5 ms·

Not every country has every resource; that's why we have global trade. Yet that isn't even relevant since nuclear storage doesn't require special geography – US

Not every country has every resource; that's why we have global trade. Yet that isn't even relevant since nuclear storage doesn't require special geography – US plants mostly just keep it onsite.

jhgb 5y ago
So will your country allow my country to store our waste in Yucca Mountain, then?
- Alupis 5y ago
  There's a lot more nuclear waste storage facilities than you might think. Europe has many, for example, and the US has 80+[1][2] in total including Yucca Mountain. Any nation that has operated a nuclear power plant is going to have some sort of storage site. Regardless, it's possible to negotiate this as some sort of trade agreement, sure. Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...
  - jhgb 5y ago
    Thank you; I'm fully aware of our intermediate storage sites (we have exactly two of them). But that's not what the top-level comment about the stable storage site was talking about. > Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already It's like you didn't read at all what I wrote! (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842914)
    - Alupis 5y ago
      Being near a populated area is not a factor for these sites, particularly if you are geologically stable. Look at the map from the US, many sites of varying level are extremely close to major metropolitan areas. They are often deep underground.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        It absolutely is a factor for the politics of site decision. I've checked Yucca Mountain; apparently the closest settlement is like 25 kilometers away or so, the next one like 40 kilometers or so. Finding a comparable site in a country 1% the size of US with quadruple the population density and with no sparsely inhabited areas is a Herculean task -- especially if you don't have huge areas appropriated by the military for such purposes. > Look at the map from the US, many sites of varying level are extremely close to major metropolitan areas. They are often deep underground. Wikipedia tells me that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM is currently the only deep underground waste storage site in the US.
        Alupis 5y ago
        Yes, but that is a political problem, not a nuclear problem. > Wikipedia tells me that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM is currently the only deep underground waste storage site in the US. The US storage sites are old (the Carlsbad facility design is from the 70's for example), and the US has vast amounts of land. European sites are often much deeper, and new sites are deeper and deeper, up to 800 meters below the surface.
        jhgb 5y ago
        They're "old", but the Carlsbad facility that went into operation in 1999 was only the third in the world after two German sites? That still doesn't seem to make sense for the claim that the US sites are "often deep underground" if only only of them is. One out of many is not "often" -- that's "rarely".
        Alupis 5y ago
        Carlsbad stores waste from production of nuclear weapons, among other things, and is the only facility in the US tasked with storage of so-called "transuranic waste". There are different classifications for nuclear waste, and each warrants different handling as you might imagine. The Yucca Mountain site is 50 meters underground, which is about 164 feet. That's deep enough to not disturb things on the surface if in a geologically stable area. You can see Yucca in on the shallow-side of things for many countries[1]. Perhaps I overspoke when I alleged many are deep in the US. The US is very spread out, and it seems going 200+ meters below the surface wasn't warranted except for the highest classifications of waste. However, in a more densely populated nation, there is no hurdle to building deep repositories, except politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Money talks.

Not every country has every resource; that's why we have global trade. Yet that isn't even relevant since nuclear storage doesn't require special geography – US plants mostly just keep it onsite.

jhgb 5y ago

So will your country allow my country to store our waste in Yucca Mountain, then?

Alupis 5y ago
There's a lot more nuclear waste storage facilities than you might think. Europe has many, for example, and the US has 80+[1][2] in total including Yucca Mountain. Any nation that has operated a nuclear power plant is going to have some sort of storage site. Regardless, it's possible to negotiate this as some sort of trade agreement, sure. Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...
- jhgb 5y ago
  Thank you; I'm fully aware of our intermediate storage sites (we have exactly two of them). But that's not what the top-level comment about the stable storage site was talking about. > Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already It's like you didn't read at all what I wrote! (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842914)
  - Alupis 5y ago
    Being near a populated area is not a factor for these sites, particularly if you are geologically stable. Look at the map from the US, many sites of varying level are extremely close to major metropolitan areas. They are often deep underground.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      It absolutely is a factor for the politics of site decision. I've checked Yucca Mountain; apparently the closest settlement is like 25 kilometers away or so, the next one like 40 kilometers or so. Finding a comparable site in a country 1% the size of US with quadruple the population density and with no sparsely inhabited areas is a Herculean task -- especially if you don't have huge areas appropriated by the military for such purposes. > Look at the map from the US, many sites of varying level are extremely close to major metropolitan areas. They are often deep underground. Wikipedia tells me that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM is currently the only deep underground waste storage site in the US.
      - Alupis 5y ago
        Yes, but that is a political problem, not a nuclear problem. > Wikipedia tells me that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM is currently the only deep underground waste storage site in the US. The US storage sites are old (the Carlsbad facility design is from the 70's for example), and the US has vast amounts of land. European sites are often much deeper, and new sites are deeper and deeper, up to 800 meters below the surface.
        jhgb 5y ago
        They're "old", but the Carlsbad facility that went into operation in 1999 was only the third in the world after two German sites? That still doesn't seem to make sense for the claim that the US sites are "often deep underground" if only only of them is. One out of many is not "often" -- that's "rarely".
        Alupis 5y ago
        Carlsbad stores waste from production of nuclear weapons, among other things, and is the only facility in the US tasked with storage of so-called "transuranic waste". There are different classifications for nuclear waste, and each warrants different handling as you might imagine. The Yucca Mountain site is 50 meters underground, which is about 164 feet. That's deep enough to not disturb things on the surface if in a geologically stable area. You can see Yucca in on the shallow-side of things for many countries[1]. Perhaps I overspoke when I alleged many are deep in the US. The US is very spread out, and it seems going 200+ meters below the surface wasn't warranted except for the highest classifications of waste. However, in a more densely populated nation, there is no hurdle to building deep repositories, except politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
Hamuko 5y ago
Money talks.