How the Dems killed Yucca, and the incompetence of Jaczko

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MissingYou

Junior Member
Feb 9, 2011
10
0
0
So let me get this straight, you so called state rightists want the Federal government to force the state of Nevada to house nuclear waste it doesn't want in its backyard?
If the state initially agreed to have it there, then there should be consequences for retracting that. If they never agreed to have it there in the first place, then they shouldn't be forced by the fed. gov't to put it there.

From reading the article, it sounds like Nevada agreed to have it there and now they don't want it there. If I am wrong, then I stand corrected.
The state never agreed for the facility; The Feds went and built on Federal land.
It was forced down their throats
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,781
6,186
126
So resident rightwingers who cried out over Kelo want the Federal government to use its eminent domain powers over states to force a nuclear dump site onto a state that does not want it, for the benefit of privately owned nuclear energy generators. That is just precious.
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you are right Jacko, Philadelphia, PA would be a great place for a Nuclear dump facility. Think of all that slum clearance the Feds would provide the State of PA. We can relocate the displaced population to Nevada. And since PA has at least 4 nuke plants, look at all those savings in transport costs.

Ah, but I admitted my mistake. The nuclear waste site was forced on Nevada by saying it was federal land. Either way, if I knew there would be a nuke waste site being placed in an area, I wouldn't move there. Where did I say that it was being placed brand new, unannounced to existing residents? That's right, I didn't. But you being you, take something that I said that you don't agree with and twist it like the retard you are.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,781
6,186
126
Then I agree with SenseAmp. The state shouldn't be forced to put it there...even if it is federal land.

I think the Federal government should tax nuclear energy for the disposal costs, and give that money to Nevada in exchange for storing nuclear waste in the state. Simply cramming down a nuclear waste site down Nevada's throat for the benefit of nuclear energy industry is the problem.
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
I think the Federal government should tax nuclear energy for the disposal costs, and give that money to Nevada in exchange for storing nuclear waste in the state. Simply cramming down a nuclear waste site down Nevada's throat for the benefit of nuclear energy industry is the problem.

If Nevada wants the money to store it, fine. If they still don't want it stored there, that is their prerogative and the federal gov't shouldn't be able to force it upon them.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,513
24
76
So let me get this straight, you so called state rightists want the Federal government to force the state of Nevada to house nuclear waste it doesn't want in its backyard?

What about just honoring the deal originally made?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,781
6,186
126
Federal jurisdiction supercedes state jurisdiction. The safe storage of spent fuel is something of a national security issue, so it's definitely federal jurisdiction.

And Nevada gets to exercise it's political power in federal decisions. Looks like it was sufficient to kill Yucca.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Sadly, nuclear energy is dead. The public is now against nuclear power after the recent Japanese disaster, despite the fact it was a ~40 year old design and was hit in one of the worst ways imaginable.

The Germans are now so terrified of nuclear energy that they are planning to be 100% nuclear free by 2022:

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/02/germany-ditch-nuclear-power

But, nuclear was a hugely expensive option, guess the future is coal and natural gas.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2150687

Unfortunately we're just going to continue using the caveman technology of burning stuff.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
I think in 50,000 years... human civilization will have either destroyed itself, or advanced so far as to solve the problem. Let's face it, no one needs to care what the mountain will look like a million years from now. If we're not flying into space by then - there's not much left but to accept our fate.

Excellent point.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,513
24
76
Was Yucca not isolated or remote enough a destination?

I think in 50,000 years... human civilization will have either destroyed itself, or advanced so far as to solve the problem. Let's face it, no one needs to care what the mountain will look like a million years from now. If we're not flying into space by then - there's not much left but to accept our fate.

More to the point, why would Yucca need to be a final storage for this, if thousands of years from now we deem it unacceptable? It could be packed up and relocated after such findings, no?

How long until the technology exists that makes it feasible to simply shoot the waste at the sun? 200 years? 500 years? Once we have an energy source other than a barely contained explosion to launch a payload into space, I don't think this idea is too far off the beaten path.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
So let me get this straight, you so called state rightists want the Federal government to force the state of Nevada to house nuclear waste it doesn't want in its backyard?

This is built on Federal land. Nevada granted the DOE permits to get as far as they have.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
I think most conservatives think something as important as nuclear waste disposal should be a federal issue. Just like the military. This is exactly the type of thing the Feds should be handling.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
How long until the technology exists that makes it feasible to simply shoot the waste at the sun? 200 years? 500 years? Once we have an energy source other than a barely contained explosion to launch a payload into space, I don't think this idea is too far off the beaten path.

