• titanicx@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Yeah. I remember the whole yucca mountain debate. Had nothing to do with the storage location itself. It had to do with the fact that they’re going to be shipping radioactive waste directly through my hometown as well as a lot of other very highly populated places. Things that we didn’t want shipped through our area. And saying that it could be stored for millions of years safely there is kind of a joke. You know this was still built by the same types of contractors that get government bids. In other words the lowest bidder out there.

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      If it’s anything like the solution planned in Finland, the waste is placed in copper containers, transported in pretty much bomb-proof vessels, and the facility is kilometres deep underground split into multiple separated chambers that get filled with concrete (or bentonite to be more precise) once they are full. The result is a solid block that will survive basically forever and the only thing you need to do is not go dig it back up.