Nevada, National and International News

Which Of The Following Is True Regarding Nuclear Power Plants?

**The Waste Problem Isn’t Going Away**
Storing nuclear waste safely remains a headache. Finland built a underground tomb called Onkalo. It’s designed to hold waste for 100,000 years. The U.S. still debates where to put its waste. Nevada’s Yucca Mountain site got scrapped after political fights. Until a permanent fix exists, waste stays at reactor sites. Critics argue this risks leaks or theft. Supporters say current storage is safe.

Meta strikes nuclear power deal to secure long-term energy for AI infrastructure

Concerns persist around radioactive waste, safety, and proliferation, with the US still lacking a permanent waste storage solution after Yucca Mountain was shelved.

Wyoming lawmakers mull, again, allowing nuclear fuel waste

That’s not likely to happen anytime soon, according to federal officials. It will take an act of Congress to resume efforts to establish one at Yucca Mountain, or anywhere else, according to Idaho National Laboratory’s Thomas, who worked for more than a decade on the Yucca Mountain project.

“Yucca Mountain has been defunded and is not being pursued,” Thomas said. If Congress were to direct the U.S. Department of Energy to resume the work, he added, “I would say that we are probably four or more decades off.”

Culture, security and radioactive waste: challenges abound for nuclear-powered data centres

Nuclear waste is typically buried far beneath the Earth’s surface. In the US state of New Mexico, for instance, authorities store nuclear waste from weapons research and production in natural salt deposits more than 600 metres underground. A similar waste repository was proposed at a site in Nevada, in Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles from Las Vegas, but has failed to receive regulatory approval.

“The biggest issue is who will be responsible for managing and disposing of the SMR waste,” Krall says. When the US legislature defunded the Yucca Mountain project in 2009, for instance, a stalemate ensued over who was responsible for disposing of the waste intended for the site. The US, Krall adds, currently lacks sufficient storage capacity for its nuclear waste.

Wyoming lawmakers mull, again, allowing nuclear fuel waste

That’s not likely to happen anytime soon, according to federal officials. It will take an act of Congress to resume efforts to establish one at Yucca Mountain, or anywhere else, according to Idaho National Laboratory’s Thomas, who worked for more than a decade on the Yucca Mountain project.

“Yucca Mountain has been defunded and is not being pursued,” Thomas said. If Congress were to direct the U.S. Department of Energy to resume the work, he added, “I would say that we are probably four or more decades off.”

There's 90,000 tons of nuclear waste in the US. How and where is it stored?

A 1987 federal law named Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, as a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste — but political and legal challenges led to construction delays.

Weighing Whether the United States Should Dispose of Defense HLW and SNF First: Roundtable Summary

The roundtable was organized in response to the US HLW and SNF disposal program’s ongoing lack of momentum. The one disposal site designated by law and approved by Congress—Yucca Mountain—has not received appropriations from Congress to move forward since 2010.
One participant noted that the United States has been working on a model of tightly interspersed disposal of defense and commercial waste at emplacement areas in the Yucca Mountain repository, meaning that the disposal of the two inventories had to be done simultaneously.
One speaker felt that all options need to be kept open, and that the primary issue is that the United States needs a hosting agreement—i.e., a politically and socially acceptable site, which the country does not have in Yucca Mountain.

5 takeaways from Chris Wright’s Hill visit

The U.S. does not have a permanent facility to store nuclear waste, after years of opposition from Nevada politicians to the Yucca Mountain repository. Wright said DOE will take an “opt-in approach” for the siting of such a repository, a reference to support from local communities.

US Waste Agreement Clears Way For Critical Research Into Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage

In 1987, US Congress designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the only site for construction of a repository for spent nuclear fuel, but in 2009, the Obama administration ended work at the site after deeming the project unworkable.

U.S. Supreme Court Deliberates on Temporary Nuclear Waste Storage Amidst National Disposal Dilemma

An effort spanning decades has aimed to consolidate this waste at a single site, designated by a 1987 law as Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

How and where is nuclear waste stored in the US?

A 1987 federal law named Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, as a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste – but political and legal challenges led to construction delays. Work on the site had barely started before Congress ended the project’s funding altogether in 2011.

