Yucca Mountain Handout

Should We Store Our Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain? Background Radioactive waste is a by-product of many applications of nuclear physics, including electricity generation, weapons, and medicine. Due to the large quantities and long half-lives of the materials involved, this waste is expected to remain hazardous and thus require storage for tens of thousands to millions of years. Currently, the United States’ nuclear waste is scattered in many sites around the country. The Department of Energy (DoE) is working on a proposal to relocate all the waste to one permanent site in Yucca Mountain, which is approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The Yucca Mountain site was chosen after extensive study of its location, climate, and geology, as well as that of other potential sites. Despite the considerable research gone into the site, it remains controversial. Many residents of Nevada do not want nuclear waste “in their backyard”. Concerns have also been raised about how good various aspects of the storage plan are, including the site’s geologic stability and the amount of time it is expected to contain radiation for. The question of whether to build more nuclear power plants is closely related to the question of whether to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain: The more difficult it is to store nuclear waste, the less attractive an option building more nuclear power plants is. Nuclear power plants perform nuclear reactions to generate electricity. The plants perform nuclear fission, a controlled chain reaction in which converts heavy atoms such as uranium and plutonium to lighter atoms, alpha and beta particles, and energy which boils water, driving a steam turbine. The world gets about 7% of its energy from nuclear power. The world’s energy consumption is currently growing and is projected to continue growing indefinitely. Without more nuclear power plants, the world would need more energy from other sources. Alternatively, by building more nuclear power plants, the world could avoid generating energy via other means, such as fossil fuels. There are advantages and disadvantages to nuclear power, and there is a heated debate about whether we should build more plants. The issue touches on many aspects of society, including pollution, climate change, resource depletion, weapons proliferation, and economic vitality. Regular nuclear weapons are powerful enough to destroy an entire city, as was done with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Low-yield nuclear weapons, however, generate much smaller explosions, and thus can be used for more precise tactical operations, such as “bunker busting”, i.e. the destruction of underground bunkers. The weapons penetrate underground before explosion, maximizing impact on the bunker and minimizing the radiation released into the environment. Despite the differences between regular and low-yield nuclear weapons, development of the latter faces similar controversy as the former. Low-yield nuclear weapons have existed since decades. The United States recently (2003) proposed developing further low-yield nuclear weapons, but that proposal was abandoned, as it would have required reversing long-standing US policy on nuclear weapons non-proliferation. Very recently (Sunday, January 7, 2007), the London Times reported that Israel is considering using nuclear bunker busters to destroy Iran’s own nuclear facilities. This matter is ongoing and cannot be considered confirmed. Officially, Israel does not state whether it has nuclear weapons. Part One: With your partner, explore the advantages and disadvantages of building a nuclear storage site at Yucca Mountain. Advantages The location is remote and on a mountain far from others Disadvantages Some scientists argue that Yucca Mountain is not geologically stable enough to store nuclear waste for thousands of years. The climate is dry, resulting in a lower chance of radioactive infiltration The geology is stable with low seismic activity The region has experienced earthquakes in the past, which raises concerns about potential damage to storage facilities. There is a risk that radioactive waste could leak into the groundwater supply, endangering nearby communities. The storage site could allow for more power plants to be created, meaning Many residents of Nevada oppose the project, fearing long-term health and more electricity environmental consequences. Strengthens national security as it stores nuclear materials. The project requires extensive funding, and there is concern over whether it is a financially sustainable solution. Part Two: Become a teacher! With your partner, create four (4) lower level questions regarding the Yucca Mountain debate. Answer the questions using complete sentences after writing out the questions. Then, create four (4) higher-level questions regarding the Yucca Mountain debate. Then, answer your higher-level questions. You may do this on a separate sheet of paper. Lower Level Higher Level Lower Level Questions What government department is responsible for the Yucca Mountain project? -The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the Yucca Mountain project. What type of nuclear reactions take place in power plants? -Power plants use nuclear fission, a process where heavy atoms like uranium and plutonium split into smaller atoms, releasing energy. What is one reason some Nevada residents oppose the Yucca Mountain project? -Many Nevada residents do not want nuclear waste stored near them, often saying they don’t want it “in their backyard.” What recent (as of 2007) event involving nuclear weapons was reported in the London Times? -The London Times reported that Israel was considering using nuclear bunker busters to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Higher-Level Questions How do Nuclear Power Plants generate electricity? -Nuclear Power Plants use nuclear reactions as nuclear fission occurs, heavy atoms like Uranium and Plutonium become lighter atoms that boil water in a steam turbine, thus spinning the turbine and powering the generator. Compare and contrast the construction of one permanent waste site such as Yucca Mountain to having multiple waste sites across the country. -One centralized, permanent waste site at Yucca Mountain improves security, lower long-term cost, and reduced environmental risk. Multiple storage sites across the country minimizes transportation risks, but makes security harder, maintenance cost is higher, and environmental contamination at multiple sites is possible. What are the potential long-term environmental risks of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain? -The potential long-term environmental risks of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain include the possibility of radiation leaks due to seismic activity, which could damage the storage containers. Groundwater contamination is another concern, as water could seep into the waste and spread radiation. Additionally, the challenge of safely containing the waste for thousands of years raises questions about the site’s long-term stability and the potential impact on surrounding ecosystems. In what ways could the financial costs of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain impact the future of nuclear energy in the United States? -The financial costs of building and maintaining the Yucca Mountain facility are huge, with billions already spent on research and construction. On top of that, keeping the site secure and monitored for thousands of years would be a massive ongoing expense. These high costs could make nuclear energy less appealing to both investors and policymakers, since the expense of storing nuclear waste might outweigh the benefits of generating nuclear power. Moreover, delays and cost overruns on the Yucca Mountain project could cause people to lose trust in nuclear energy as a reliable and sustainable option for the future.