For that reason, much pressure exists to select Yucca Mountain as a repository site; otherwise, this money would have been wasted. For instance, how economical is it to transport radioactive waste across several states to a single national site?Tags: Case Study Schizophrenia Paranoid TypeResearch Papers On Thin Film Solar CellsGen And Kelly Tanabe Scholarship Winners EssayIb Extended Essay OutlineEssay Feral ChildDiving Into The Wreck ThesisEssay Questions On History And MemoryEssay Water Is PreciousTechnical Essay Calling Fastformula From Pl/Sql
As far as location, a waste site cannot be in an area with a large population or near a ground water supply.
Also, because one of the most significant factors in determining the life span of a possible repository is how long the waste storage canisters will remain in tact, the waste site must be located in a dry climate to eliminate the moisture that can cause the waste canisters to corrode.
More than 30,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have arisen from U. commercial reactors as well as high level nuclear weapons waste, such as uranium and plutonium [Roush, 1995].
Because of the build-up of this waste, some power plants will be forced to shut down.
The economics involved in selecting a site is another criterion.
At present, the Department of Energy (DOE) has spent more than 1.7 billion dollars on the Yucca Mountain project [Taubes, 1995].
On January 1, 1998, the Department of Energy (DOE) must accept spent nuclear fuel from commercial plants for permanent storage [Clark, 1997].
However, the DOE is undecided on where to put this high level radioactive waste.
Rather, I will discuss qualitatively how well Yucca Mountain meets each criterion.
In some situations, disagreement exists among experts as to how well Yucca Mountain meets a criterion. In this assessment, only Yucca Mountain will be considered as a possible site.