For those who would rather not read the whole thing, in a nutshell:
...No reason to fear storage of spent nuclear fuel...
...It's simple; just keep the nuke plants above reach of seismic waves...
We do definitely have a handle on storage of spent uranium. It is only because of constant wailing by activists (and democrats) who don't want nuclear anything, that this debate continues. It has been very easy for activists to scare local Nevadans, for example, about storage in the deep granitic strata there. The locals don't even have to know anything about the science of it, because dems have convinced the public lately that the Repubs are about religion, but that the more secular dems are about science. It's the same as with their GW/CC. They have even got little science stooges in their pockets, from Oslo's Nobel board, to the whiny little guy that chairmanned NASA's Goddard Meteorological division. The dems have aimed these guys at the public as though they were side arms, saying that "the scientists" have spoken! Before Michael Crichton died, he laid waste to that same NASA guy in a fair, open debate regarding GW/CC, in New York. The attendees came in answering poll questions on the issue, and after starting out 70/30 in favor of anthropogenic GW happening to crisis proportions, they left with a 60/40 split in favor of debunking anthropogenic CO2 as cause, or even that any warming or melt was happening that was significant, related to known historical fluctuations. The NASA guy (don't have time to look up name right now) complained afterward that he had truth on his side, but could not match Crichton's "star power," and so he vowed that he would never accept that kind of gig again (each side had expert witnesses in teams of three--Crichton had two experts from London on his team). Our beloved MSM obviously had no interest in reporting on this event, nor on the symposiums by the ICSC (International Climate Science Coalition), where over 600 prominent and highly ranking climatologists and geologists meet regularly to express their dismay at the lack of evidence for what is being politcally peddled as "scientific fact."
There is more, much more, but to finish this for the day, I want to emphasize that the very same political witch-doctoring is going on with the public regarding nuclear energy, as it is with GW. If our high school science curriculum were at least as strong as that of France, of all places, then our people would not be so vulnerable to this anti-nuke propaganda.
Regarding storage:
1-----Depleted Ur, if anything, is less dangerous than fully energized Ur. It is not more radioactive than when it started, but is depleted to 60% of its initial energy.
2-----Depleted fuel is compact, solid, and easy to transport with safety. Being solid, it requires very little space for storage, especially considering its energy delivery per unit volume. Being solid also means that it does not disperse into the atmosphere or the seas (should NOT be stored in the deep sea).
3-----Depleted fuel is deeply buried back into the NATURALLY RADIOACTIVE EARTH from which it came. It is no more of a threat there, than it was before it was mined and concentrated (we have all kinds of thick, continental crust areas for storage shafts were no aquifers are present).
4-----The Earth is not only pretty damned radioactive already, but is believed by many scientists to be maintaining its inner heat by a process of nuclear reactions, where the pressure is very intense at its core. No, it's not massive enough or hot enough to be a star, but it has kept its internal heat, while Mercury and Mars have gone cold (and therefore dead, regarding magnetic shields, vulcanism, and tectonics).
One more issue: Japan did not have this crisis because of earthquakes alone. Their facilities withstood the quakes just fine, having been designed with the strength to meet that challenge. It was ONLY because the resulting tsunamis took out their electrical power for their coolant pumps, along with their diesel generator backups, that they have had problems with overheating of their cores. The roadways were also clogged up with tsunami debris. All that would have been necessary for them to have avoided this, is to have built their nuke facilities and all electrical supply for them on open ground at elevations of a mere fifty feet above sea level. No tsunami has ever exceeded forty feet of depth in a dispersed wave over flat land. The vast majority of them do not get deeper in their flows than ten feet. They can focus up to larger depths in narrow, steep canyons or gorges, so reactors should not be placed where incoming water can be funneled, or focused. This problem does not apply to our nuclear facilities, and is easily avoided. As Sno pointed out, these nuclear crises in Japan, and at Three Mile Island, did not kill anyone, yet we have become accustomed to losing hundreds in some years at coal mine explosions, and other mishaps with the fossil fuel industries.
http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">