It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Yucca Mountain NV. (Spent plutonium grave)

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 12:44 PM
Just saw a program on the history channel about how in the year 2010 they'll start the first shipments nationwide of used plutonium rods.
They use a multi million dollar transportation device called a casque, wich is highly impervious to damage.
they will fill these casques with the spent rods and transport them from all over the country to Yucca mountain nevada via tractor trailors,trains, and probably plains..where they have a massive underground retaining facility to stockpile the countries used plutonium.
could this be a probable cause for the end of our world? Remember three mile island?
whats everybodies thoughts? anyone know any good links on this subject?

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 03:10 PM
In an environmental science class, a few years ago, I studied the Yucca Mountain Project. At the time, I got in touch with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and they mailed me bulkloads of information, ranging from VHS tapes of environmental discussions of the project, to CDs of conferences, to "The Nuclear Primer for Every Citizen."
Truth be told, they were very helpful. I'd recommend contacting them for some information, they gave me lots of facts.
(Incidentally, I am still on their mailing list, and occasionally receive packages with information on lectures and pamphlets. (And you wonder why the budget is so high).)

I'm not sure how I feel about it. Frankly, I think it's just pushing off something for tomorrow what should be taken care of today. Nuclear power is an excellent premise, but the safety of it is still so much in question -- I don't believe tampering with it any further, until elimination of waste elements is figured out, is a grand idea.

While it's off topic (only slightly!), fusion is still in the works -- a fusion-based energy system would most likely be the premise of any "up and coming" energy source. It makes the most 'sense' environmentally (if that's your MO), but is also quite efficient. The major thing called into question is the attainment of high enough heat in order to proceed with it as a viable energy source.

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 10:02 PM
There is an incredible amount of debate concerning Yucca Mountain. Years ago, the DOE promised power plant owners that they would establish a fixed repository for spent nuclear fuel, with the first shipments to be received in the late 90's, as I recall. The owners have been contributing millions of dollars a year to that goal. The reason Yucca Mountain will be opened a minimum of 10 years late is exactly to avoid an environmental disaster. The DOE has been conducting an extensive study into the proposed site for over 25 years, including seismic and hydrological studies. Every possible scenario is being considered.

As far as the issue of putting so much nuclear material into a single location is concerned, it's much better than having it spread around at over 100 sites, as it is now. The main reason for this is security - it's much easier to secure one site.

While we consider the spent fuel "waste" right now, it really is more of a resource. There is a lot of unused uranium, plutonium, and other acinides that could be used to produce much more power. Unfortunately, the United States has decided that fuel reprocessing - seperating the useful elements from the not-so-useful - is a bad thing and it was outlawed under the Carter administration (for political reasons, of course), along with breeder reactors, which produce more fuel then they consume. A nuclear fuel cycle that includes reprocessing produces a fraction of the waste as the "open-ended" cycle used now. That's another reason why storing the fuel in a single spot is a good thing - we can just set up a reprocessing facility right there.

Finally, do I remember TMI? Well, no, since I wasn't born
, but I do know plenty about it. Frankly, TMI was a "succesful failure" like Apollo 13, since even though the core had a melt down, there was no major release of radiation. The safety systems worked as designed. Current plant designs incorporate even more safety systems, most of which are passive, meaning no operator intervention or power is required.

Here's a couple useful links:

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 10:26 PM
thay are going to use it as a dump fo about 300+years or so if i rember right,corect if im rong. but how do you get ahold of them for that stuff and to get on thair mailing list? it would be great if you could do that online

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by slayerfan
thay are going to use it as a dump fo about 300+years or so if i rember right,corect if im rong. but how do you get ahold of them for that stuff and to get on thair mailing list? it would be great if you could do that online

I just emailed the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and told them the same thing I told you...That I am a student doing research and was wondering if they could supply me with information.

Incidentally, the day after I made my last post, I received a letter in the mail from them regarding recent hazardous waste containment acts which had been passed in my state. I've got, literally, boxloads of stuff from them, including cassette tapes of debates that have been held. It's all in the public domain, and they'll send it to you. Just provide justification (ergo, say you're a student...)

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:28 PM
what was the site or email

posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:13 AM

Take it for it's face value. It is the government, after all

top topics


log in