Yucca mountain was once an anticipated site to store high level long term radioactive waste. It was closed down and abandon as a usable site from two reasons, one political and one empirical scientific evidence. The political was because Nevada didn't want the waste to be held in there state; however, Nevada has done nothing to clean up it current mess back from the Manhattan Project. Yucca mountain is 10 miles away for a total of 16 people and will not effect anyone besides the commotion Nevada would get to keep the waste. The second of the two problems is that the cavern that they have dug in the mountain side isn't completely water tight with a total of 1*10^-9 % of the water that falls on Yucca Mountain can get in or out. (Yucca) News flash to reality nothing is 100% besides death. over time anything we try to build will fall apart over time and degrade in the next million years. Nature has given us a perfect spot to dispose of our nuclear waste yet we rejected it. The reason Yucca Mountain needed to be water tight was to have it not pollute the water table yet current temporary storage are already leaking at this very moment.(Spent) You will never hear about them nor the millions of barrels of toxins, sewage and other crap that pollutes our water.
Thing is storage isn't even the best option to dispose of our spent fuel waste. Reprocessing reduces the long term long term high level radiation by nearly 95 % to just long lived fission products. (Spent) Theses can easily be stored on site and will allow all the fuel to be used and expand the fuel supply of Uranium and Plutonium. this is a cheaper easier and more environmentally friendly way to deal with waste. Theses products will decay faster than the spent fuel and will be low level in a shorter time. (Fuel) This will allow us to be able to deal with the waste and not have it site there for millions of years. (Reprocessing)
"Nuclear Fuel." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel>.
"Nuclear Reprocessing." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing>.
"Nuclear Power in France." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France>.
"Spent Nuclear Fuel." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel>.
"YouTube - Radioactive Waste Disposal, High Level 1980." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1na6gUUpwvU>.
"Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository>.
This post is very well researched and thought out. You use your sources well and make a substantial rebuttal. I would work on the grammar in the sentences and the syntax between the sentences so that your logic is not derailed by the lesser points of grammar.
ReplyDeleteI will agree with you that it is totally problematic that we have nuclear waste at this very moment that is leaking into the ground and water table. That is an unexcusable turn of events. I do think, however, that we are missing the bigger picture, which is why even have nuclear energy in the first place? Yes it may be cleaner in the end than oil and coal, and more plentiful than wind or solar energy, but there are many problems associated with it: the dangers on nuclear meltdown, the dangers of using it in place of more eco-friendly alternatives, the dangers of rogue states acquiring the technology and using it for ill, and the danger of becoming too much like France. We need to be our own nation and make the future a prosperous one for green energy.
ReplyDelete