# Anti-nuclear power idiots **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 20, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159 "2009-03-20T14:07:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/61 "2009-03-23T18:09:01Z")
I suspect that wherever they chose the site to be, it would then be called the “screw [wherever]” bill. Unless there was no legitimate study of multiple sites, it’s just Nimbyism. Most places will have earthquakes over the period of decades. From what I’ve read, the containment vessels planned at Yucca could withstand a reasonable earthquake, and even if they didn’t, they’re high above the water table - the waste would take long periods of time to seep through the rock, and even if it does, the local water table is isolated - it all drains down into the basin the mountain is in and doesn’t go anywhere. It’s true that future generations will have to keep an eye on the place - but what do you think is the bigger burden? Securing and maintaining a repository or dealing with the global warming the CO2 from the coal plants is affecting? ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/62 "2009-03-23T18:45:07Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I suspect that wherever they chose the site to be, it would then be called the “screw [wherever]” bill. Unless there was no legitimate study of multiple sites, it’s just Nimbyism. There was only a very cursory study of initial sites. All the selected sites (Nevada, Washington, and Texas) said “Not here!” Nevada had the the weakest congressional delegation, so Nevada got short listed. The “legitimate” study of the site is done by the NRC, who has a vested interest in finding an acceptable site and is restricted to only studying one site. Naturally, they find their one option is an acceptable option for lack of any other option. The EPA, who has no interest in finding an acceptable site, only in preventing another environmental disaster, is consistently putting up red flags. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Most places will have earthquakes over the period of decades. From what I’ve read, the containment vessels planned at Yucca could withstand a reasonable earthquake, and even if they didn’t, they’re high above the water table - the waste would take long periods of time to seep through the rock, and even if it does, the local water table is isolated - it all drains down into the basin the mountain is in and doesn’t go anywhere. Nevada is the third most geologically active state in the nation. A more complete analysis is available [here](http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128/). Nevada is a big caution zone (red, orange, and yellow), but whole swaths of the nation are generally inactive (blue and white). The water table under Yucca Mountain isn’t isolated to Yucca Mountain. It flows all the way to Death Valley. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > It’s true that future generations will have to keep an eye on the place - but what do you think is the bigger burden? Securing and maintaining a repository or dealing with the global warming the CO2 from the coal plants is affecting? If I’m coming off as anti-nuke, that’s not my intention. I’m moderately pro-nuke, but Yucca Mountain is a Bad Idea. The good news (IMO) is that Nevada’s foot dragging has forced the nuclear industry to develop mid-term storage solutions that are capable of storing the nuclear waste for hundreds of years. There’s more than ample time to develop a better long term solution. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/63 "2009-03-23T18:48:09Z")
Let me just throw in that I’ve been unable to find anything to support what I said, so kindly ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/64 "2009-03-23T22:15:56Z")
What forum are we in? Pit? Good. Fuck me, but I can’t stand when _either_ side comes out and paints all the objections and concerns as vapid and simplistic as the OP. Now, I get that here in yon Pit the OP _isn’t_ a douchebag, because this isn’t the place for subtle or even-handed thought. There certainly are a plethora of capital D baggies out there who give no more thought to the question than _nuclear is teh suxors_. On the same token, the spent-too-long-with-an-unsafe-microwave view of nuclear power as a relatively harmless energy panacea with no major waste- or terrorism-related concerns isn’t even up to the Freeper’s standards of intelligence. I spent _years_ working on the Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement (EIS for all you NEPA fanatics). A good chunk of that was in comment review hell — every single one of you fuckers that wrote in response to a meeting or publication had to be answered. Every. Fucking. One. Of. You. That means both sides of the issue had to be treated with all due seriousness (part of my responsibilities was making sure DOE’s categorizations and answers were responsive). So take your oversimplifications and shove them up your perpetual motion machine. Again, this is not an attempt to bite back at the OP, I know very well the frustration of knee-jerk reactions (both pro and con). But calling Yucca “adequate” and “up to the task,” thinking that’s answering the question, and excoriating people for disagreeing by painting them as ignorant makes me… makes me… damn, what’s that word that ends in –gry? ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/65 "2009-03-23T23:06:18Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > I spent _years_ working on the Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement (EIS for all you NEPA fanatics). A good chunk of that was in comment review hell — every single one of you fuckers that wrote in response to a meeting or publication had to be answered. Every. Fucking. One. Of. You. That means both sides of the issue had to be treated with all due seriousness (part of my responsibilities was making sure DOE’s categorizations and answers were responsive). So take your oversimplifications and shove them up your perpetual motion machine. Dear Og, EIS comments can be hell. I work on California Environmental Quality Act reports sometimes, which is the bigger, more all encompassing version of an EIS. The ignorance you find in the comments is mind blowing. The way facts can be spun by industry and interest groups is even worse. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Again, this is not an attempt to bite back at the OP, I know very well the frustration of knee-jerk reactions (both pro and con). But calling Yucca “adequate” and “up to the task,” thinking that’s answering the question, and excoriating people for disagreeing by painting them as ignorant makes me… makes me… damn, what’s that word that ends in –gry? Hungry? Mmmmm…nuclear waste. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/66 "2009-03-23T23:09:29Z")
