Nuclear Waste Disposal At Yucca Mountain: Right or Wrong? As the United States’ nuclear waste buildup becomes larger, the need fora permanent storage facility becomes more urgent. One proposed site is in the Yucca Mountains of Nevada. This makes many Nevadans uneasy, as visions of three-legged babies and phosphorescent people come to mind. This is an unfounded worry, as many reasons prove.
In fact, the Yucca Mountains provide an ideal site for a permanent underground nuclear waste facility in the U. S. While the Yucca Mountains are the best site we have found as of yet, this procedure will cost a huge amount of taxpayer dollars. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates the total cost of its high-level waste management program at $25-35 billion.
Completing the scientific investigation and licensing of the Yucca Mountain site is expected to cost $6-7 billion alone. At the end of 1993, total nuclear waste fund expenditures through the end of the year were nearly 3. 7 billion. Very little of this money comes from individual investors. If a retrievable facility (one where the casks of spent fuel can be retrieved later) is built, this will be a good deal more. Other disposal types, such as sub-seabed and space disposal may prove to be cheaper at a later time.
The Essay on Yucca Mountain Waste Nuclear People
... to keep Yucca Mountain free of nuclear waste, the Shoshone hit a setback on February 15 th when President Bush designated the Yucca Mountain site for building ... picking a remote location for this storage facility, so they choose the area where Nuclear Bombs were tested during the Cold War, ...
This is a cause for concern, but there are a greater amount of reasons to further and eventually finish the Yucca Mountain Project. One is the desert climate naturally occurring in the western United States. The weather is dry and warm and their are very few natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Also, this part of the nation has a lower water table than the rest of the country. This reduces the risk of water contamination in case of a breach.
This is only one safety cushion that the proposed site provides. There are several more. All of these factors add up to a relatively stable environment. But will it be stable enough? If a permanent site is constructed, it will have to remain stable for 10, 000 years. This is a very long time, considering the United States has only existed for a little over 200. During this period, if a breach occurs, the western United States’ water supply could become contaminated, and cost the federal government even more to clean.
The question is whether or not the United States want to spend money now or later. The safety of highly dangerous materials is a matter of national security. If a breach were to occur and contaminate the western section of America, it would before devastating than a nuclear bomb. That is why the Yucca Mountains are being speculatively chosen for this purpose.
Throughout the United States, no better area has been found. Safety of this hazardous material is not only crucial in it’s final resting place. Security en route to the site is also of utmost importance. Ift his site is chosen, a safe transportation method will be needed to move the radioactive materials to the Yucca mountains. Vehicles, that will only be used once, will have to be custom built for safety and security, as will containers for the spent fuel rods.
This would also be, however unlikely, a prime target for a terrorist attack. There would be no way to hide a bio hazard convoy, so extra security measures must be taken. All of these measures add up to extra costs, obviously. And as the nation waits, the costs multiply.
But expenses are second only to safety of the facility and speed in which it is constructed. At the present moment, all of the United State’s nuclear waste is held in above-ground pools and airtight casks, inside the country’s many commercial power plants. This is all right for now, but how much longer will there be enough space to hold thousands of metric tons of radioactive materials? And the longer these materials sit above ground, the greater the odds of a catastrophe. These hazardous materials must be placed and stored in a stable environment soon, where the risk is significantly lower. While these methods may prove better and cheaper in the future, we need a place to put the huge accumulated amount of spent fuel rods and radioactive materials. Subterranean storage is the most viable method that technology will allow.
The Essay on Rocky Mountains Plains Rock Lava
Mount St. Helens, How It Was Formed, Plains, Pleat us, And Three Different Types Of Mountains Mount St. Helens stands on eroded remains of an earlier volcano active between 2, 500 and 40, 000 years ago. The upper part of the cone was built around 400 years ago. Mount St. Helens is composed of lava flows and fragmented material consisting of debris. A cross-section would show alternating layers of ...
The aforementioned Yucca mountains provide all the desirable features for this method. The mountains were formed by a volcanic eruption and the rock surrounding the site is a type called volcanic tuff. It is a very stable kind of rock, and often encases salt beds, which are ideal for nuclear containment. These beds are virtually waterproof, so water will not seep down in the groundwater residing beneath the storage structure.
Also, fractures in the salt are self-sealing, which will stop radiation for simply floating up to the surface through pores, cracks, or faults in the rock. This type of host rock (the rock that surrounds the site) will give the site both a man-made and natural protection. But perhaps the most beneficial protection is the remoteness of the location of the site. Located in Nevada, which has a very low population density (only 0-2 people per square mile ) the risk of humans accidentally tampering with the repository is very low.
Also to be noted is that there will be no construction or utility digging. Nevadans will see to it that the site stays untouched. All points taken, the Yucca Mountains are currently the best spot to store the country’s ever growing buildup of nuclear waste. Due to it’s remote location, secure land formations, and low water table, this area provides an ideal and secure spot for the huge amount of potentially harmful material. The. S.
is in dire need of a permanent nuclear waste disposal site, and this is the best option right now. The usual dawdle of the federal government will only act against us in this matter.
The Essay on Pros and Cons of Storing Nuclear Waste
With the imminent license renewal of the majority of US nuclear power plants and the insistence of the Bush administration to build additional plants, the need for long-term storage of nuclear waste is greater than ever. Current estimates have the nation’s 103 nuclear reactors producing 84,000 metric tons of waste by 2035 (Hansen, 2001). With the current containers either close to or ...
