Looks like we have a Comment on one of the Yucca posts earlier this month. He/she is a proponent of nuclear power and favors recycling spent fuel, but is not in favor of Yucca Mountain as a long-term storage site. Primary concerns are geological and ecological: Nevada is the third most earthquake-prone state and a disaster could result in contamination of the aquifer for the entire Las Vegas valley. Another concern is transportation: can we safely move all the waste here over our highways, railways, and waterways? Even if we can, our reader suggests that instead of burying the hot waste while it winds down over the next 40,000 years, we develop better recycling technology so storage is not needed - and so nuclear energy becomes a quasi-renewable resouce.
Whatever else, I agree with this statement: "I would love to read an unbiased report about storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain." The Heritage Foundation recently stated that "no scientific, safety, or technological reason" prevents using Yucca Mountain as a repository. Is this really true? What is the proposed solution to the earthquake/acquifer challenge? I'd sure like to see more data before making my final call on the storage issue. As for recycling all the waste, naturally this seems best. With all the billions of dollars to be made, surely there must be an interest in a privatized R&D effort?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment