[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Is "permanent" underground nuclear waste repository a must for nuclear energy utilization?
|
[  ] Pro
|
[ ] Con
- New types of reactors may use current waste as valuable fuel. New types of nuclear reactors, namely breeder reactors such as Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor may utilize what is currently considered waste as its fuels, producing a much shorter-lived nuclear waste, in turn rendering Yucca Mountain needless. See e.g. Debate: Thorium based nuclear energy for more details.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Legal liability: Is canceling Yucca a legal liability?
|
[ ] Pro
- Canceling Yucca Mountain facility is a legal liability. If the U.S. Government cancels the license for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, it will likely constitute a full "breach of contract", potentially costing around 1 billion dollars. Courts have already awarded over 1 billion dollars to to utility companies. Nuclear power consumers have already paid around 29 billion dollars for into the Yucca Mountain Construction fund.
|
[ ] Con
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Nuclear energy: Is nuclear energy important? Is Yucca a reasonable price to pay?
|
[ ] Pro
- Nuclear needed to replace hydrocarbons; Yucca justified as such There is a major need for emissions-free alternatives to fossil fuels, both due to climate change, and due to the depletion of fossil fuel resources. Nuclear is the most viable of these alternatives currently. Yucca mountain, and the concerns surrounding it, is a small price to pay for these enormous benefits.
|
[ ] Con
- Nuclear waste should not be created in the first place. Kevin Kamps, a radioactive-waste expert at the environmental group Beyond Nuclear, "is that we should not be creating this material to begin with."[1]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Safety: Is storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain tolerably safe?
|
[ ] Pro
- Transport is safe: The U.S. has been transporting high level radioactive waste for at least 45 years, with no fatalities or serious accidents. There have only been 9 accidents. The worst only released a minimal amount of radioactive waste. The safety record for nuclear waste transportation is excellent.
- Yucca Mountain is much safer than the status quo of nuclear storage. "Editorial: Mountain of Trouble." Washington Post. March 8, 2009: "Our longstanding support of the Yucca Mountain facility has been grounded in the belief that the center of a desert mountain 1,000 feet underground and more than 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was an appropriate place for the nation's nuclear waste. Instead, storage is spread over 121 above-ground sites located within 75 miles of more than 161 million people in 39 states."
|
[ ] Con
- The transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain entails risks. Transporting nuclear waste hundreds and even thousands of miles across the country to a single nuclear waste storage facility entails significant risks. Train crashes or other accidents during the transportation of the waste could realize significant quantities of radiation into the surrounding environment and communities.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Fossil fuel dependence: Does Yucca and nuclear help reduce foreign oil dependencies?
|
[ ] Pro
- Nuclear power and Yucca can decrease dependence on foreign oil. Stopping Yucca Mountain would make us more dependable on fossil fuels, rather than paving the way for new nuclear developments.
|
[ ] Con
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con sources
|
[ ] Pro
|
[ ] Con
|
See also
External links and resources
|
]
]
]
]
