3 ms·
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 mak
by 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 agoCarlsbad 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