Fair enough. I’m not at all qualified to speak as an expert on Yucca mountain. It may have tons of flaws. But in this case, the attitude seems to be “well, this other method has flaws, therefore let’s stay how things are” ignoring the massively greater (IMO) problems that coal generation creates. Maybe Yucca mountain isn’t the best place. If not, we should be spending a decent amount of money figuring out where is, in an honest, objective, scientific manner. Maybe there are more nuanced anti-nuclear views out there, but I haven’t come across them. Every argument I’ve heard against nuclear power is essentially “we can’t do it perfectly, so let’s maintain the status quo”, “not in my back yard!”, “nuclear!? that’s like… chernobyl right? AND 50 FOOT MOTHERFUCKING RADIOACTIVE ANTS”, or some unrealistic optimistsm that alternative energy can do the heavy lifting in any reasonable timeframe. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/67 "2009-03-23T23:52:19Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] Maybe Yucca mountain isn’t the best place. [/QUOTE] It was the best choice among those studied for a variety of reasons, the biggest one being that it’s fairly close to the Nevada Test Site…which is, of course, where nuclear weapons were tested already. It has a lot of positive aspects, contrary to the folks saying this was all about fucking Nevada. There have been myriad studies done on the site and it’s viability, again, contrary to the folk who think this has just been glossed over for supposed political reasons. It’s moot though…Yucca is dead and so we will go with an even less viable option of hundreds of scattered repositories in situ, which is what we currently have, with, perhaps, the option of wasting more billions in the future trying to find some other option which will be squashed yet again. If you want more details about Yucca, [here](http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml) is a site I used in the recently revived zombie thread about Nuclear Energy in GD…it gives a good overview. It’s a DOE site of course, so it’s obviously suspect… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/68 "2009-03-24T00:25:48Z")
Just wanted to say amen to **Rhythmdvl** ’s post. As someone who has worked on the legal side of the Yucca issues, one thing it ain’t is simple. It is worth noting that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act permits only 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal to be placed in Yucca. That’s less than the amount currently being stored at various sites. That’s just a law, not a scientific limit, so it can be changed. But it was based in part on estimates of how much waste could be safely stored at Yucca. Yucca could probably hold more, but even this increased amount of capacity is not sufficient to accommodate disposal of waste very far into the future, and that’s assuming nuclear power generation isn’t greatly increased. That means that Yucca is—at best—a short-term solution. It is not a solution for waste going forward which is one of the many reasons people are looking to alternatives. We can continue to sink billions into it, or we can start putting money into long-term solutions (possibly including some reprocessing of waste). I think that the risks of nuclear waste, even if stored in shoddy facilities, are far outweighed by the risks of global warming and particular air pollution. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Yucca is the best policy alternative. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/69 "2009-03-24T01:40:13Z")
> [@Influential\_Panda](#): > > The strongest criticism of nuclear power that I’ve heard came from an admitted environmentalist, but the guy’s pretty moderate and well-informed on a lot of issues. He told me that we mined the majority of quality uranium decades ago, and that most of the fuel we’re using right now in our nuclear plants comes from decommissioned warheads. If we start building more reactors and require more fuel, the reclamation process is going to start getting really expensive, really fast. Get other sources of info..seriously ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/70 "2009-03-24T01:49:52Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > You’re aware that nuclear power plants are, essentially, great big radiation destruction machines? You dig up radioactive material, run it through a reactor so as to _lessen_ its total radiation, and then spit it out the other end. If you mulched all the waste up with dirt and put it right back where you found it, that geographic area would have less underlying radiation than it did before you began. We’re slowly cleaning the Earth of radiation. I havent run the numbers for this…but it would NOT surprise me if that wasnt actually a true statement. Take that for what it is worth. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/71 "2009-03-24T02:44:05Z")
> [@minor7flat5](#): > > You mentioned being gone after decades as a reason to not worry; I think that lasting for decades is still a concern. IMHO. I didn’t, actually, but I can see where you get that. My point is that such a time frame (decades) is seldom if every used by those who vocalize concerns about waste disposal. Apparently it isn’t scary enough to serve their designs. This very evening, a _BBC World News_ reporter doing a story on decommissioning of Bulgarian nuke plants stated that the waste would “remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.” Sure, having hot stuff for several generations IS a real reason for some worry. It is NOT, however, the near geologic time scales that the fear mongers would have us believe are at issue. Given a few decades, something might possibly go wrong. Given thousands of centuries, it is a virtual certainty that something will go wrong. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/72 "2009-03-24T13:40:43Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > [Pebble bed reactors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor) won’t meltdown no matter who screws up. It also doesn’t exist yet so claims of its safety are a tad premature. [As stated here](http://positron3.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/october/a6oct01.cfm) > [@](#): > > PBMR advocates are so confident in the safety of the reactor (some even call it “meltdown-proof”) that they have proposed a drastic weakening of a number of safety requirements that apply to the current generation of U.S. nuclear plants. These proposals include (1) use of a filtered, vented confinement building instead of a robust containment capable of preventing a large release of radioactive materials in the event of severe core damage; (2) a reduction of the size of the emergency planning zone (EPZ) from 16 kilometers to 400 meters; (3) a reduction in the number of staff, including operators and security personnel; and (4) a reduction in the number of systems whose components must meet the most stringent quality assurance standards. > > However, there is insufficient technical justification for these measures. The presence of a pressure-resistant, leak-tight containment and the maintenance of comprehensive emergency planning are both prudent “defense-in-depth” measures that could mitigate the impact of a severe accident with core damage. Defense-in-depth is the requirement that nuclear reactors should have multiple, independent barriers in place to prevent injuries to the public and damage to the environment. The presence of multiple barriers is a hedge against uncertainty and an acknowledgement that the understanding of the performance of any one barrier is incomplete. > > PBMR promoters claim that a robust containment is unnecessary because the design-basis depressurization accident cannot cause damage to the PBMR fuel severe enough to result in a large radiological release. They argue further that such a containment would actually be detrimental to safety because it would inhibit heat transfer and interfere with the passive mechanism needed to cool the core in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident. However, a containment is needed not only to inhibit the relatively minor releases that would occur during the design-basis accident, but also to mitigate the consequences of a more severe accident. Containments can also help to protect the reactor core from a sabotage attack utilizing truck bombs or hand-held rocket launchers — an ominous possibility that should not be discounted. > > If one could predict with confidence that severe accidents or sabotage attacks were so unlikely as to be incredible, then protection against them might not be justified. However, in the case of the PBMR, significant uncertainties remain, both in the likelihoods of potential severe accidents and in the identification of every potential accident sequence. The PBMR designers have not yet carried out a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and do not even have estimates of the risks of more severe accidents. > > Among the largest sources of uncertainty for the PBMR are the potential for and consequences of a graphite fire. The large mass of graphite in the PBMR core must be kept isolated from ingress of air or water. Graphite can oxidize at temperatures above 400 C, and the reaction becomes self-sustaining at 550 C (the maximum operating temperature of the fuel pebbles is 1250 C)[1]. Graphite also reacts when exposed to water vapor. These reactions could lead to generation of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both highly combustible gases. > > If a pipe break were to occur, leading to a depressurization of the primary system, it has been shown that flow stratification through the break can cause air inflow and the potential for graphite ignition[2]. While the PBMR designers claim that the geometry of the primary circuit will inhibit air inflow and hence limit oxidation, this has not yet been conclusively shown. > > The consequences of an extensive graphite fire could be severe, undermining the argument that a conventional containment is not needed. Radiological releases from the Chernobyl accident were prolonged as a result of the burning of graphite, which continued long after other fires were extinguished[3]. Even though the temperature of a graphite fire might not be high enough to severely damage the fuel microspheres, the burning graphite itself would be radioactive as a result of neutron activation of impurities and contamination with “tramp” uranium released from defective microspheres. An even worse consequence would be combustion of carbon monoxide, which could damage and disperse the core while at the same time destroying the reactor building, which is not being designed to withstand high pressure. In contrast, the large-volume concrete containments utilized at most pressurized-water reactors can withstand explosive pressures of about 9 atmospheres. > > Another important source of uncertainty comes from the complexity of the PBMR core, which is constantly in motion. A PBMR operator must be able to accurately compute the pebble flow, neutron flux and core temperature distributions without the benefit of in-core instrumentation (since there are no structures to support such instrumentation). Previous experience with the AVR test reactor in Germany, a precursor to the PBMR, indicates cause for concern. Experiments measuring the He coolant temperature in the AVR found numerous “hot spots” in the coolant that exceeded 1280 C, whereas the maximum predicted temperature was only 1150 C[4]. After NRC staff highlighted these findings, Exelon raised the design maximum fuel temperature limit during PBMR normal operation from 1060 C to 1250 C. This is of concern because above 1250 C the SiC layer of the TRISO fuel coating will degrade as a result of attack by palladium isotopes produced during fission[5]. It also calls into question the accuracy of the current generation of computer codes for PBMR core analysis. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/73 "2009-03-24T13:46:35Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] It also doesn’t exist yet so claims of its safety are a tad premature. [/QUOTE] It’s as far along in development (at the least) as carbon capture/sequestration and mass deployment of solar and wind technologies. IIRC the South Africans, China and I think the Germans have built test reactors. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/74 "2009-03-24T14:00:43Z")
