----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:55 AM Subject: SCOUTED: nuclear waste storage in Nevada
> It sounds like public opinion is overwhelmingly against the Yucca > mountain nuclear waste storage site. But is it informed public opinion, > or just worried ignorance? The nuclear waste has to go somewhere. Has > anyone seen any articles with some science references in them? For > instance, the claim cited in the article that it is impossible to > prevent leaching into the groundwater, is there any truth to that? Well, getting good new references on this has become more difficult after 9-11. I have seen official sites that have had the information pulled. So my apologies in advance for doing this from memory. This, BTW, is an example of a paragraph question that really needs a 50kbyte response. I'll cut it short, because of limited time on my part as well as list rules. This question is posed explicitly, so I believe Eric will appreciate a longish answer. Sometimes people present me with such a question in the form of a statement, with a short question that needs a long answer being viewed by me in the statement. This is why I often answer short posts with long ones, because I cannot see an easy way to write a short answer. (Yes, with days of polishing, I would be able to give a shorter answer, but I reserve that for published papers with page limits). Anyways, I think that there are three separate realities that must be considered when looking at the question of nuclear waste disposal. The first is the political reality. Any disposal solution must be one that can actually pass the House and Senate. Thus, the best technological solution may not be implemented. The second is the technical reality: what risks there are and how one can minimize those risks. The third is the context of choices that we actually have: what are the risks inherent in alternatives to nuclear energy. Politics was listed first because, IMHO, politics came first in determining the ideal site. In particular two types of politics: NIMBY politics, and the political acceptability of some risks but not other risks. For reasons that I associate with the reasonable fear of nuclear war, people are unwilling to take any risk from dying from radiation, while not being too worried about dying in car accidents, for example..or about the biohazards inherent in disposable diapers in land fills. So, nuclear power and nuclear waste need to have safety established to a far greater degree than other parts of the economy. Also, its much more politically acceptable for a coal miner to take greater risks than a yuppie to take lesser risks. That's the NIMBY part of the politics. Things like sewage plants and refineries are needed by society, but its much nicer if they are over there than if they are right here. Every state which had a good site for disposal fought their state being considered as the disposal site for the nation. Local politicians would find it much easier to get reelected standing on the fact that they made sure someone else took the risk than explaining why the risk was acceptable. There was no need to antagonize voters when there were 49 other states that clearly had better sites. So, the choice of the Nevada site represented politics as much as science. Personally, I think the best possible site would be in the middle of a massive salt dome: say down a salt mine. I know that there are some mines that are a mile deep. I cannot imagine how waste could make it out of such a mine into the formation. But, those sites were politically risky; which, alas, is more important that real risks. So, we have the Nevada site. There are indeed advantages to this site. For one, there is significant separation between this site and the groundwater: 1000 feet. For another, the site is now dry and has been for a while. Yes, there has been, in geological time, times when its been flooded. But, the odds are very strong that the site will remain dry. There has been some indication that, if it did get wet, if the containers did corrode, then some radiation could get to the aquifer 1000 feet away. That is the only basis of distress that is, IMHO, based on facts. The data that supports this is the migration of radiation from underground nuclear bomb tests. But, we have to remember that radiation is extremely easy to detect. Even radiation levels that are far below the level observed in the human body can be detected above a far higher background, if the source of the radiation is known. For example, using a high resolution detector, a source that has 1 decay per second could be seen above the background from a source that has 100,000 decays per second if the first source is at 200 kev and the second at 662. Yes, we want this to last thousands of years, but after a few hundred, the radiation level is little above the levels of the ore that exists in the earth anyways. If we use reasonable technology in sealing the barrels, I see little reason to worry. One aside here is how little waste we are talking about. After roughly 30 years of providing roughly 20% of the electricity of the US, we are still talking about less than 300 cubic meters of waste. That means, with a roughly 20 billion dollar budget for containing the waste, we can talk about 70 million dollars for each cubic meter. Having said that, I have no idea why the barrels use stainless steel. I'd use MP35N. That stuff has corrosion properties that are a wonder to behold. Its used elsewhere in the radiation industry. Maybe it is actually used here. If so, one should be able to float the barrels in salt water and have no measurable corrosion in years. Which brings up the final point. If we fall back in technology to the point where we cannot maintain this facility at all, then we will be facing much bigger risks. One aquifer with a slight increase in radiation will be the least of our worries. Finally, lets consider the alternatives for the next 100 years. The real alternatives are natural gas, oil, and coal. We can argue why alternative energy sources don't work, but the fact of the matter is that they cannot be counted on. Its my strong opinion that they don't work because they require technologies that are very difficult to mass produces at reasonable expense. I've given long arguments on this in the past, and will probably be likely to do so again if temped with a rebuttal. :-) The reality is that coal miners are dying to provide us energy and we don't worry much about their safety. Having been down a mine twice, and seeing how dangerous it is, I'm leaning to the view that we don't worry because of the kinda folks that go down the mine. My consolation is that I'm working on something that should improve safety. Dan M.
