1. yucca mountain can not sustain a million years due to strong seismic activity
2. onkalo stores the waste in iron that is probably corrosion prone
well no matter the waste is a problem and humans can't handle it, because money is the problem. as long as somebody can make it cheaper the cheapest option is always used which probably can harm people.
nuclear technology was NEVER the problem, people were. even the safest plan is still unsafe, because people and money.
fukushima, failed because of money and people. tschernobyl failed because of money and people.
and money will be even a bigger issue when there are cheaper technologies. also no nuclear plant is emission free, even most construction emissions are already pretty high and lots of studies talk so nicely about that, but undervalue most of that by a high margin.
> 1. yucca mountain can not sustain a million years due to strong seismic activity
Where does it say this? Here's the paragraph under earthquakes:
> DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. Rises in the water table caused by seismic activity would be, at most, a few tens of meters and would not reach the repository. The fractured and faulted volcanic tuff that Yucca Mountain comprises reflects the occurrence of many earthquake-faulting and strong ground motion events during the last several million years, and the hydrological characteristics of the rock would not be changed significantly by seismic events that may occur in the next 10,000 years. The engineered barrier system components will reportedly provide substantial protection of the waste from seepage water, even under severe seismic loading.
It sure doesn't seem to conform to what you're saying. Later in the article there is one sentence claiming it's unsafe:
> Nevada National Security Site officials in April 2019 assured the public that the Device Assembly Facility on the Nevada security site was safe from earthquake threats. In contrast, Nevada officials claimed seismic activity in the region made it unsafe for the storage of nuclear waste.
But this is a one-off statement that doesn't seem to be backed by any sort of studies.
> onkalo stores the waste in iron that is probably corrosion prone
And when those containers corrode, how does the waste escape the bedrock that's surrounding it?
Nuclear power represents the only way for countries to decarbonize their energy sector. Solar and wind offer cheap bandaids, throw up a few solar panels and you can reduce daytime use of electricity. But they do not offer a real path to decarbonization without spectacular breakthroughs in energy storage. By comparison, France has successfully produced more than 2/3rds of their electricity with nuclear power since the 1980s.
As a Nevadan who is semi-involved in local politics, I can also tell you that Yucca is so contentious and such a career killer for politicians that I have no doubt that any Nevada state or local agencies would be under tremendous pressure to find any and all reasons to make Yucca an unacceptable place to store the used material.
Is it really? Yucca mountain is basically right next to the site where the military conducted over a hundred nuclear weapons above ground, and a few hundred more below ground. Putting nuclear waste in an area that's already contaminated essential presents no change.
1. yucca mountain can not sustain a million years due to strong seismic activity
2. onkalo stores the waste in iron that is probably corrosion prone
well no matter the waste is a problem and humans can't handle it, because money is the problem. as long as somebody can make it cheaper the cheapest option is always used which probably can harm people.
nuclear technology was NEVER the problem, people were. even the safest plan is still unsafe, because people and money. fukushima, failed because of money and people. tschernobyl failed because of money and people.
and money will be even a bigger issue when there are cheaper technologies. also no nuclear plant is emission free, even most construction emissions are already pretty high and lots of studies talk so nicely about that, but undervalue most of that by a high margin.