Even if we shut down all the nukes right now, we still have the problem on existing waste. Yucca mountain is way better than any alternative. (Don’t worry about the waste in storage at US facilities. Worry about the waste stored at your favorite corrupt failed state.) ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/75 "2009-03-24T14:21:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > It’s as far along in development (at the least) as carbon capture/sequestration and mass deployment of solar and wind technologies. IIRC the South Africans, China and I think the Germans have built test reactors. > > -XT Wind technologies are in widespread commercial use and won’t pollute wide areas for a long time when something goes wrong. Which with humans involved it will. Having said that I believe the climate crisis is so severe and the consequences so frightening we have no option but to throw nuclear into the mix. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/76 "2009-03-24T14:31:27Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] Wind technologies are in widespread commercial use and won’t pollute wide areas for a long time when something goes wrong. Which with humans involved it will. [/QUOTE] Let me rephrase what I said since I wasn’t clear. When I said ‘mass deployment’ I meant making up a significant percentage of over all power…say more than 10% of the total. IIRC wind currently hovers around 1%. Since we have yet to deploy wind in sufficient numbers we don’t KNOW what the effect will be on those scales. We can only project. Same with solar. Also, there is the entire life cycle of the product to consider…again, we have no data since we haven’t, as yet, deployed on a sufficiently large scale to know. The pebble bed reactor is much the same…there are prototypes, but until we put it into full scale production (which, due to our anti-nuke loonies WE probably won’t do), we won’t know. > [@](#): > > Having said that I believe the climate crisis is so severe and the consequences so frightening we have no option but to throw nuclear into the mix. I agree. But I don’t think it will happen any time soon…so, we best all hope the AGW folks are wrong and that we have a few more decades before things get critical. In a few more decades the magic pony tech MAY be ready to roll on the scales we need…which may mean we won’t need nuclear energy after all. -XT ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/77 "2009-03-24T14:52:49Z")
I love all this talk of how Yucca Mtn. has to be perfect for 10,000 years. We’re talking about a time scale twice as long as recorded human history. I’m going to go way out on a limb and say that at some point in the next few millenia we will probably figure out a way to put the stuff to good use. Failing that, I’m confident someone will invent a safer method of storage, seeing in just half that time we’ve gone from writing on clay tablets to being able to store the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica on a flash drive. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/78 "2009-03-24T15:27:16Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > I love all this talk of how Yucca Mtn. has to be perfect for 10,000 years. We’re talking about a time scale twice as long as recorded human history. I’m going to go way out on a limb and say that at some point in the next few millenia we will probably figure out a way to put the stuff to good use. Failing that, I’m confident someone will invent a safer method of storage, seeing in just half that time we’ve gone from writing on clay tablets to being able to store the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica on a flash drive. It DOESNT need to be perfect. Its not like we are talking about building a machine that runs unattended for a gazillion years. You want a hunk of stuff that doesnt move much over time. The pyramid builders did a pretty damn good job of that 4 thousand years ago give or take. They did it with manual slave labor on the SURFACE. I suspect we can do a bit better… Though, like you, I think we should just store the stuff responsibly and safely till the time comes when we can USE it. Believe it or not, its actually pretty damn valuable energy wise. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/79 "2009-03-24T15:37:45Z")
The alternative of course is to continue storing it at scattered sights around the country, closer to populated areas and in less studied places. This is what I was saying about the foolishness of rejecting a proposal because it’s not absolutely perfect when the status quo alternative is much worse. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159/80 "2009-03-24T16:59:35Z")
Saying Yucca Mountain is a “good enough” solution because it’s the best is like saying having somebody drive a nail through your hand is “good enough” because the only alternative you’ve evaluated is having a nail driven into your temple. They’re both bad alternatives. A list of 10 potential storage sites was created in December 1984. By 1987, the list was down to Yucca Mountain. They’ve spent over 20 years now evaluating Yucca and there are still major concerns about its suitability. You can’t say they managed to evaluated and eliminate all nine potential alternatives in three short years, while being able to say that a mountain on a faultline with a highly variable depth to water was clearly the best alternative. The decision to use Yucca Mountain was purely political. As far as the necessity of the million year time frame goes, it might not be necessary, but it’s standard set. You can’t evaluate it on a million year scale, see it fail, and say “Meh, good enough.” At least, not until there’s reason to think it will fail at other locations with that scale too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-nuclear-power-idiots/490159.md?page=5)