Reid hails end of Yucca Mountain project

[kpete]

Source: The Hill


Reid hails end of Yucca Mountain project
By Jordan Fabian - 02/01/10 12:14 PM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday praised President Barack Obama's decision to strip funding for a potential nuclear waste facility in his home state.

Reid said on Twitter:

Great news for NV today. Pres. Obama's budget will eliminate all funding for Yucca Mt & will withdraw the license app for the dump.Great news for NV today.

Obama pledged to cease work on the project that many Nevada lawmakers oppose, on the campaign trail.

Reid, who faces a tough reelection effort, often uses his Twitter account to share news relevant to his Nevada constituents. Today's announcement certainly can't hurt him amongst Nevada voters.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/79033-reid-hails-end-of-yucca-mountain-project

[panzerfaust]

1. And how much was spent on this?

Long after reasonable concerns had been raised.

[theoldman]

2. So where is the new dump site?

[mbperrin]

3. Right here in west Texas, about 30 miles from me and sitting on top

of our water aquifer.

WCS even talked the folks of Andrews into passing a bond issue to loan to WCS at a low interest rate, plus they got the state of Texas to accept all liability connected with any leaks anytime in the future. Sweet deal for a Dallas billionaire, eh?

Just because it has made everything my grandparents, parents, I, my children, and my grandchildren have worked for here since 1922 worthless, well, what they hey? Let's hear it for that good old green nukular energy!!!!

[WriteDown]

23. Sounds like a much better spot...

:eyes:

[louis-t]

57. Ohhhhhh

(smacks head).

[clixtox]

74. I nominate "Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado Springs! N/T

[cowman]

4. Reid is

a fucking idiot. The dump site would have brought millions from the feds to my state of Nv along with the jobs and funding for more police and emergency services to the whole state. I am a LV firefighter but i live in a rural town about 60 miles NW of LV and i know the local fire dept. would have benefited greatly from the revenue generated. The site would have been in the county of NYE which is a very large county but sparcly populated. This is why Reid is going to be defeated this Nov. because he is perceived as being an asshole and out of touch with us folks here in NV

[meeshrox]

5. Either way, Yucca was a bad idea...

I will not dispute that Reid is an idiot, but...

I am a master's student studying volcanology with a prominent professor that has been working on hazard analysis with the Yucca project for over a decade. It is one of the worst siting ideas I have heard of...this is a location with some of the most recent volcanic activity in the southwest.

I am sympathetic to the funding and job issues in NV and around the country. This was simply a bad idea from its inception.

[wtmusic]

16. I guess 80,000 years can be considered recent

until we consider the alternative: storing nuclear waste in 120 different less secure sites across America, near waterways.

That's a worse idea.

[meeshrox]

49. Well, yes, 80,000 years is recent in geologic time...and...

Given the recurrence interval of eruptions on the Crater Flat is roughly that amount of time (do not take this as a prediction...volcanic eruptions of this type are even harder to forecast than even Mt. St. Helens-type would be).

Burying nuclear waste directly adjacent to an active volcanic field is not a good idea...

What matters is what the subsurface looks like...the magma at depth, the orientation and structure of faults, etc.

I'm not saying that those 120 different less secure sites are the best idea either...there should be no risk of nuclear waste leaking into, say, the Hudson? My main point is that Yucca was a terrible idea. The best thing to do is look at this scientifically, the government does not have a good track record in doing that: look at the INEEL in Idaho for example...waste buried in barrels in unlined ditches, leaking into one of the best and most productive aquifers in the country (but also an active volcanic field!) Scientific data and not politics should direct our decisions here...

[wtmusic]

53. Yucca Mountain is not even close to being 'actively' volcanic

and I would argue that it was a completely political decision to close Yucca Mountain: it bought Harry Reid's endorsement of Obama.

You do realize that global warming unchecked will make the planet unsurvivable before Yucca Mountain shows a tremor of volcanism?

