# Nuclear power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417 "2005-08-03T13:46:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/181 "2005-08-09T04:38:51Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > Of course there are potential technologies for breeder reactors and thorium reactors – but that’s what they are, potential. The solar problem is solvable, IMO, just as the nuclear problem is, but solar offers so much more potential. > > It is my firm belief that solar, combined with fuel cell technology for storage, will be our primary energy solution in 20-30 years. We’ll be left with few other choices. It’s incorrect to say that breeder reactors are “potential” technology. There are currently many breeder reactors currently in operation [cite](http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/f/fa/fast_breeder.htm) in many countries. The reason it’s not used in US, civilian nuclear power is political, not technological. In addition, numerous more sophisticated reactors such as the pebble bed reactor have also been mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/182 "2005-08-09T04:45:56Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Apparently, you completely missed my point. I pointed out that PU239 has a 24,000 year half-life. The point to 10,000 years is that by then, the danger from radioactivity in the waste will be but a very tiny fraction of what it will be in 10 years. > > As for cites, are you kidding? Radioactive half-life is a basic concept. I even did the math in my message to give you an idea of how it works. Besides, theres not going to be much Pu in the waste, seeing as how you need it to use in breeder reactors. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/183 "2005-08-09T04:47:23Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > It’s incorrect to say that breeder reactors are “potential” technology. There are currently many breeder reactors currently in operation [cite](http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/f/fa/fast_breeder.htm) in many countries. The reason it’s not used in US, civilian nuclear power is political, not technological. In addition, numerous more sophisticated reactors such as the pebble bed reactor have also been mentioned. I didn’t mean to imply that breeder reactors aren’t in use. “Potential” there refers to the idea of them as a large-scale energy resource. There are solar collectors in use as well. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/184 "2005-08-09T04:55:32Z")
**Sam** , it took me a while to find the sentence I quoted, in post #33 if anyone is looking for it. I will concede I paraphrased and left off three words that followed what I wrote, and eight words that preceded those that I quoted. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/185 "2005-08-09T04:58:55Z")
I apologize for the poor cite. I have heard expert mention of the limited U235 supplies and chose the first cite I found. (PS: worst cite ever? C’mon, I can’t throw under **lekatt**.) Obviously I chose poorly. However, I stand by my broader point even with the thread you linked – seawater recovery and other such is still something that takes development and cost. It’s a choice we make to develop these technologies. We can choose to develop solar technology and solve the current problems with them, and it is, to my mind the greater potential energy resource with fewer safety issues. Bear in mind that I am still a nuclear power supporter. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/186 "2005-08-09T05:07:40Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Apparently, you completely missed my point. I pointed out that PU239 has a 24,000 year half-life. The point to 10,000 years is that by then, the danger from radioactivity in the waste will be but a very tiny fraction of what it will be in 10 years. > > As for cites, are you kidding? Radioactive half-life is a basic concept. I even did the math in my message to give you an idea of how it works. No, I’m not kidding. Once again you leave out inconvienent facts, seemingly because they won’t support your assertions. What is the half-life of Pu242, also a component of nuclear waste? **376,000 years** [cite](http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/pu-props.html) (see Table 2) And again, arguing for 10,000 year time spans is irrelevant. The NAS and the courts say it must be safe for 100,000-300,000 years. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/187 "2005-08-09T05:46:01Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Yes, I got that. What we are talking about here is risk assessment and risk analysis. What are the odds of a containment vessel being attacked by missiles…and missiles generally used to kill tanks? Is it really necessary to protect the vessels from this kind of attack? What are the likely (more probable) accidents that could happen to such a containment vessel…and how good is the vessel at protecting from those more likely threats? If the vessel IS attacked by a threat that could potentially penetrate it what are the realistic consequences…and knowing that is it worth it to upgrade the armor protection (or whatever) to compensate for that threat? > > You see, its not just a matter of throwing threats at the problem until you find one that gets through and then saying ‘Ah HA! Well, since it can’t take a TOW missile it must not be safe’. I’m not saying YOU are saying that btw…just pointing out how this works. If you just keep throwing threats without actually knowing what the risks are, the cost/benifits, etc, then eventually you will get to the point I was making fun of…i.e. ‘well, if you hit the containment vessel with a nuke/alien death ray/chuck shot then the vessel will fail! So its just not safe and we should ditch the whole idea!’