Why the Nevada nuclear disposal site is a GOOD idea

[TheStinger]

What about antartica- sure a few green whingers are gonna complain but aprt form the moss ther is no life at the center, the penguins and seals will be safe. International terrorists aren't gonna be able to get it.

There easy solution

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes it should go to Nevada. The government owns like 50% of the land in that state, so there won't be extra-exorbitant costs with every single shipment made.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The government owns like 50% of the land in that state, so there won't be extra-exorbitant costs with every single shipment made.

The government also owns large chunks of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Norath and South Dakota, and Washington State. Parts of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah are even MORE desolate and remote than Nevada. Further, around New Mexico the seismic potential is much less than that of Nevada. More, Las Vegas is less than 100 miles from Yucca Mountain and is one of the nation's fastest growing cities. Damn right they're concerned about their aquifer.

Also, the state of Nevada is threatening not only to sue to prevent any further progress on the repository, but there's been rumbling that if that fails we'll charge for shipments. It's a State's rights vs. Federal rights issue to some.

[Nubclear]

Ship it over here to Utah. Please.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Actually, a completely feasible case was made some years ago for burial in deep ocean sediments @ > 12,000 feet depth. There are a large number of geologically stable, fundamentally lifeless areas of the ocean floor where sediment layers are hundreds of feet thick and sediment migration in virtually none.

Between the left whining about "ocean dumping" and the lessened pork barrel revenue for right-connected contractors, the idea was stillborn, even though it's demonstrably the most sound idea both technically and economically.

Actually, I think ocean dumping is a good idea. Put it in presureized canisters and drop the stuff in the Marianas Trench. Eventually it'll get sucked back into the Earth.

[gsmoove23]

I'm all for the antartica idea, encase it in a layer of ice that won't melt for 10,000 years.

[Sava]

IIRC, some of the biggest opponents of this are the local Republican politicians in Nevada. But sure, let's be like Rush Limbaugh and ignorantly blame the "left".

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I'm all for the antartica idea, encase it in a layer of ice that won't melt for 10,000 years.

10,000 years isn't good enough.

[Japher]

But sure, let's be like Rush Limbaugh and... blame the "left".

Works for me (I love paraphrasing)

If it's going to nevada, why don't we just replace all the neon lights with the rods? Save a lot of electricity don't ya think?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Sava
IIRC, some of the biggest opponents of this are the local Republican politicians in Nevada. But sure, let's be like Rush Limbaugh and ignorantly blame the "left".

NIMBY transcends political parties.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, I think ocean dumping is a good idea. Put it in presureized canisters and drop the stuff in the Marianas Trench. Eventually it'll get sucked back into the Earth.

Trenches aren't the way to go, because they're extremely active. There's a lot of mid-ocean wastelands where you're equisdistant from crust-forming zones (like the Mid-Atlantic ridge) and subduction zones. Out in the Pacific, there's some spots that are over 1000 miles from any notable geologic activity.

The higher density of the containers means they would eventually bore themselves into sediment, get covered up, and sink to the bottom. Migration studies showed that even if the containers corrode, you wouldn't see significant movement of radionuclides for hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MRT144


NIMBY transcends political parties.

exactly my point...

[DaShi]

Can't we just send it all to asia like we do with rest of our hazardous junk?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
If you can launch space probes near the sun, you can launch nuclear waste INTO the sun and be done with it. And you could do the smart thing and ABANDON nuclear power production all together and focus on less risky technologies. Then you'd only have to worry about what you've got, not what you'll have.

(a) Nuke power infrastructure is essential to a lot of countries economically, and it can be operated safely.

(b) Do you have any idea of orbital lift cost? With Delta IVs, it's about $4,400 a pound. It takes more than that to move out of orbit. Before you get all excited about that, remember that the dilution and shielding of the rad waste is far heavier than the waste itself. To transport it in small packages, 20 to 1 is probably a close weight ratio, so your pound of payload is 1/20 of a pound of waste. $88,000 per pound of waste into orbit, plus all those greenhouse gasses, plus the extra cost out of orbit, and the risk of payload loss and reentry....

You greenies really need to learn a bit about how stuff actually works.

[MRT144]

you mean marines dashi?