The saddest part is that this should be a non-issue and we should be reprocessing the spent fuel. We should opt out of or amend any non-proliferation treaties that prohibit us from doing this, as they aren't accomplishing much when we have all of this waste still sitting around. Terrorists can still do some nasty things with it if they get their hands on it, and state actors don't seem to give a shit about NPTs.

Trying to bury the waste or launch it into the sun is so damn inefficient.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
States with nuclear reactors are perfectly welcome to dump their waste in their own states, thank you very much.

That is what they are currently doing except they keep it on site right next to the big ass nuclear power plants (much like in Japan). So IF the worst possible thing happens at that site it is far more likely to affect neighboring states then it would had the waste been stored elsewhere.

Also, not sure if anyone has told you or not, rivers and wind don't exactly respect state lines. Just sayin.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Ok look a Yucca mountain, basically a big hollowed out tunnel leading deep within.

In 50,000 years, its almost certain that that part of Nevada will experience at least one big earthquake, and in tunnels, such shocks cause parts of the ceiling to collapse. So we have some 50 ton hunk of the ceiling coming down, falling onto one or more supposedly indestructible casks. Get a clue, there is nothing that can resist such a rock fall. And the bigger the passage, the weaker it is.

In my younger days I used to explore caves, and it was common to find 150 ton boulders that had fallen from the ceiling.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Ok look a Yucca mountain, basically a big hollowed out tunnel leading deep within.

In 50,000 years, its almost certain that that part of Nevada will experience at least one big earthquake, and in tunnels, such shocks cause parts of the ceiling to collapse. So we have some 50 ton hunk of the ceiling coming down, falling onto one or more supposedly indestructible casks. Get a clue, there is nothing that can resist such a rock fall. And the bigger the passage, the weaker it is.

In my younger days I used to explore caves, and it was common to find 150 ton boulders that had fallen from the ceiling.

So the better idea is to leave them piled up next to the reactors?
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
That is what they are currently doing except they keep it on site right next to the big ass nuclear power plants (much like in Japan). So IF the worst possible thing happens at that site it is far more likely to affect neighboring states then it would had the waste been stored elsewhere.

Also, not sure if anyone has told you or not, rivers and wind don't exactly respect state lines. Just sayin.
I just wanted to clarify here that there were no issues with dry-cask storage at Fukushima.

However, it is true that we keep more SNF in the SFPs here in America since we have less incentive to move them to dry-cask storage.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
aka1nas only shows his ignorance by saying, "The saddest part is that this should be a non-issue and we should be reprocessing the spent fuel."

Wrong wrong and wrong, with all those neutrons, protons , and electrons flying free in conventional U235 fuel rods, we breed all kinds of other radioactive elements not present before. Including plutonium so useful for new bombs. We can minimize what we bred depending on reactor design, but chemical reprocessing does nothing to reduce the radioactivity.

We can even make valuable stuff like Gold and Palladium, just the stuff you would like to wear on a ring, but wait, some of it is radioactive and your finger will get bone cancer. Cheer up, in 50,000 years, it will be far safer, as most of the radioactive gold will have decayed to something like lead.
 
Last edited:

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
aka1nas only shows his ignorance by saying, "The saddest part is that this should be a non-issue and we should be reprocessing the spent fuel."

Wrong wrong and wrong, with all those neutrons, protons , and electrons flying free in conventional U235 fuel rods, we breed all kinds of other radioactive elements not present before. Including plutonium so useful for new bombs. We can minimize what we bred depending on reactor design, but chemical reprocessing does nothing to reduce the radioactivity.

We can even make valuable stuff like Gold and Palladium, just the stuff you would like to wear on a ring, but wait, some of it is radioactive and your finger will get bone cancer. Cheer up, in 50,000 years, it will be far safer, as most of the radioactive gold will have decayed to something like lead.
What.

First of all, no protons are flying around. Second, breeding is the wrong term for what's happening. For the most part, other radioactive elements are created when its parent nuclide decays, NOT when a decayed neutron activates another nuclide (I am ONLY talking about in spent fuel).

For the most part, the plutonium is created during power operation, not after. And it's nowhere near weapons grade plutonium, not that I'm saying it's not important to control it.

Reprocessing concentrates the radioactivity and reduces its footprint. However, reprocessing isn't exactly economically viable right now and would require further incentive (or law, I guess). But that's another discussion.