. Again, I’m not saying YOU are going there necessarily…I was just trying to make a point (and be funny). As I pointed out, the likely hood of someone flying a plane into the WTC was dismissed at one time. The likelihood of more than one plane deliberately hitting the WTC would have been thought laughably remote. But it happened, and only after the tragedy did we take more stringent steps to try and prevent this from happening again. I would hate to see a mishap involving nuclear waste that could have prevented, but that was overlooked or dismissed in planning because it was “unlikely”. > [@](#): > > Nope, no one said anything about ‘alien death rays’, and I appologize if anyone here thought I was strawmaning you or anyone else with that position. :eek: I was trying to be funny and make a point at the same time. I guess I should have used a smiley or something to make sure you knew that. The point though was that there is an ever escalating level of ‘what ifs’ going on in this debate. TOW missiles really aren’t a dime a dozen and its pretty unlikely that one will ever be used against a containment vessel carrying nuclear waste. What would be the point? Do you think that blowing a small hole in such a vessel would cause an explosion? That it would cause a nuclear wasteland or something? It would just be a nasty clean up job…thats IF you could actually get your TOW into action to puncture the vessel. I’m not sure if you know this but DOE has its own para-military guards that are actually quite good. > > -XT While I appreciate that you were attempting to bring a bit of levity to an otherwise contentious forum, I’m sorry if you’re joke wasn’t that funny to me. I blame those very DOE para-military guards, who may someday be forcing my state to accept this waste at gunpoint. I find it hard to be amused by anything that involves my own countrymen pointing guns at me “for the good of the country”. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/188 "2005-08-09T07:10:14Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > No, I’m not kidding. Once again you leave out inconvienent facts, seemingly because they won’t support your assertions. > > What is the half-life of Pu242, also a component of nuclear waste? **376,000 years** [cite](http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/pu-props.html) (see Table 2) > > And again, arguing for 10,000 year time spans is irrelevant. The NAS and the courts say it must be safe for 100,000-300,000 years. And you’re still missing my point. The point is that isotopes with very long half lives are pretty stable, and not particularly radioactive. Waste comprised of material with half-lives greater than 10,000 years is orders of magnitude less radiactive than the waste that was only created, say, 10 years ago. It will be safe enough that it could be handled pretty much like hazardous heavy metals, which we handle and ship around the country all the time. And once again, let’s be clear what the tradeoff is here. You’re acting like it’s a choice between nuclear power and living in a world of parks and bunnies. In fact, the choice is between nuclear power or blowing huge amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere. It’s very frustrating arguing with some anti-nuke people, because they argue as if there are no tradeoffs to be made, like the decision to NOT use nuclear does not also carry significant risks and environmental side-effects. The determination to be made is not whether nuclear is perfectly safe, but whether on balance we would face less risk and less damage to the environment with nuclear than with fossil fuels. Because those are currently our only two options. And if you ask me, the miniscule risk that 10,000 years from now there may be a cleanup problem at Yucca is rather dwarfed by the risk that we’ll make serious changes to our climate in the very near future (compared to 10,000 years) on our present course. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/189 "2005-08-09T08:29:47Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > You’re acting like it’s a choice between nuclear power and living in a world of parks and bunnies. In fact, the choice is between nuclear power or blowing huge amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere. I think you keep missing my points which are: we don’t want your waste. Sending nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain will not eliminate the on-site storage of nuclear waste, it will only create one more place where nuclear waste is stored. And the mountain is unsuitable for use as a geological repository, due to the numerous fault zones and the precious water table it lies on top of. The NWPA specifically says that Yucca needs to be a geological repository. It is unsuitable for that purpose, and would need extensive man-made facilities, even according to the DOE. I have never said we should not use nuclear power, Sam. I have only said, from the beginning, that we in Nevada do not want the waste from nuclear power plants, which we do not have or use (please do not bother explaining how a power grid works; I know). If you want to store it on-site, instead of creating another, and larger, storage facility, I have said I could remain guardedly neutral about the prospect of building more nuclear facilities. Just don’t make this state your dumping ground. Please understand that this issue is very prominent in my home state. It is something that I read about every single day. As I read at least 2 newspapers each day, which have contrasting editorial policies, I get a wealth of information about the subject. I am also keen to educate myself on matters important to me, and I have read many DOE reports, EPA reports, all of the emails I talked about, etc. etc. I know how many people live close to Yucca Mountain. I’ve been to Beatty, Armagosa, Rachel, Pahrump, Tonopah, Warm Springs, Indian Springs, all of which are less than 70 miles from Yucca. I’ve backpacked and camped in the Sheep Range, the Toyaibe, Death Valley, the Pahranagat range, and more. As those of use who know and love this area are fond of saying: Nevada is not a wasteland. If I have engaged in “dishonest debate” in this thread, I am no more guilty of that than you, or Shodan, or many others. > [@](#): > > An honest debate starts with issues that you are seriously worried about, in which we discuss whether those issues can be solved. A dishonest debate is one in which you start with the conclusion, and throw out ever-more outlandish scenarios to back up your pre-determined judgement, attack straw men, misquote people, and refuse to listen to anyone else’s points. I’ve seen cited items dismissed as “silly” or “outlandish”. I’ve seen a quote from a DOE official mis-applied to try and explain an email that clearly indicates that data in the Yucca study was “made up”. I’ve seen facts left to die by the wayside, such as your comment about infrastructure, and my reply that Yucca does not currently have a railroad spur. I’ve seen misleading comments made to dismiss very real concerns (“radioactive silica” was never mentioned and was not a topic, it was a red herring brought up to distract