Why are people concerned at the so-called problem of nuclear waste?

Question

One of the scare stories that always crops up when nuclear power is being suggested is that of storing and disposing of nuclear waste.
However we do know how to process and store it safely for the 2000 years or so that is required.Isn't this therefore yet another bogus argument.
If we don't go the nuclear route and if human activity is to blame for global warming we are truly doomed.

Stef:
Nuclear waste has existed for thousands of years without the world coming to any great harm-it's called uranium, a naturally occurring radioactive mineral.

Answer 1

Nuclear Power Plants do have some very nasty and radio active wastes - it is the nature of Nuclear Power Plants
Having said that: Here are some interesting situations:
Due to those people against Nuclear Power Jimmy Carter stopped reprocessing - that is separating the really bad stuff out of nuclear waste thereby vastly reducing the amount - unfortunately due to government regulations we cannot reprocess - that cure has been removed from consideration.
If we could reprocess - this high level waste can be put back into a reactor and burned, or sealed in glass and buried and monitored.

In reality - Most of the "waste" at a nuclear power plant is from low level radiation that must be stored someplace for a short amount of time before it is considered safe.

Unfortunately, for decades politics and bad press prevailed over common sense.

Answer 2

There are 2 points of this study that I would take issue with. 1. The author states "Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade." 2. "Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh." So basically, he's saying he thinks solar will go down in price while others think nuclear power will be much more expensive than advertised. Maybe he's right. Maybe he's wrong. Solar has always been overestimated as to how quickly it would become price competitive. Nuclear usually does have price over runs, but the author predicts massive price over runs. If the author is to be believed, then yes, alternative energy looks like the better path. The real question is, how well do we believe in the author's ability to predict costs in the future? Here's the thing, we can look at other countries that have made nuclear work. France and Japan being the two easiest examples. And it's been working for them for 20 to 40 years. Name me one country that has been getting a significant part of it's energy from solar, geothermal, biomass, etc. for any length of time? You can't.

Answer 3

1.Nuclear waste is the worst waste humans can create.
2.We are not able to contain nuclear waste for the length of time it needs to. We just don't have the technology.
3.We have already polluted a lot with nuclear waste.
4. Going the nuclear route doesn't make sense economically and ecologically. It takes a good ten years to get one nuclear power station up and running. During those ten years the local environment where it is built will be destroyed as roads, access and space will be needed. Once it is running, it will emit radioactive fumes....they do but they don't tell us. Nuclear power stations have a limited life span. Then they need decommissioning which costs just as much as building it. In fact the energy returned over the energy invested is meagre at best.
And finally we need oil to build it, to maintain it, to extract the uranium, and to keep it safe, but we're running out of oil!
The only good solution is for all of us to stop consuming so much and stop thinking we have special rights on this earth!

Answer 4

I think it's funny when people are so concerned about how nuclear waste is stored, and use that as a reason to oppose nuclear power.

We have had nuclear power in this country since the 1950's. The waste from the power plants are shipped to disposal sites everyday. The reason why it's not a big deal is because the public is unaware that this is going on.

Nuclear power is safe, efficent, produces no ghg's, and is stored and transported every day.

People are just scared of modern technology, just like they were of airplanes in the early 1900's.

Answer 5

It doesn't help those of us who are interested in nuclear power when you minimize the problems.

First, there is a lot of nuclear waste that needs to be stored for much longer than 2000 years.

Second, no one knows whether we can safely store it for even 200 years, never mind 2000! A lot of the existing nuclear waste in Washington state has never been stored safely and constitutes a very expensive problem.

Third, the amount of nuclear waste is not small. It is quite large. It is definitely not true that only a truckload or a few truckloads of waste come from each plant. It is not just fuel, there can be very large amounts of contaminated materials - they may not have to be stored for thousands of years, but they can be significantly harmful over decades. Little or no provision is currently made for dealing with these materials other than to just pile them up.

Fourth, it is not good enough for nuclear wastes to be safe from contaminating people, Some of them have to be safe from deliberate sabotage or theft. That is very expensive to arrange.

So, please don't trivialize what is a complex problem. We have to face these issues squarely if nuclear power is to be safely implemented.

Answer 6

For the following reasons:

1) UK Atomic Energy Authority pleads guilty to illegally releasing radioactive waste for more than 20 years at the Dounreay plant:

http://www.ukaea.org.uk/news/2007/14-02-07-2.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,2014437,00.html

Ah yes, they do this for 20 years solid and we're supposed to trust that they and similar agencies can dispose of the waste safely? Ha ha!

One of the quotes from the article on the UKAEA's own site as listed above: "He was speaking outside Wick Sheriff Court where UKAEA was fined a total of £140,000 after pleading guilty last week to four breaches of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 between 1963 and 1984". Interesting that they fail to add that they illegally landfilled radioactive waste from 1963 to 1975, and that up to 1984, they allowed dangerous radioactive particles to leach out to the sea.

2) Ever-rising costs of disposal. In 2006, robot submarines uncovered huge deposits of radioactive sludge that had simply been forgotten(!) in storage tanks at the Sellafield plant. Result? Disposal costs for cleaning up Britain's existing radioactive waste stocks (which are notorious for being under-estimated by the nuclear industry) rise from £56bn to £65, and guess who pays - we do! Question: how many hospitals and schools could you build for £65bn...

Don't forget, one of the arguments supposedly in nuclear's favour is that it is economically viable. Mmm, rising disposal costs and rising fuel costs - doesn't look good. In 2003, a pound of uranium cost less than $11/lb. Now it's around $75/lb:

http://www.mesauranium.com/s/Home.asp

The price of uranium is projected to just go on rising due to reactor-building programmes in India and China in particular. Given the Chinese government's environmental record, I really wouldn't want to be living in a neighbouring country when they try to 'dispose' of the waste coming out of their new reactors...

Answer 7

Think about it this way, would you be completely comfortable if the authorites approached you and said they were buying your neighbors property and turning it into a nuclear waste storage facility?

There are some serious issues to be dealt with when it comes to nuclear waste storage.

Don't misunderstand me, I am all for the responsible utilization of nuclear energy. But, the risks posed to the environment are significant, so careful planning is required.

Answer 8

Lay down and give up is not what I feel is a solution. We may do it wrong a few times but nuclear wast is working good . In new Mexico they are burying it in salt that has been there 2000 years and will probably been there 6000 more years more. The area is very dry and probably will stay that away. Look for solutions and get rid of the defeated mine set.

Answer 9

People get scared, and I'm afraid that there are people who enjoy the power that comes from keeping them that way. Nuclear waste has a long, long half-life, and there are indeed some legitimate concerns over its long-term storage. But it's easy to find--just use a geiger counter--and thus it's not likely to get loose too easily. Moreover, there's simply not all that much of the stuff; nuclear reactors themselves are little things, and a semi-trailer load of fuel is all you need to supply most big reactors for five years.

Then again, if people were perfectly rational life would not be worth living anyway. A lot of the people who are terrified and militant about nuclear power, dumb as it all is, write good music.

Answer 10

We "think" we know how to process it and store it for 2000 years. Noone has done it yet so we are not sure. And remember there is always the human factor, no process can ever entirely take that into account. 2000 years is a long time, what about political changes, terrorist activities, etc.