[crazy_bd]

Originally Posted by lvoc

I would.

See Chernobyl. And what is a minor incident at Lone Mountain could easily contaminate for 10 or 15 miles around.

And the mere threat destroys property values.

Fukushima? How could a well planned and run nuclear power plant operation kill everything for 20 miles.
I think we would be much better off with nuclear storage at Yucca or better yet...someplace in the middle of Illinois.

Now for 5 billion a year? Maybe worth the risk...

You can't compare spent nuclear fuel storage with accidents at operational nuclear power plants. Spent nuclear fuel is called spent because it no longer has the ability to sustain a nuclear reaction. It is radioactive, and will be for a long time, but it doesn't have the ability to produce an uncontrolled reaction like what happened at the disasters at Chernobyl or Fukushima. As for those two situations, one was a terribly mishandled sequence of several human errors, the other from one of the worst recorded tsunamis+earthquake.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by crazy_bd

You can't compare spent nuclear fuel storage with accidents at operational nuclear power plants. Spent nuclear fuel is called spent because it no longer has the ability to sustain a nuclear reaction. It is radioactive, and will be for a long time, but it doesn't have the ability to produce an uncontrolled reaction like what happened at the disasters at Chernobyl or Fukushima. As for those two situations, one was a terribly mishandled sequence of several human errors, the other from one of the worst recorded tsunamis+earthquake.

Spent means it is not usable for economic power generation. Not that a chain reaction is impossible.

But of course a reaction is not actually required. Simply release enough pixie dust into the environment and you have a pretty good disaster.

And we now know the nuclear guys did not worse case plan for a tsunami don't we. What other planning have they blown?

I always liked the planning on Yucca because water could never penetrate the site. That was a very big selling point until it became clear water had penetrated the site. Then water penetration became a non-issue.

We are now back to the impenetrable cask defense. That was rejected earlier because it would indicate you could store nuclear waste almost anywhere. Now of course it means there is no actual advantage to Yucca other than it is in Nevada.

[winter-rabbit]

It all comes down to NIMBY.

Not in my backyard.

[SoHoVe]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Spent means it is not usable for economic power generation. Not that a chain reaction is impossible.

But of course a reaction is not actually required. Simply release enough pixie dust into the environment and you have a pretty good disaster.

And we now know the nuclear guys did not worse case plan for a tsunami don't we. What other planning have they blown?

I always liked the planning on Yucca because water could never penetrate the site. That was a very big selling point until it became clear water had penetrated the site. Then water penetration became a non-issue.

We are now back to the impenetrable cask defense. That was rejected earlier because it would indicate you could store nuclear waste almost anywhere. Now of course it means there is no actual advantage to Yucca other than it is in Nevada.

CORRECT!

I personally feel the states generating the waste should be responsible for it rather than dumping it on NV.

[bayview6]

Nevada needs to sell the Yucca storage depot for some big ticket items, like an annual tariff that would pay for schools,etc, and re-negotiate the Colorado River compact for an additional 100,000 acre ft of water per year.

[crazy_bd]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Spent means it is not usable for economic power generation. Not that a chain reaction is impossible.

But of course a reaction is not actually required. Simply release enough pixie dust into the environment and you have a pretty good disaster.

And we now know the nuclear guys did not worse case plan for a tsunami don't we. What other planning have they blown?

I always liked the planning on Yucca because water could never penetrate the site. That was a very big selling point until it became clear water had penetrated the site. Then water penetration became a non-issue.

We are now back to the impenetrable cask defense. That was rejected earlier because it would indicate you could store nuclear waste almost anywhere. Now of course it means there is no actual advantage to Yucca other than it is in Nevada.

Actually, spent fuel isn't able to sustain a chain reaction. The enrichment level is too low. But sure, we don't want to sprinkle it on the streets. I like the idea of safe containers/casks. Even if there's not much to do at this day and age besides letting it sit, but who knows in 100 years? Let's make it retrievable in case we figure out a way to take care of it later on.

Considering the number of nuclear disasters that have passed, I think the planning has improved quite a bit? Last 40 years there's Three mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima and Chernobyl was 1986. Fairly good track record.
As far as Yucca goes, it's got its benefits still, it's remote and it's - I would hope - easy to keep protected and safe?

[winter-rabbit]

That was awesome!!