5 ms·

Yucca Mountain is sort of ready but the state doesn't want waste to be moved there and more and a few places don't want the waste transferred through them to ge

Yucca Mountain is sort of ready but the state doesn't want waste to be moved there and more and a few places don't want the waste transferred through them to get there. I think if nuclear energy is to be part of the solution here, as things are we have to plan for indefinite storage of waste on site with the energy production. And ideally we could minimize waste or process it in to such a state as it could conceivably be transported somewhere else but those costs undermine the profitability of energy production as it is.

bumby 5y ago
I wonder if there is a political solution to the storage problem. What if GHG externalities are taxed in a way that can be shuttled to those areas, like NV and NM, that can provide part of the nuclear solution? That might make the Yucca Mountains and WIPPs more palatable while also incentivizing more, better storage solutions.
- jandrewrogers 5y ago
  In the case of Yucca Mountain, a number of proposals were floated to give concessions to the State of Nevada in return for cooperation. There was a proposal put forward a couple decades ago to allow storage in exchange for returning unused Federal land to State control. ~85% of Nevada (and increasing) is Federally controlled. This creates significant economic problems for Nevada due to the practical restrictions on growth and land use. Most of this land has no Federal purpose and is not actively managed, it is simply under Federal control and subject to their whims that change with each administration, creating a sparse patchwork of private property the use of which effectively requires Federal permission. This proposal was flatly rejected by the Federal government, even though it would have come at no cost (indeed, it would have saved money by reducing administration costs of land they have no purpose for in any case). Generally speaking, the Federal government has been unwilling to grant any concessions to States for taking the nuclear waste.
LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
Would that even register against the background of what remains from the fun they had in the Nevada test range? Especially if transported in casks?

bumby 5y ago

I wonder if there is a political solution to the storage problem. What if GHG externalities are taxed in a way that can be shuttled to those areas, like NV and NM, that can provide part of the nuclear solution? That might make the Yucca Mountains and WIPPs more palatable while also incentivizing more, better storage solutions.

jandrewrogers 5y ago
In the case of Yucca Mountain, a number of proposals were floated to give concessions to the State of Nevada in return for cooperation. There was a proposal put forward a couple decades ago to allow storage in exchange for returning unused Federal land to State control. ~85% of Nevada (and increasing) is Federally controlled. This creates significant economic problems for Nevada due to the practical restrictions on growth and land use. Most of this land has no Federal purpose and is not actively managed, it is simply under Federal control and subject to their whims that change with each administration, creating a sparse patchwork of private property the use of which effectively requires Federal permission. This proposal was flatly rejected by the Federal government, even though it would have come at no cost (indeed, it would have saved money by reducing administration costs of land they have no purpose for in any case). Generally speaking, the Federal government has been unwilling to grant any concessions to States for taking the nuclear waste.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago

Would that even register against the background of what remains from the fun they had in the Nevada test range? Especially if transported in casks?