca Mountain deposits. Credits available on request

That also means that my direct knowledge of it is aging to the point of being questionably useful.

[Inquisitor]

USGS still has some good resources:

Geologic cross section of the site




Pretty decent summary of the hydrology:
http://water.usgs.gov/ympb/hydrologic_studies.htm

This being the clearest representation:


The USGS seems to be maintaining a decent amount of material on the YMP, most of it seems unbiased and relatively easy to read for non-experts.

Of course if you want to get a little geeky:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024010/wrir024010.pdf

[BengalTiger]

Here's the place, eye alt. at just above 106 km (thanks to google earth):



The nearest city visible from space is Las Vegas, at over 120 km away.

The biggest man made crater is 45 clicks NE, and Area 51 is 67 km NE, just a few mountains from the crater.

[Nuke]

looking at the craters ne of there kinda gave me a woody

[Scotty]

Finally, debate research is good for something! 

The IFR (Intergral Fast Reactor).  Burns waste.  Proliferation proof.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor  (Because everyone wants a wiki)
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

Hmmm..... the other links on wiki don't work anymore.  Funny, I'll have to dig up what I got from those.