DIYbanter - View Single Post

dpb

wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:48�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.
Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design.

...

the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if
a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of
these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.
No, they're pools...

you have a major disaster.
Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining...

currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada
Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named
monitored retrievable storage for a reason.

--

well after some time it wouldnt be retrievable. and nevada is fighting
the plan, based at least partially on the risk of a earthquake opening
the mountain at some point in a thousand years.

just how does one prevent a person in the future from accidently
breeching the storage area? our country is just over 200 years old.

now a thousands or more. how does one guarantee a future resident
doesnt drill a well, not knowing the hazard

The logical solution is to recycle as does the rest of the world. The
only reason we're not is because during the Carter administration the
NRC was commanded to not consider the licensing application for the
GE-proposed recycling facility, effectively creating the problem of the
open-end fuel cycle we're still having to deal with.

The only reason for that was Carter's inability to separate commercial
nuclear fuel and reprocessing/recycling from weapons proliferation.

As in the comparison you keep trying to make between Chernobyl and other
LWR reactor designs, the only real similarity is that they both use some
of the same words.

--