[meeshrox]

60. Really? Really...

A "tremor of volcanism"? Do you understand that when an eruption occurs, an ash cloud is produced...even with basaltic eruptions! All of the other vents in this volcanic field had pyroclastic deposits and "violent Strombolian facies" (Valentine and Perry, 2007) associated with eruption. What do you think would happen if an ash cloud were to distribute radionuclides across the southwest desert? We do not know if or when an eruption would occur, but logic would dictate that we should not site a nuclear waste repository less than 10 km from an active volcanic field...

I am quoting my source from a peer-reviewed journal...I feel that I must do this not to be an asshole, but to show that the fight against global warming does not justify this kind of talk...

We are on the same side as far as global warming is concerned...find another argument to make.

And, please see my reply to another of your posts below...

[wtmusic]

63. You are arguing for leaving nuclear waste where it is now

and we both agree that the current system of nuclear waste storage is precarious.

How many decades will it be before another site is approved and built?

What are the chances that a volcanic eruption would occur, vs. some negligent fool at one of the 120 sites across the US releasing highly radioactive waste into a metropolitan waterway?

Is it possible that long before any seismic activity at Yucca, technology will have advanced to a point where the waste can be recycled (proposals underway already)?

Is it not conceivable that the Earth's climate will be unsurvivable in less than 1,000 years (300,000 deaths/year are currently attributed to GW; by 2050 1 in 10 species will be extinct) and that nuclear power is the best way to address GW?

These considerations, IMO, make it a no-brainer.

btw, can you provide any link that suggests Yucca is "actively" volcanic?

[meeshrox]

64. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here...

I agree that it's a shitty situation all around...I stated that from the beginning.
I agree that nuclear power is a viable option and consider it an alternative power source.
I agree that it will take decades to site another repository.
I agree that nuclear waste should be recycled properly to avoid having to bury it.
I agree that it may be years before we see a seismic event strong enough to disrupt the repository.
I agree that leaving it in the hands of a "negligent fool" is dangerous.

Nuclear power may be a good addition to the types of power generation, but it is not the best. I will admit it the most immediate and widespread (clean) source available (look at my home state, Florida, there are plenty of plants completing the permitting process), but we will have to discuss our definition of "best"...I think that is where our true conflict is.

I do have a question:
You say that 300,000 deaths/yr are attributed to global warming...does this include all species on earth or only humans? Please don't flame me, I care about Polar Bears, too!

Ok, so I know it will sound like I'm being a smart ass when I say this, but...links to peer-reviewed journals will cost you money to view, as it does me if my university's library is not subscribed...but here is something from a USGS publication: (free) http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-058/Ch_E.pdf.

The conclusion states:
"The observed suppression of earthquakes and of topographic relief around the area of Quaternary basaltic volcanism indicates stress conditions favorable for the intrusion of horizontal sheets or sills in the Crater Flat area."

There is literally a mountain of data precisely because of the repository siting; this conclusion means that even if an eruption does not happen, a pulse of magma into the crust beneath the facility would make the structure unsound. Or, an earthquake could do the job, too:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/special/California_Nevada.php

I'm trying to be as simple as possible, I know scientific jargon is annoying...please ask me questions!

[wtmusic]

66. 300,000 human deaths, uncountable others

especially in the oceans, due to increased acidity. And of course up the food chain.

Scientific jargon is not annoying to me at all. I may not understand all of it but the crux of the matter is this: what are the chances of seismological activity? I see that activity is possible, but we are weighing hypotheticals. If the chance was 50/50 of a disruption in the next 10 million years there shouldn't be any hesitation in planting nuke waste their for a few hundred years, after which (hopefully) we'll have a better idea.

