Nuclear Waste Disposal At Yucca Mountain: Right or Wrong?
As the United States' nuclear waste buildup becomes larger, the need for a 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.
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 t...
... middle of paper ...
...orage 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
U.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.
However, utilizing nuclear power has several implications. One of the most severe is that nuclear technology produces a great amount of toxic waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years. Thus, the waste must be disposed of in a safe manner so to avoid the contamination of future generations.
One of the most talked about opposition toward nuclear fission is the radioactive waste it produces. A radioactive waste is what is left behind after using a reactor to make electricity. There are two levels of waste, low and high, but both are regulated by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. High level waste is made up of fuel that’s been used directly in the reactor that is highly radioactive but can still be disposed. Low level waste is the contaminated items that have been exposed to radiation. The nuclear wastes are then stored in a safe and secure location with different types of methods such as wet storage, dry storage, and away from reactor storage. Wet storage is the main method of disposing the waste because it is the
In order to find the benefits and hazards of mountaintop removal mining in West Virginia, I used the various resources and gathered information from both sides of the questions posed, including economical benefits such as earnings, and environmental hazards such as ongoing experiments to clean up acid mine drainage. And some opinions written and expressed in newspaper articles and magazines.
For a project with such a high capital and potential to cause adverse effects to the human and biophysical environments, the lifespan of thirty-one years proposed for this project is, in my opinion, inadequate to compensate for its degradation of the environment. Also, if this project is executed, Canada’s molybdenum supply will be depleted by 313 million tonnes in only thirty-one years. This is problematic because molybdenum, a non-renewable resource required for construction of turbines, super magnet and reactor motor will be in short supply for the future.
In addition to the potential dangers of accidents in generating stations, nuclear waste is a continuing problem that is growing exponentially. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for about 600 years and disposing these wastes or storing them is an immense problem. Everyone wants the energy generated by power plants, but no one wants to take responsibility for the waste. Thus far, it is stored deep in the earth, but these storage areas are potentially dangerous and will eventually run out. Some have suggested sending the waste into space, but no one is sure of the repercussions.
1. What other information would you like to have before you make a decision about whether nuclear waste should be stored in Yucca Mountain?
(Action): If we don’t do our part to stop the expansion of nuclear power plants, the future of our planet will be bleaker. Every year, thousands of more pounds of nuclear waste will be buried underground and the damage to our environment increases. There are more efficient energy sources other than nuclear power and we must do our part today to prevent a catastrophic future for our children. The dangers that nuclear power plants pose for the United States are very real. There are many alternative renewable sources of energy available to us such as wind and solar power, which provide a much safer and efficient alternative to nuclear power. You alone have the power to speak up and act against the expansion of this dangerous energy. The future of our environment’s safety and our nation’s energy supply lies in your hands.
Landfill is the most frequent waste disposal method all around the world. The present of landfill is recognised as being an important in this days as well as future, especially in low and middle income countries since it is the easiest way to build. Generally, there is two types of landfill can be classified, dry-tomb and bioreactor.
About 31 or more people had died from the tragic event in 1986 in Chernobyl, Russia from the accident itself or from thyroid cancer that developed after the incident later on down the road chernobyl was a horrific event and lead to more deaths even after the fact.Another nuclear related accident was when the TMI power planted almost melted down,it showed us that a lot can happen from one small problem such as a faulty pressure valve can over heat the reactor and this could cause a plant to meltdown.A problem we face everyday still is nuclear waste, we wonder where we can put it that allows the population to still be safe.The U.S. is doing a latter approach for nuclear waste and the location chosen for this is Yucca Mountain in Nevada. They feel waste is to dangerous to just leave it.A good thing about power plants is that they are safer than other methods in the working field.Nuclear power is useful but with the radiation given off or if the power plant exploded or something along those lines the radiation is stronger and more powerful and can spread across a location and kill many. Nuclear power is also safer having less deaths on the job compared to other generating sources known as oil refiners or other fossil fuel jobs.
There are many different types of radioactive waste, but the two major types are “low-level waste” and “high-level waste” (“Radioactive Waste Management”). There are a few different ways that we can store these wastes depending on what level they are. The low-level waste mainly comes from medical facilities or some type of industry (“Radioactive Waste Management”). In order to dispose of the low level wastes, they are usually placed in a radioactive waste material storage bin and stored at the hospital or site that they were produced at (“Radioactive Waste Production”). There are only a few sites that will actually take the low level wastes and store them in the United States. However, they will only take specific types of this low level waste and will only allow the wastes from certain permitted states (“Radioactive Waste Production”). The low-level wastes can also be disposed of by being placed ...
Georgia wants to have enough water to continue growing. The problem is that Atlanta is not in a water-rich area of the state, and it sprawls across the tops of multiple river systems that drain into the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (Tri-State Water War). Alabama is concerned with the fact that this may limit that its own use of water for power generation, municipal supply, fisheries, and other uses. Florida wants enough freshwater to reach the Apalachicola Bay to sustain its multi-million dollar shellfish industry, which is under severe ecological stress resulting from low river flows and saltwater intrusion (Tri-State Water
Currently, the figures are a bit more gentle on the United States’ annual budget but still astronomical in its own right. Annually, the United States spends at least $33 billion on nuclear weapons and weapon-related activities, which is equivalent to about 13 percent of all military spending. Of this $33 billion, $8 billion is spent annually on nuclear waste management, environmental remediation, weapons dismantling, and disposition activities. The majo...
The article “Nuclear Waste” is an interesting perspective from Richard Muller. Muller is a very credited author and he speaks his mind about the situation where people are trying to figure out how to deal with nuclear waste around the U.S. There are many proposed ideas but Muller has a very simple and straight forward idea that he believes is the ideal decision. The essay he wrote can be interpreted in different ways but his motive for writing is very clear. Muller’s background is quite impressive because he is highly credited. When reading Muller’s essay, you notice points that supports his argument and truth about the situation around nuclear power. He brings his outlook on the situation to the audience and conveys that viewpoint convincingly.
Currently the demand for water is exceeding the supply and it will continue to arise in the future. The population is increasing rapidly and most of that population is located at the drier, southern part of the state
...far into the future as possible until it becomes a burden to the current generation and that any perceived benefits gained by those future generations cannot be measure. With that in mind, burying the nuclear waste in Yucca mountain is simply too risky given natural condition, which is why the aboveground storage and passing on to future generations method is best suited for the overall benefit of mankind and the enviroment. This can only hold true if each generation commits to not only contributing towards the safe containment of the radioactive waste, but also encourages the next generation to do the same. Actions taken today with good intentions for the future can still yield negative results in that future. But, with this method, small incremental improvements can be taken over time and not burden one generation with the welfare of all generations after it.