> Great, you regurgitated all the standard talking points. Have a pat on the head.
Again, I suggest you adjust your tone, as site rules are pretty clear.
> Except even if all of that were true (which it isn't)
[citation needed], as of course, I provided mine.
> As for Yucca Mountain, funny that the "genuinely tiny amount" of nuclear waste produced in the USA as of 2011.
You're going to have to provide some clarification there, like, all the nuclear waste generated in the history of nuclear power in the United States in the last hundred years? The GAO says the nation has produced 80,000 metric tons to this day. [1] This is in line with Yucca Mountain's capacity. Consider that was generated since 1958 when Shippingport opened.
The government believes that 2000T of waste are generated per year at this stage, meaning Yucca Mountain would be able to house 40 years of new waste. At one site.
Did the magnitude 7 earthquake near yucca mountain compromise the structural integrity of the proposed storage site? Because if not, then your point is moot. Which is what the DOE said. [2] And in fact when this article was written they said the tectonics of the region wouldn't yield an earthquake in excess of a magnitude 7. It's almost like they considered this, and planned for it.
Further, modern fast-neutron reactors and breeder reactors generate an order of magnitude less high level waste than classical designs. [3]
So do I take your lack of response to the key part to mean that you agree with me that nuclear waste is not, in fact
"less hazardous to work with" than solar waste? Because that was what my original comment was about.
> You're going to have to provide some clarification there, like, all the nuclear waste generated in the history of nuclear power in the United States in the last hundred years? The GAO says the nation has produced 80,000 metric tons to this day. [1] This is in line with Yucca Mountain's capacity.
> Consider that was generated since 1958 when Shippingport opened.
So? It still needs to go somewhere.
> The government believes that 2000T of waste are generated per year at this stage, meaning Yucca Mountain would be able to house 40 years of new waste.
Except it's already more than filled by existing waste. And except that's at the current level of nuclear power usage which people here are saying should be massively expanded.
> At one site.
Which is the only site the USA's 50 states have been able to agree to establish. Wait, no: the state that actually contains it has not agreed: https://ag.nv.gov/Hot_Topics/Issue/Yucca/
> Did the magnitude 7 earthquake near yucca mountain compromise the structural integrity of the proposed storage site? Because if not, then your point is moot.
That is not how you do risk assessment for a storage site for waste that will be hazardous for thousands of years, my dude.
> So do I take your lack of response to the key part to mean that you agree with me that nuclear waste is not, in fact "less hazardous to work with" than solar waste? Because that was what my original comment was about.
In some ways yes, in some ways no. The best part about nuclear waste is it's easy to detect, with a geiger counter and a dosimeter. That's not true of environmental contaiminants. In some ways its safer, in some ways it's not. It really depends how it's handled. After all, we can agree, you shouldn't be licking either. A few well placed geiger counters is all the alarm you need, but constant environmental testing and monitoring is needed when you're managing things like cadmium waste.
> So? It still needs to go somewhere.
The existing stash can stay where it is, the next 40 years can go into Yucca, which gives us 40 years to find new places to put it. Also, as I mentioned, fast breeders produce orders of magnitude less waste.
> Except it's already more than filled by existing waste. And except that's at the current level of nuclear power usage which people here are saying should be massively expanded.
Which is something we can do with fast breeders, without compromising storage.
> Wait, no: the state that actually contains it has not agreed:
We're talking about technical feasibility not nimbyism.
> That is not how you do risk assessment for a storage site for waste that will be hazardous for thousands of years, my dude.
Yes, it is. Have you read the risk assessment? It took years to complete, and if you are interested in anything other than a quick win on the internet in an inconsequential argument, I'd suggest looking at that instead of taking my word for it.
