PDA

View Full Version : Geology of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository: Safe or Unsafe?



crescent
2015-Feb-12, 10:02 PM
So, the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository may be due for another round of interest:

The Next Keystone (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/the_next_keystone_with_the_pipeline_fight_losing_s team_the_battle_over_yucca.html)


But with the Keystone fight losing steam, another high-profile energy battle is bubbling back up: the decades-old debate over Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, the proposed site of a massive federal repository for America’s nuclear waste.

I once lived quite close to Yucca Mountain, about 15 years ago when it was all over the news. The tiny little communities closest to the site seemed very supportive of it (jobs), the folks not quite so close (in Las Vegas, Carson City, and Reno) seemed mostly opposed. I knew and worked with a number of geologists, they all seemed like smart, capable people.

The thing is, the geologists disagreed among themselves. Some thought that Yucca Mountain was safe as designed and intended, that the geology made the site as safe as practical. Other geologists I knew, who seemed equally qualified, thought the site was inherently unsafe.

I am no geologist, but some who post here are.

So in terms of geology: Is Yucca Mountain a safe place to put nuclear waste, or not?



(I am aware that the fuel could be reprocessed and reused in some current and few proposed types of reactors, but I mostly hoping to keep things focused on the geology of Yucca itself, as the Geology is the part of the debate that seems debatable on technical grounds beyond what I can judge for myself.)

jj_0001
2015-Feb-13, 05:45 PM
Well, how about we reprocess it instead, and get the energy out of the long-term radioisotopes? Put the short-term ones into Yucca Mtn, where they are gone in 200 years or so.

CJSF
2015-Feb-13, 06:14 PM
(I am aware that the fuel could be reprocessed and reused in some current and few proposed types of reactors, but I mostly hoping to keep things focused on the geology of Yucca itself, as the Geology is the part of the debate that seems debatable on technical grounds beyond what I can judge for myself.)


Well, how about we reprocess it instead, and get the energy out of the long-term radioisotopes? Put the short-term ones into Yucca Mtn, where they are gone in 200 years or so.

:confused:

CJSF

Ara Pacis
2015-Feb-14, 04:51 AM
I have a friend who just get out of the army, and while he had a geology B.S., he's going back to school to restudy geology with an emphasis in mining. He doesn't believe in global warming. Take from that what you will.

jj_0001
2015-Feb-14, 08:47 PM
Sorry, actually missed that, although it is the "right" answer.

Solfe
2015-Feb-14, 10:56 PM
Subscribe.

dgavin
2015-Feb-15, 04:47 AM
Well considering that Yucca Mountain is on the southern part of the great elliptical basin's rim, I'm going say it's unsafe. The entire rim is more seismically active then the Cascadia subduction zone.