[meeshrox]

69. Where did you get 10 million years?

First, thanks for clarifying that those are human deaths...I would like to turn it around and ask for your source as I do not know as much about these statistics as you. I do not want to just assume that these include starvation from drought, floods, etc. Also, "uncountable others" is simply trying to elicit an emotional response to a tragic but natural event. I know that the earth's oceans are increasing in acidity, but they have before. It is unfair to say that there are uncountable others (my example would be that there are billions of coral polyps, millions of fish, etc.) That detracts from the issue (again, please see my post below, reply #58). I am also concerned about the decrease in ocean salinity, the difference of which is what drives our ocean currents.

My entire point is that the chance of seismological or volcanic activity has been studied by many research scientists. The data show (gravity anomaly, seismic reflection, recurrence interval statistics, etc.) that there is a chance, enough of a chance that the recommendations by scientists have been that the repository should not the cited at Yucca. Still, since it was politicized and became a guaranteed source for funding, it continued. If the chance for disruption were minimal, I would agree that it would make a great temporary storage facility until we can learn to recycle the material.

BTW, my comment about jargon was not directed only at you, but others who may read this post. I was not talking down to you, in case that came to your mind. I try to be sensitive toward people not familiar with scientific terms and was inviting anyone to ask questions for clarification.

[wtmusic]

70. Some links

Feeling the heat: Climate change and biodiversity loss

http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html

Global Warming Causes 300,000 Deaths a Year, Says Kofi Annan thinktank

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/29

Not trying to elicit any emotional responses, but do you know that we are talking about millions of fish, or just guessing? What about plankton? If you know of any attempts to quantify individual numbers, then we can assume they are countable in a rudimentary sense, if not, not.

You say "recommendations by scientists have been that the repository should not be cited (sic) at Yucca." Which scientists?

"15 Years of Intensive Site Characterization Studies at Yucca Mountain
Between 1987 and 2002, DOE spent another $3.8 billion on scientific and technical studies of Yucca Mountain.10 With this money, the Department completed in 1997 a 5-mile tunnel through Yucca Mountain to function as an Exploratory Study Facility.11 In 1998, DOE completed a second 2-mile cross drift tunnel to facilitate additional experiments in the potential repository host rock.12 These tunnels, and the numerous niches and alcoves carved off of them, created within Yucca Mountain the world’s largest underground laboratory. From the surface, DOE drilled more than 180 boreholes deep into the geology of Yucca Mountain and its surrounding features.13 Independent scientists working for Nye County Nevada drilled additional exploratory holes into the geology and collaborated with DOE scientists on their findings. These efforts were further supplemented by numerous laboratory experiments and excavation of similar geologic features both nearby and at natural analogue sites around the world. Through this work, the geology of Yucca Mountain and its ability to safely contain radioactive wastes became very well understood. The figure below illustrates the extent of the exploration."
<>
"During this time, more than 2500 scientists representing not only DOE and its direct contractors, but also five National Laboratories, the US Geologic Survey, and dozens of US Universities worked on the project. They took the data collected from Yucca Mountain and related studies and compiled it into a comprehensive assessment of the repository’s predicted performance. As more data was collected, this performance assessment was continually refined. All this study and analysis was subjected to exhaustive critical peer review, most notably by the US Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) – a group of 11 distinguished scientists appointed to review DOE’s work and report its findings to Congress on a biannual basis as required by the NWPA. On many occasions, NWTRB’s critical input resulted in substantial improvement to the project. For example, it was their idea to drill the second tunnel."

Their conclusion?

"After over 20 years of research and billions of dollars of carefully planned and reviewed scientific field work, the Department has found that a repository at Yucca Mountain brings together the location, natural barriers, and design elements most likely to protect the health and safety of the public, including those Americans living in the immediate vicinity, now and long into the future."

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdf

All. About. Politics.

[meeshrox]

72. We finally agree!

All.About.Politics

The scientists I write of were apparently not in the group of 11 that you reference. These are scientific papers from the Journal of Geophysical Research, etc. written by professors with grants from NSF, etc.