from the actual events). I’ve seen you ignore **jrfranchi** ’s comments about solar panels. I’ve seen you continue to use the 10,000 year period in your posts, even tho the National Academy of Science, and the courts, have said that that time period is not suitable. Heck, you just used it in your last post. Do you think you know better than the NAS? In short, I’ve seen the same things here on this board that I see from the DOE: “screw Nevada”. Well, we don’t want to be screwed. Here. This is one site that I go to regularly to keep informed. [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/whatsnew.htm](http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/whatsnew.htm) I’m getting tired of trying to inform people, only to see my posts ignored or trivialized. It’s pointless for me to waste my time posting facts for people who don’t want to read them. If you want to read about Yucca Mountain, and become better informed, here’s the place to go. I’ve read almost everything linked to on that site. Now you can too. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/190 "2005-08-09T13:42:29Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > As I pointed out, at one time it seemed highly unlikely that anyone would hijack a jetplane and fly it into the World Trade Center. But it happened anyway. It’s also highly unlikely that cows will develop super-intelligence and take over the world. Should we worry about that too? You need to show something relevant about 9/11 as it relates to nuclear waste storage. Otherwise you are just throwing out random quotes and hoping the mud will stick. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Well, because what you are saying is simply **untrue**. It is the Yucca proponents who want to magnify the dangers and risks, by increasing the number of storage facilities and by introducing the risks associated with transportation. If Yucca is used for storage, it **will not** eliminate the on-site storage of nuclear waste. All it will do is add one more place that nuclear waste is stored. Your risk assessment skills are a little off. The idea of Yucca Mountain is long-term storage of high level waste. Instead of storing the waste at 141 different locations, some of which are closer to major population centers (and, since this seems to worry you, closer to the local water table) and have not been as intensivly studied as Yucca Mountain. And, as has been pointed out, Yucca Mountain is already in a nuclear testing range. You might think of it as a homeowner storing his valuables in a vault instead of hiding some of them under the bed, some in the closet, and burying some in the back yard. Even with the risks of being robbed in transport, you are still safer keeping it in the vault than in the back yard. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Yucca is also a dormant, but not dead volcano. Err, no. [Yucca Mountain is not in an areas where continental plates meet, nor is it located near any volvanic hot sports.](http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0341.shtml) And a volcanic event large enough to disrupt the repository is likely - sometime in the next 63 million years. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Nice picture. No facts. How fast was it going? What type of cask is that? Was it empty? What did it impact? What year was this picture taken? Were there independent observers? When come back, bring facts. [ul][li][80 miles an hour.](http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph161/l19.html) [/li][li][The casks we were talking about.](http://www.citizenalert.org/yuccanew/casks-2.htm) [/li][li]Of course it was fucking empty - do you think it would be a good idea to use casks filled with spent nuclear fuel in a test? Sheesh.[/li] [li][A concrete wall.](http://www.uwua.org/nuclear.htm) [/li] [li][In 1984.](http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/energy/eng-34.cfm?&CFID=4344926&CFTOKEN=28152825) [/li][li]Yes, there were independent observers - it took place at Scandia Labs, as mentioned in the original cite.[/li][/ul] Respectively. Any other facts you might need? The rest of your post is simply a repetition of NIMBY, and has been addressed. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [August 9, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/191 "2005-08-09T14:54:18Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > As I pointed out, the likely hood of someone flying a plane into the WTC was dismissed at one time. The likelihood of more than one plane deliberately hitting the WTC would have been thought laughably remote. But it happened, and only after the tragedy did we take more stringent steps to try and prevent this from happening again. I would hate to see a mishap involving nuclear waste that could have prevented, but that was overlooked or dismissed in planning because it was “unlikely”. But as has already been pointed out to you (and is frankly obvious just by reading this thread alone and following the very discussion you are involved in), the risks HAVEN’T been overlooked or dismissed. There has been ungodly levels of testing and risk assessment that has gone into every step of this design from the containment vessels to the logistics of transport, taking all your points and more into account. At some point it becomes ridiculous…or at the very least diminishing returns. And the point you still don’t seem to grasp is that if there are some small risks in the transportation of nuclear materials from the various nuclear power plants to YM (and the deeper point that there are ALWAYS risks…one must weigh and assess them and decide on how to minimize them if at all possible, then get on with life), there are greater risks in just leaving the materials scattered about in pools at each nuclear site. Certainly the waste there is more exposed than it will be at YM, its decentralized so you have to guard multiple sites instead of one central facility, etc. Its like worrying that your teeth aren’t sparkly white while smoking, or worrying the plane you are going to be flying in will crash while you drive your car to the airport on the freeway. Just for drill I’m going to just drop this [cite](http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/ners211/project2002/pro/main_finalpaper.doc) into the discussion. It talks to many of the points you seem to be hung up on (touching briefly on the whole 10,000 year bit you and Sam are discussion). Its obviously a pro-YM document but its still pretty good as far as the basics goes. Read and enjoy. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > While I appreciate that you were attempting to bring a bit of levity to an otherwise contentious forum, I’m sorry if you’re joke wasn’t that funny to me. I blame those very DOE para-military guards, who may someday be forcing my state to accept this waste at gunpoint. I find it hard to be amused by anything that involves my own countrymen pointing guns at me “for the good of the country”. I don’t even know what to say to this part…certainly since we aren’t in the pit. I’ll just say that whatever the hell you are talking about here wasn’t what the joke was. Obviously my sense of humor is pretty obscure if you didn’t even know what I intended to be funny. It certainly wasn’t anything to do with the DOE para-military types. As for your ‘point’, whatever that is I’ll just say…um, what the hell are you talking about? DOE guards forcing your state at gun point? What are you smoking and can I get a toke? -XT ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/192 "2005-08-09T15:18:00Z")
> [@](#): > > by **Snowborder Bo** > I am mystified as to why you keep using a term of 10,000 years, when the NAS, backed by the courts, recommends 100,000-300,000 years. Except it’s a silly number. Some of that stuff _might_ be capable of causing heavy metal poisoning in a thousand years. But by definition any dangerously radioactive substance will have burned itself out within a few hundred years. The substances with high half-lives are not dangerously radioactive. And heavy-metal storage is done all the time and with much less worry. Finally, who cares what the courts say about it? It has nothing to do with them and they don’t get to decide scientific truth or or what is practical or safe. Frankly, most judges are less qualified than by little brother on this matter. > [@](#): > > by by **Snowborder Bo** > obviously are ignorant in regards to Nevada, or you would know that the town of Armagosa (population 1600+) is less than 10 miles from Yucca Mountain, Beatty (population 1200+) is less than 20 miles from Yucca Mountain, Tonopah (population 2600+) is less than 70 miles from Yucca Mountain As has been said - nothing. As nice as it might be for those 10,000 people not to live near a nuclear waste dump, so what? The other millions in this country need Yucca mountain more than they, if we use Yucca mountain. And it’s not as if those areas will simply fall off the map. Barring massive problems, which are far more likely to happen at the current sites than Yucca mountain, the region will remain perfectly fertile and happy. I live in one of the nation’s worst air-quality regions because of current power plants. We have 170,000 people in this county. > [@](#): > > by **Snowborder Bo** > Sam. I have only said, from the beginning, that we in Nevada do not want the waste from nuclear power plants And I’m afraid to say that we in the rest of the country have noted that we don’t care a whole lot what Nevada wants. We’re doing this for everyone, and that may mean that your ox gets gored. That’s basically what living in a nation means; sometimes we have to accept that other’s interests overrides our own. It sucks, but look on the bright side: everyone else gets screwed over some other way. > [@](#): > > by **Raygun99** > and it is, to my mind the greater potential energy resource with fewer safety issues No, we simply cannot collect enough juice. The technology isn’t promising and isn’t goig to be efficient enough. We’d have to cover grotesquely huge areas with solar cells at immense cost. Nuclear has the advantage of being far cheaper and more practically managed, essentially. If you want to try and develop the tech, be my guest, but I just don’t see it becoming financially or environmentally worthwhile within my lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/193 "2005-08-09T16:35:01Z")
**xtisme** , thanks for the cite. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Contamination of the aquifier could also result from flooding. > [@](#): > > The water table under Yucca Mountain is extremely deep. This makes it possible to put a repository about 1000 feet underground and still have it be about 800 feet above the water table. Geologic evidence shows that the water table has not been more than about 390 feet higher than its present level over the past several million years, even during cooler and wetter climates. > > Because of the repository’s proposed location in the ground, any precipitation that does not run off or evaporate at the surface would have to seep down nearly 1000 feet before reaching the repository, and through another 1000 feet of solid, dry rock before reaching the water table > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Such flooding would likely affect the Armagosa River, which is the only surface water source available for all animal and bird life in the region. > [@](#): > > Yucca Mountain is located in the hydrologic basin called Death Valley. Water in this basin does not flow into any river or ocean and is isolated from the aquifer systems of Las Vegas and Pahrump. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Earthquakes are also a real factor: > [@](#): > > Geologists studying shifts in the types of rock at Yucca Mountain also have determined that a magnitude 6.5 or greater earthquake has not occurred in the area for about 50,000 years. In addition, the depth of the proposed location is at a level where seismic activity tends to be minimal. This has been documented when groups of spelunkers have emerged from caves immediately after an earthquake, completely oblivious that a seismic event had occurred [17]. The most damaging parts of an earthquake are the L-waves, or long waves. They act like ripples that run across the surface, throwing structures into the air, causing significant damage. Due to the fact that there is no place for the earth to move in the L-wave direction underground, these waves do not exist below the surface of the earth [17]. At 1000 feet below the surface, the Yucca Mountain repository would be well out of harms way. