...a thought I had earlier today that debaters mentioned tonight. Even if we do reduce our reliance on nuclear energy, we have tons (literally) of spent fuels requiring disposal--that's if we reprocess all waste.
In my mind, Yucca is as good a solution as any. And as this article suggests, what we're doing now isn't working.
5 comments:
I particularly like the author's frequent use of the word "sloshing."
On a more serious note, despite my position during the debate last night, I think that if we can find place [a big IF] to put the used rods deep underground in concrete storage containers and they are monitored sufficiently, I see nuclear as our best bet. Though people usually have a weak stomach to the radiation issue, the radiation is actually not that strong when it comes in contact with wind, water and other particles--California should certainly relax with the iodine, but more generally, the effects of coal and natural gas on the environment long-term, I believe, are much more harmful to our future--unfortunately, the current nuclear partial-meltdown in Japan is scary.
Pick your poison basically
The problem is that no one wants a huge nuclear waste dump in their state. Yucca Mountain is never going to be a viable option because of the intense opposition in Nevada. Why would the people in any other state feel differently? In every poll I've seen, a large majority of people say they don't want a nuclear power plant built near their community. I doubt that opinion on a nuclear storage site would vary much. Also, space in these storage spaces is finite. You would need multiple states agreeing to take in nuclear waste in order to keep up with the amount being produced. Finally, these sites need to be built in places where there is very little water due to contamination worries. This rules out a lot of locations.
Everyone has a price. We just need to find it.
As to the finite size, Yucca as it exists now would be full by 2014 (including all of the back-storage at plants). It was designed to be expanded, though. The lifetime is so short because the project was designed decades ago.
Post a Comment