I think that there are two different views from government researchers and university professors and we are pulling our sources from each. There is consensus from the papers I have read while studying volcanology and tectonics. There is a different view from the Senate's report. The DOE has many incentives to continue the project, although the data I have seen show the plan was not based on factors other than the geology of the immediate area (only the mountain itself).

My major professor has done extensive hazard analysis based on the volcanology and tectonics of Yucca and Crater Flat. His conclusions are based on his research and were added to the risk analysis for the entire project. I see no conclusions from the above Senate report except that the project is "most likely to protect the health and safety of the public." Very vague political garbage.

As for the guess about "millions of fish," I pulled that from the same place you pulled 10 million years...you can make a case for global warming without trying to guilt people into caring. People are not going to care about "million of fish" if that even is close to the actual number. The point is that the -choose number from thin air- animal life that will die is not a solid argument to get people to change their behavior.

Thank you for the climate change links...

[mbperrin]

65. Here's the site. Sitting right on top of my drinking water.

http://wcstexas.com/

Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS), a waste processing and disposal company, operates a fully permitted 1,338-
acre treatment, storage and disposal facility near
Andrews, Texas.

WCS offers innovative and cost effective solutions for the proper and safe management of radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and mixed waste. Core capabilities include:
• Treatment (including incubation of unique treatment
technologies, through partnerships or landlord relationships)
• Storage
• Repacking / Consolidation
• Decontamination and Free Release of Materials
• Disposal

[meeshrox]

67. I'm sorry to hear that...

It's not like the many governmental agencies that should be in control are actually helping with this...they have been given no power to prosecute polluters...and the agencies that permit these things many times do not have the legislative authority to deny permit applications.

Drinking water supplies are being polluted left and right...they will be a greater commodity than any other substance very soon. It's been happening in Florida, Arizona, California, etc. for decades.

[meeshrox]

62. I assume you are taking your definition of "active" to mean 10,000 years or less

Ok, I see your point on that...it is scientifically correct.

However, you must look at the recurrence interval for this volcanic field; you are being knit picky by saying that the field is not "actively" volcanic. The last several eruptive cycles were at 1.1 MY, 350 KY (thousand years), and 77 KY. We know that the mantle source is active and that faulting is very active.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izquierdista]

71. Nye county is a boil on the bum of NV

Meth has been more of a growth industry there than anything else. Maybe this is the first step in having a nuclear free Nevada and closing down the test site as well. (Which, having worked there, I think would be a good thing.)

[LeftHander]

6. scratch plan to open "Meltdown" Casino and Brothel on Yucca Mtn.

damn...all that money I could had providing hookers and free buffet to the mutants working at the mountain waste dump.

[jaksavage]

7. My friend worked on Yucca mtn

back in 1977, early planning and test drilling stage.
It will return as the best location to store the waste.

[cowman]

8. I worked

there as a Test Site FF in the mid 70's before i tested for LV and everyone said it was the best place to put that crap. I know there are concerns and i'm not dismissing them out of hand but there is a lot of of scare tactics used by certain entities that are just not true

[TankLV]

11. It is NOT even a "good" site - it's ALWAYS had problems

and ALL the "studies" that have tried to support it have been proven to pure unadulterated BULLSHIT!!!

Full of "lies" and BAD SCIENCE!!!

[TankLV]

13. No it won't - it's a HORRIBLE site - the ground water is already being CONTAMINATED

by the leaks that the "studies" said WOULD NOT HAPPEN!

[bottomofthehill]

9. The waste exists, the question is where will it be stored.

Currently it is scattered all around the country, at some point, it would make sense (to me) that it would be centrally located so that it could be secured in a uniform way.

[winyanstaz]

12. There is NO way to secure nuclear waste....

Sooner or later it will leak out if put in the ground..regardless of the containers.
Nuclear waste is poison..period and it is past time to wean ourselves off it and stop killing the planet and our children's futures with it.