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > I’ve seen arguments made in favor of storage casks that do not exist. > [@](#): > > The containers that are to be used to store the spent fuel during its transportation to the storage facility will be made of reliable, nearly indestructible materials. The containers are made of multiple layers of steel and other materials that are several feet thick. Containers weigh twenty-five tons for truck shipments and seventy five to one hundred and twenty five tons for rail shipments [3]. These containers are designed not only to shield radiation, but to be virtually indestructible in the event of an accident, as well. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/194 "2005-08-09T17:41:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s also highly unlikely that cows will develop super-intelligence and take over the world. Should we worry about that too? Another attempt to belittle me, and to ignore the fact that “very low probability” does not mean “can never happen”. > [@](#): > > You need to show something relevant about 9/11 as it relates to nuclear waste storage. Otherwise you are just throwing out random quotes and hoping the mud will stick. See my comment above. > [@](#): > > Your risk assessment skills are a little off. > > The idea of Yucca Mountain is long-term storage of high level waste. Instead of storing the waste at 141 different locations, some of which are closer to major population centers (and, since this seems to worry you, closer to the local water table) and have not been as intensivly studied as Yucca Mountain. And, as has been pointed out, Yucca Mountain is already in a nuclear testing range. > > You might think of it as a homeowner storing his valuables in a vault instead of hiding some of them under the bed, some in the closet, and burying some in the back yard. Even with the risks of being robbed in transport, you are still safer keeping it in the vault than in the back yard. You might think of it as the homeowner removing 80 dollars from each stash and putting the larger sum in one place. If Yucca is licensed, there will still be nuclear waste materials stored on-site. There won’t be trucks backed up to the plant, waiting for casks to be filled and shipped. > [@](#): > > Err, no. [Yucca Mountain is not in an areas where continental plates meet, nor is it located near any volvanic hot sports.](http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0341.shtml) And a volcanic event large enough to disrupt the repository is likely - sometime in the next 63 million years. Err, yes. Yucca is a volcanic region. That’s why there is volcanic rock on the surface in the area. I said dormant, not dead. And I never made a claim that Yucca is an area where continental plates meet. Why do you keep “refuting” claims that were never made? > [@](#): > > [ul][li][80 miles an hour.](http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph161/l19.html) [/li][li][The casks we were talking about.](http://www.citizenalert.org/yuccanew/casks-2.htm) [/li][li]Of course it was fucking empty - do you think it would be a good idea to use casks filled with spent nuclear fuel in a test? Sheesh.[/li] > [li][A concrete wall.](http://www.uwua.org/nuclear.htm) [/li] > [li][In 1984.](http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/energy/eng-34.cfm?&CFID=4344926&CFTOKEN=28152825) [/li][li]Yes, there were independent observers - it took place at Scandia Labs, as mentioned in the original cite.[/li][/ul] > Respectively. Any other facts you might need? Thanks for the facts. Testing empty casks ignores the inertia of the shipped material. Casks filled with steel rods, for example, can be accurately used to assess the impact of materials inside the cask as their inertia is changed to kinetic energy when the cask hits something. Also, the test you cite does not factor in the heat generated by the nuclear waste it is supposed to transport, particularly in an accident involving a fire, such as the Baltimore tunnel fire of 2001. In fact, none of the casks that are intended or designated for use have been subjected to full-scale testing. > [@](#): > > ABSENCE OF CASK TESTING REQUIREMENTS > Instead of full-scale testing, the NRC relies upon scale-model testing and computer analysis to assess cask performance under hypothetical accident conditions. (3) According to the NRC, seven spent nuclear fuel truck cask designs and nine rail cask designs are currently certified for use in the United States. None of the sixteen cask designs have been tested full-scale to demonstrate their ability to survive severe accident conditions. In two cases half-scale models were subjected to drop (impact) tests. Four cases involved drop tests of 1/3-scale or ¼-scale models. These facts, recently confirmed by NRC Chairman Richard Meserve, (1,2) are summarized in Table 1. > DOE has no plans to independently conduct full-scale testing of the casks that would be used for shipments of spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain. In the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Yucca Mountain, DOE asked the rhetorical question, “Will DOE conduct full-scale testing of transportation casks?” The FEIS answered: “The NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] requires DOE to use casks certified by the NRC when transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a repository. A cask’s ability to survive the tests prescribed by the regulations (10 CFR Part 71) can be demonstrated either through component analysis or through scale-model and full-scale testing to demonstrate and confirm the performance of the casks. The NRC would decide which level of physical testing or analysis was appropriate for each cask design submitted.” [p.S-40] (16) > > Table I. U.S. Commercial Spent Fuel Transport Casks > > Certificate Number and Cask Name Full-Scale, Cask Testing Half-Scale, Model Testing Other Scale-Model Testing Cask Certified Based on > Analysis 6346 & 9277 > > FSV-1 (Truck) None None None Yes 9001 > IF-300 (Rail) None None None Yes 9010 > NLI-1/2 (Truck) None None None Yes 9015 > TN-8 (Overweight Truck) None Drop Tests ¼-scale Drop Tests Yes 9016 > TN-9 (Overweight Truck) None None None Yes 9200 > 125-B (Rail) None None ¼-scale Drop Tests; > Scale-model Impact Limiter Tests Yes 9202 > TN-BRP (Rail) None None 1/3-scale Impact Limiter Tests Yes 9206 > TN-REG (Rail) None None None Yes 9023 > NLI-10/24 (Rail) None None Scale-model Impact Limiter Tests Yes 9225 > NAC-LWT None None None Yes 9226\* > GA-4 (Truck) None Drop Tests ¼-scale Impact Limiter Tests Yes 9235\* > NAC-STC (Rail) None None ¼-scale Drop Tests; > 1/8-scale Impact Limiter Tests Yes 9253 > TN-FSV (Truck) None None ½-scale Impact Limiters Yes 9255\* > NUHOMS MP187 (Rail) None None 1/4-scale Impact Limiters