Permeability scaling relationships of volcanic tuff from core to field scale measurements

Extensive permeability and tracer transport tests have been performed to analyze the flow properties of welded and partially welded tuffs and to determine their suitability to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, NV23,24. Additional tuff testing related to the Yucca Mountain Project was performed at the Apache Leap Research Site, Arizona, USA (ALRS)25,26,27,28.

How and where is nuclear waste stored in the US?

For decades, the nation has been trying to send it all to one secure location.

A 1987 federal law named Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, as a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste—but political and legal challenges led to construction delays. Work on the site had barely started before Congress ended the project's funding altogether in 2011.

The U.S. Can Innovate on Nuclear Waste Storage Front

In concert with the NWPA, then-President Bush and Congress proposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada as a storage facility in 2002. The Obama administration’s DOE terminated the project despite no documented safety issues. A 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety evaluation report confirmed it was safe to store nuclear waste at this site.

Biden-era Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm opposed Yucca Mountain, and the administration instead opted to prioritize nuclear waste education over spent fuel storage. Thanks to bad policymaking, taxpayers shoulder $400 million to $800 million annually due to inaction here. Now, with a second Trump administration, this issue is likely to be addressed across the board.

Is a nuclear renaissance coming?

Nevada
• In 2002, Congress approved the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository as the long-term home of the nation’s nuclear waste, or spent fuel, but in 2011, the project was canceled following intense local opposition. However, the Trump administration hinted at restarting construction.
• Project 2025, the Trump administration’s far-right playbook, wants to resume nuclear warhead testing at the Nevada Test Site.

The controversial nuclear mega-project that cost £13bn but lies abandoned

In 1987, Yucca Mountain - near the border between Nevada and California and about 100 miles from Las Vegas - was identified by US authorities as the best available option. It lies close to the country's most-used nuclear testing site and is far away from any population centres.

COLUMN: Addressing our waste with eyes wide open

Nobody wanted radioactive rods in their backyard, but they didn’t want to see them transported across Minnesota’s farmland to a possible destination in Nevada, the proposed Yucca Mountain federal storage facility.

Numerous local demonstrators pointed to the government’s lack of a good plan for dealing with spent nuclear fuel. And the idea that spent fuel rods from Prairie Island could be transported by old-fashioned rail to a far west destination like the planned facility at Yucca Mountain was a bit too dystopian for most. They believed the risk of a train derailment was just too high.

Next up for nuclear power: small, transportable and made in a factory near Pittsburgh

If the industry grows, the U.S. will have to figure out new ways to deal with waste. In 2002, the U.S. proposed a centralized nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada within Yucca Mountain. Instead of having nuclear waste spread out across dozens of sites across the country, it would be stored in a single place under Department of Energy oversight. The project faced strong opposition from people in Nevada and eventually fizzled out.

“If we see more of these plants being built, there’s going to be more waste,” Sioshansi said. “And we have to, as a nation, figure out — Do we want to just keep doing the status quo? Each of these facilities will keep waste on site. Or do we want to revisit some things like Yucca Mountain — where waste is being consolidated and stored at one or two places under close DOE supervision?”

Supreme Court to hear arguments over nuclear waste; Nevada bill prevents storage at Yucca

A plan to build a national storage facility northwest of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain has been mothballed because of staunch opposition from most Nevada residents and officials.

High Court to Weigh Future of Nuclear Waste, Licensing Policy

But the Texas Attorney General’s Office argues administrative law doesn’t explicitly forbid them from filing a petition for review. The department also claims it has a major questions case, because Congress clearly designated spent nuclear fuel to be stored in Yucca Mountain, Nev., or at an interim federal facility, not a private facility.

Nobody wants to live near nuclear waste. The Supreme Court mulls where to put it

Congress passed a set of laws in the 1980s that laid out the country’s “Plan B” – burying high-level waste underground, said Will Yeatman of the Pacific Legal Foundation in a webinar hosted by the conservative-leaning Federalist Society. Lawmakers designated Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as the only authorized site for the Department of Energy to permanently store spent nuclear fuel despite opposition from the state.