[Mithreal]

15. +1

We only have one planet.

[winyanstaz]

19. :) exactly

And I, for one am sick and tired of governments and corporations trashing the planet while the rest of us to have to live with their garbage.

[wtmusic]

17. What do you think nuclear waste looks like?

Do you have any idea?

[winyanstaz]

18. It looks like a grey metal and is usually sealed in a canister...

it is the RADIATION that leaks into the water supplies etc.

[wtmusic]

20. It's cast into glass pellets or concrete

"Long-term storage of radioactive waste requires the stabilization of the waste into a form which will not react, nor degrade, for extended periods of time. One way to do this is through vitrification.<27> Currently at Sellafield the high-level waste (PUREX first cycle raffinate) is mixed with sugar and then calcined. Calcination involves passing the waste through a heated, rotating tube. The purposes of calcination are to evaporate the water from the waste, and de-nitrate the fission products to assist the stability of the glass produced.<28>

The 'calcine' generated is fed continuously into an induction heated furnace with fragmented glass<29>. The resulting glass is a new substance in which the waste products are bonded into the glass matrix when it solidifies. This product, as a molten fluid, is poured into stainless steel cylindrical containers ("cylinders") in a batch process. When cooled, the fluid solidifies ("vitrifies") into the glass. Such glass, after being formed, is very highly resistant to water. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Radiation comes from radioactive materials, and cannot in and of itself leak into anything.

[winyanstaz]

22. so why is the groundwater in the navaho and hopi lands testing positive for radiation?

And if that is so frikkin safe...I am sure you are willing to donate YOUR land to store it then.

[wtmusic]

27. Bad mining practices from the 1940s and 50s related to weapons testing

"In September, 1990, a meeting was held at the Cove Chapter house of the Navajo Indian Nation. In the 1940's and 1950's, American Indians from the local community mined uranium ore from the hills around Cove for the atomic weapons program of the United States. Now the area is the location of a cluster of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases related to uranium.
The Cove Chapter House and surroundings on the Navajo Reservation.

For two days inside the Chapter house the Navajo's listened to testimony from former miners and relatives of miners who had died. The United States Congress had just passed a law authorizing cash payments to some of the miners or their family members who could prove the miners had received a certain level of exposure to radiation in the mines and who then subsequently developed lung cancer or one of several other respiratory diseases."

http://sonic.net/~kerry/uranium.html

I'd be happy to volunteer my land, but the DOE wouldn't want it - too much water. Water is bad, that's why Yucca Mtn. was good.

[Mithreal]

32. Why do you think immunity from liability is so important?

[Mithreal]

25. And your wikipedia entry is different from the marketing dept's in what way?

[wtmusic]

28. Take it up with Wikipedia

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Mithreal]

37. I followed your reasoning on display and you sound like a member

for the marketing department for nuclear power.

[wtmusic]

I'm a member of the marketing dept. against global warming

and nuclear energy is our best hope to fight it, by a long shot.

Most people have no clue how serious the threat of GW is. None.

[Mithreal]

47. I agree most don't understand the threat.

I also know that you are not arguing for green power solutions in this op.

[meeshrox]

58. I wholly understand the threat of global warming...

I am a geologist for Chrissake! But bending facts and twisting truth makes alarmists like Al Gore lose their credibility! I agree that global warming is a huge threat and that something must be done, but trying to persuade people like this is not right. If someone can disprove one point, then no one will believe all of your other points. It does not matter if you are right 98% of the time, people on the "other side" will concentrate on and discount you based on the one time when you are not truthful. The ends do not justify the means...

[Mithreal]

21. Radioactive waste is ++good.

[bottomofthehill]

61. That does not help with what already exists

And how and where it can-should be secured.

[harun]

68. We simply need to send it to the molten core of the planet.

[and-justice-for-all]

14. So where will all the waste go that is in South Carolina ??

they will have to send it somewhere.