Yes 9261\* > Hi-Star 100 (Rail) None None 1/4-scale and 1/8-scale Impact Limiters Yes 9293\* > TN-68 (Rail) None None 1/3-scale Drop Tests; Scale-model Impact Limiters Yes > \*Cask designs most likely to be used for large shipping campaigns to a disposal facility. > Ref. 1,2 [cite](http://www.yuccamountain.org/pdf/halstead0303.pdf) The table wouldn’t format properly, but can seen on page 3 of the cite. And even Sandia makes a good case in favor of the full-scale testing: > [@](#): > > According to the SNL report, "Full-scale package testing has several advantages:[ul] > > 1. For packages tested in full scale, a single test article can be subjected to all normal and hypothetical accident conditions defined by the regulations. The package being tested can be impacted, punctured, and thermally tested in sequence. The data from these tests can directly demonstrate the compliance of a design with the radiological acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 71. > 2. Through full-scale testing, a clear characterization can be developed of the behavior of a package when subjected to normal conditions and accident environments. Through this characterization, refinements can be explored which will lead to increased confidence and reliability in the design. This benefit is characteristic of both full- and reduced-scale modeling. > 3. Prototypic full-scale package closure and seal response can be directly measured. Because the package is full size, the closure seal response to the different test conditions represents the actual package containment system response. > 4. The fabrication of full-scale prototypic hardware allows evaluation and monitoring of the fabrication process before production and manufacturing of several packages. Problems that might not be encountered during a scale-model fabrication can be identified and resolved. Fabrication of a full-scale package also allows an accurate measure of the cost and fabrication schedule. > 5. The full scale package could be used to perform operational testing of the system. Engineers can evaluate loading and unloading operations and provide additional information on package performance that can be integrated into the transportation cycle. > 6. Data collected during testing, such as acceleration and surface deformations, are direct measurements of the structural response. These direct measurements eliminate the need for scaling relationships based on scale factors, time, or weight. > 7. The visual impression of full-scale testing is significant. Photos and videos of full-scale scenario testing of truck and rail systems that were taken for the DOE in the late 1970s are a visual tool for understanding the response of transportation systems in severe accidents. Video tapes of these tests continue to show the robustness of packages almost 15 years later. The size and weight of a large Type B package cannot be visually appreciated in a scale model. There has been some criticism of these scenario tests recently because no clear acceptance criteria for these tests were determined beforehand.[/ul] (17) But those full scale tests have still never happened. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/195 "2005-08-09T18:39:27Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Finally, who cares what the courts say about it? It has nothing to do with them and they don’t get to decide scientific truth or or what is practical or safe. Frankly, most judges are less qualified than by little brother on this matter. Actually, a judge did decide this issue. As I [cited previously](http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2004/jul/09/517149080.html) > [@](#): > > The court found that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the law when it said Yucca Mountain had to hold nuclear waste safely for 10,000 years and ordered the agency to set a new standard, which the state’s attorney, Joe Egan, said means “the department will have to apply a standard that all their own evidence says they can’t meet.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/196 "2005-08-09T19:10:02Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Another attempt to belittle me, and to ignore the fact that “very low probability” does not mean “can never happen”. I don’t recall saying “can never happen”. And it was more an attempt to belittle your argument, which is not a whole lot less far-fetched than super-cows. But I take it you have nothing to offer in terms of relevant comparisons. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > You might think of it as the homeowner removing 80 dollars from each stash and putting the larger sum in one place. If Yucca is licensed, there will still be nuclear waste materials stored on-site. There won’t be trucks backed up to the plant, waiting for casks to be filled and shipped. Right, and you might carry your money in your pocket until you get to the bank. If you therefore claim that it is more risky to stash it in the bank instead of hiding it under the bed, then you are missing the point of the analogy. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Err, yes. Yucca is a volcanic region. That’s why there is volcanic rock on the surface in the area. I said dormant, not dead. Well, “dormant” in the sense of “no activity for the last 11 million years or so”. You did read the quote about it being one of the least active areas in the western US, did you not? > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > And I never made a claim that Yucca is an area where continental plates meet. Why do you keep “refuting” claims that were never made? You mentioned your concerns about volcanoes in the region. If you read the cite, you would notice that the various activities that cause you to fret tends to center around areas where the continental plates meet, or volcanic "hot spots. Yucca Mountain is neither, and is about as active as my great-aunt. And she hasn’t been dead for 50,000 years, either. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Thanks for the facts. Testing empty casks ignores the inertia of the shipped material. Casks filled with steel rods, for example, can be accurately used to assess the impact of materials inside the cask as their inertia is changed to kinetic energy when the cask hits something. Again, you need to actually read cites before you try to argue against them. You must have missed the mention of the test where they dropped the cask onto a steel rod from a hundred feet. The casks weigh about seventy five tons, empty. They slammed one into a concrete wall at eighty miles an hour. They dropped one onto earth packed as hard as concrete at a terminal velocity of 235 mph. They didn’t rupture. But no doubt putting a steel rod inside would cause it to pop like a balloon. Oh wait - it didn’t. > [@](#): > > The British train crash demonstration, conducted in 1984, involved a locomotive weighing 140 metric tons pulling three 33- metric-ton passenger cars at 100 miles per hour. The train struck a British Magnox spent fuel cask weighing 48 metric tons that had been placed on the tracks in what was believed to be its most vulnerable position. The cask held three metric tons of steel bars meant to simulate spent fuel. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Also, the test you cite does not factor in the heat generated by the nuclear waste it is supposed to transport, particularly in an accident involving a fire, such as the Baltimore tunnel fire of 2001. Again, you need to read cites before you argue against them. > [@](#): > > According to the Lawrence Livermore report, the 1,475- degree hypothetical engulfing fire required by NRC regulations is equivalent to a real engulfing fire of 1,700 degrees F, because of the shielding effects of the transport vehicle, ground, or whatever else the cask might be resting on. In the NRC test fire, the cask must be suspended in the engulfing fire by test supports that minimize interference with heat transfer. > [@](#): > > And even Sandia makes a good case in favor of the full-scale testing:But those full scale tests have still never happened. Oh sure. If and when more tests occur, you will also dismiss them. If we drop a cask from a thousand feet, we should have dropped it from two thousand. If we cook it for half an hour at 1475 degrees, we should have cooked it for three days. If we drop the thing onto a six inch steel rod, we should have shot at it with an anti-tank missile. If we make the fucking thing as invulnerable as Superman, then we are going to be deluged with questions about Kryptonite. Look, if you want to fret yourself into a tizzy that the nuclear waste casks can’t survive being at Ground Zero in an all-out nuclear exchange, knock yourself out. The rest of us have the real world to deal with. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/197 "2005-08-09T19:22:41Z")
Thanks for presenting a bunch of misleading and false information, **Shodan**. Thanks also for making it as difficult as possible for me to do the HTML coding in order to respond. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > > > Contamination of the aquifier could also result from flooding. > > > [@](#): > > > > The water table under Yucca Mountain is extremely deep. This makes it possible to put a repository about 1000 feet underground and still have it be about 800 feet above the water table. Geologic evidence shows that the water table has not been more than about 390 feet higher than its present level over the past several million years, even during cooler and wetter climates. > > > > Because of the repository’s proposed location in the ground, any precipitation that does not run off or evaporate at the surface would have to seep down nearly 1000 feet before reaching the repository, and through another 1000 feet of solid, dry rock before reaching the water table > > > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > > > Such flooding would likely affect the Armagosa River, which is the only surface water source available for all animal and bird life in the region. > > > [@](#): > > > > Yucca Mountain is located in the hydrologic basin called Death Valley. Water in this basin does not flow into any river or ocean and is isolated from the aquifer systems of Las Vegas and Pahrump. This is incorrect. > [@Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management](#): > > The Amargosa River system drains from Yucca Mountain and the surrounding areas. Although referred to as a river, the Amargosa and its tributaries are dry most of the time. > > Groundwater below Yucca Mountain and in the surrounding region flows generally south toward discharge areas in the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. > [@USGS](#): > > The observations made by USGS scientists during storms in 1995 and 1998 will have to be considered in an environmental impact study under way on the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. > > The floods showed that the Amargosa River “has the potential to transport dissolved and particulate matter well beyond the boundary of the NTS (Nevada Test Site) and the Yucca Mountain area during periods of moderate to severe streamflow,” the report concluded. > > The Amargosa River, draining both areas at the Test Site and Yucca Mountain, usually runs underground, but exceptionally wet years in 1995 and 1998 caused the river to flow at the surface. > > Contaminated water could travel as far as Death Valley in California, the report found. [cite](http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2004/jul/09/517149080.html) The [original USGS report here](http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/waterusgsgov/water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs-036-01/text/fs03601.htm). > [@](#): > > > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > > > Earthquakes are also a real factor: > > > [@](#): > > > > Geologists studying shifts in the types of rock at Yucca Mountain also have determined that a magnitude 6.5 or greater earthquake has not occurred in the area for about 50,000 years. In addition, the depth of the proposed location is at a level where seismic activity tends to be minimal. This has been documented when groups of spelunkers have emerged from caves immediately after an earthquake, completely oblivious that a seismic event had occurred [17]. The most damaging parts of an earthquake are the L-waves, or long waves. They act like ripples that run across the surface, throwing structures into the air, causing significant damage. Due to the fact that there is no place for the earth to move in the L-wave direction underground, these waves do not exist below the surface of the earth [17]. At 1000 feet below the surface, the Yucca Mountain repository would be well out of harms way. This is false. As I [cited previously](http://water.usgs.gov/wid/html/nv.html#28.14) > [@USGS](#): > > Central Nevada is a natural laboratory for examining the patterns of large-magnitude earthquakes. Between 1915 and 1954, six large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 or larger) produced surface faulting on six separate fault zones along a roughly linear, nearly continuous 165-mile-long belt. Cooperative paleoseismic investigations by the USGS, the University of Nevada-Reno, and the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology are determining whether the pattern of past seismicity is similar to the modern pattern. The results of this research could greatly change the hazard assessments in urban areas adjacent to large normal faults, such as along the eastern front of the Sierra Nevada in western Nevada. > [@](#): > > > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > > > I’ve seen arguments made in favor of storage casks that do not exist. > > > [@](#): > > > > The containers that are to be used to store the spent fuel during its transportation to the storage facility will be made of reliable, nearly indestructible materials. The containers are made of multiple layers of steel and other materials that are several feet thick. Containers weigh twenty-five tons for truck shipments and seventy five to one hundred and twenty five tons for rail shipments [3]. These containers are designed not only to shield radiation, but to be virtually indestructible in the event of an accident, as well. As I said, the storage casks that are supposed to last for thousands and thousands of years do not exist. You are talking about the transportation casks, which are estimated to last, at best, for a few hundred years. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/198 "2005-08-09T19:27:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Another attempt to belittle me, and to ignore the fact that “very low probability” does not mean “can never happen”. You don’t seem to understand that the mere fact that something is possible does not mean it is an argument against. Of course an acident is possible. But transport and confinement is probably safer in the long run than leaving it where it is. Risk can be managed. You don’t seem to understand relative risk. > [@](#): > > Actually, a judge did decide this issue. As I cited previously Yes, I’m well aware of what the Judge said. I also don’t care. It’s not his purview and he has no valid authority in this case. It doesn’t matter if the federal government says Yucca Mountain is made of chooze, Nevada has no right to stop it. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/199 "2005-08-09T19:35:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Oh sure. If and when more tests occur, you will also dismiss them. > > If we drop a cask from a thousand feet, we should have dropped it from two thousand. If we cook it for half an hour at 1475 degrees, we should have cooked it for three days. If we drop the thing onto a six inch steel rod, we should have shot at it with an anti-tank missile. If we make the fucking thing as invulnerable as Superman, then we are going to be deluged with questions about Kryptonite. > > Look, if you want to fret yourself into a tizzy that the nuclear waste casks can’t survive being at Ground Zero in an all-out nuclear exchange, knock yourself out. The rest of us have the real world to deal with. Your posts are becoming increasingly hostile, **Shodan**. Your dissemination of misleading and false information is becoming tiresome. I have come to understand that you will not change your opinion, no matter how much of the basis for it I point out, with factual cites, to be wrong. Ridiculing me and attempting to trivialize my facts isn’t going to dissuade me. Ascribing an intractable delusional attitude to me will not change those facts. I’ll just keep coming back here and citing corrections. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/200 "2005-08-09T20:15:43Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > In fact, none of the casks that are intended or designated for use have been subjected to full-scale testing. [cite](http://www.yuccamountain.org/pdf/halstead0303.pdf) The table wouldn’t format properly, but can seen on page 3 of the cite. > > And even Sandia makes a good case in favor of the full-scale testing:But those full scale tests have still never happened. Post snipped. I _know_ the guy who ran the cask test. I’ve spoken with him about it. (By the way, they did fire test the casks) The guy who ran the test is happy with the results and extremely confident that they know what is going to happen. One issue with testing is that you can’t do exact real world tests because, well, it’s a test, and if it goes wrong while using real materials you’ve got a problem. So they set up the tests so that they get the information that they need and then interpolate. At the same time the people who do the testing (at least all the people I know) always want to run another test. They always want more data. It’s the way they work. They would prefer to test everything in exact real world conditions. But of coarse that isn’t possible. The guy who ran the test had one concern and that is the manufactoring process for the casks. He is confident that the casks, as designed, are safe. If the casks are made to spec all is good. So, in his opinion, they need to build some of the things and make sure whomever is building them are doing it correctly. Once they get the process down they need to have a serious inspection scheme setup to make sure the process is followed correctly. Also, note the seventh item on the list you provided. Parse it a couple times. All it means is that IT LOOKS BETTER if they do the test with full size containers. The rest of the points come down to three things: a) “We’d like to do a full size test to make sure our math is correct” b) “We’d like to make sure that they build and load the containers correctly” and c) “We’d like to bang on one of these containers for a couple years”. (The last is a direct quote from the guy who ran the test) The fact that these guys want to do more testing doesn’t mean that the original tests are flawed, it just means that they can think of other ways to test the containers. One of the tests they did was to strap a rocket motor onto a cask and shoot the cask into a wall. [http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0211avoiland.html#\_ftnref7](http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0211avoiland.html#_ftnref7) (regretablly, no pictures) Slee [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417.md?page=11)