[winyanstaz]

24. they can send it to music's place....

He wont mind because it is so safe :)

[Mithreal]

38. +1

[wtmusic]

44. +1

I'm down. :thumbsup:

[Nihil]

75. Send it to Virginia ...

They can make mountains out of it to replace the ones they've destroyed
to extract coal.

In addition, there is no need to worry about toxic runoff as this has
been taken care of by the coal industry's careful environmental studies
and proven not to occur.

:shrug:

It's a win-win as either the coal industry has been telling the truth
(thus the waste is all contained & safe for eternity) or the coal
supporters have been lying (thus the inhabitants are already f*cked).

No need to keep having to fight battles to try holding the nuclear
industry to a higher standard than the already proven profitable,
safe & politically solid coal industry is there? Re-inventing the
wheel and all that ...

What's not to like?

:party:

[WriteDown]

26. Long live Clean Coal!!!!

Woohoo!!

[Mithreal]

29. Black lung on the rise among US coal miners

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/blac-j11.shtml

one aspect of "clean" coal

[WriteDown]

30. Yeah, but its better than nuclear waste.

It's a necessary sacrifice.

[wtmusic]

31. No, coal is actually 300 times more dangerous than nuclear power

on a deaths/energy scale. That's a bad sacrifice.

[WriteDown]

33. Nonsense...

People would be all for nuclear if it was a better alternative. Clean coal even sounds better too. And the French use nuclear power and as we all know, nothing good comes from France.

[Mithreal]

35. France has had nuclear accidents too

[WriteDown]

39. What is France's incidence of Black Lung? nt

[Mithreal]

48. Do they even have a coal resource or industry. Don't know, don't care atm.

[WriteDown]

55. They're not using clean coal?

That's a shame they are so ignorant.

[meeshrox]

51. Ok, really cannot tell if you are joking...

But, there is no such thing as clean coal...every treatment facility needs impoundments to store that slurry waste of heavy metals and other contaminants...

[wtmusic]

40. Several prominent anti-nuclear activists have already jumped ship

Greenpeace founder: I was wrong about nuclear power

"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands.

Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/04/greenpeace_foun.html

[WriteDown]

41. Somebody must have got to him.

Maybe the evil French.

[Mithreal]

45. Laughable. We all know solar, wind, geo, tidal have already technologically peaked

am I right?

You read way more into words that support your argument than is valid.

"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust"

Of course, nuclear energy is not synonymous with nuclear holocaust.

Is nuclear energy in many ways better than coal, YES.

It's about the WASTE.

[WriteDown]

46. Simple question..

How many windmills and/or solar panels does it take to power one auto plant in Detroit.

[Mithreal]

50. Look it up yourself.

[WriteDown]

54. Just for you, I did...

Doesn't look like its possible to supply the necessary megawatt-hours. That's okay though, we need to move back to an agrarian society anyway.

[Mithreal]

56. I very much doubt that unless you think small.

Post a link, I will look at it later. Please and thank you.

[WriteDown]

59. Post a link of no findings?

Sure I guess.

http://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+windmills+would+be+needed+to+power+an+auto+plant&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLM_en

Its not about how many. Its about massive amounts of power being delivered very quickly.

[winyanstaz]

73. You can call it clean all you want to....doesnt make it so.....

It may be a bit less pollutant...but that stuff kills.....ask any miner with black lung....

[Mithreal]

34. link please

[wtmusic]

36. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=228114&mesg_id=228335

[Mithreal]

42. That is spin and so outrageous I can barely imagine you bought it

Do I really need to explain why?

[wtmusic]

43. Yes, you do need to explain why.

Refuting my argument with facts is a requirement. But I welcome it - I love to be proven wrong. :P

[Mithreal]

52. I only have a few more minutes but will throw one minor counter to that article.

Rooftop solar is not the only form of solar.

You might as well compare it to rooftop nuclear or rooftop coal.