Nuclear Non-Proliferation not solved, nor is Nuclear Waste

Christina Macpherson's websites & blogs

As the May Nuclear Non Proliferation conference ends, the nuclear industry and President Obama continue to use this story as a selling point for the “peaceful” nuclear industry. And for June, perhaps the critical issue is – how to convince the world that nuclear wastes are OK, that this problem is solved, – when it’s not!

Other selling points are emerging now – perhaps a sign of the desperation of the industry?

There’s a push to use a nuclear bomb as a cure for the oil spill – based on Russian experience – for goodness’ sake! Who in their right mind would trust the Russian history of things nuclear?

Then there’s the push for little reactors, thorium reactors, instead of uranium-fuelled reactors. Anything to look as though the nuclear industry is forging on. But it’s not – except for nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, despite all the propaganda, and lack of real government incentives, renewable energy technologies are forging on.

June 1, 2010 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | antinuclear, disarmament, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear spin, nuclear technology, nuclear wastes, nuclear weapons, reactors, renewable energy, renewables

8 Comments »

As an environmental engineer who deals with radioactive waste, I must agree that in general, the “rad waste” problem has not been solved. But please be aware that this is not a single problem, and that some wastes are more problematic than others. One thing that must be accepted is that no disposal technology is perfect — no containment is perfect. And yet, the public expects containment. The best we can do is design a waste disposal site to leak slowly, so that it reintroduces radionuclides back into the environment in such a way as to minimize effects to human health and the environment. These negative consequences must be evaluated in balance with their benefits (such as base load electrical power), and alternative ways of achieving those same benefits (e.g. fossil fuel-powered or hydroelectric power plants).

Comment by RadWasteEngineer | June 1, 2010 | Reply
With renewable sources, reliable supply to meet base-load electricity demand can be met by biomass, hot rock geothermal, solar thermal electricity with storage, and wind power with storage. Gas turbine energy with its lower CO2 emissions can replace coal-fired power stations as they are decommissioned and provide support until renewable power installations ramp up in size and number.
In western America, the existing grid can be used to switch to renewable energy. and new “smart grids” can facilitate renewable energy. In combination with the biggest solution of all, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, and with small scale decentralised renewables – there’s no need for creating any more radioactive wastes.

Comment by Christina MacPherson | June 1, 2010 | Reply
- I’m all for that vision of the future, except the gas turbine power stations (still too much CO2 for my tastes, and this fuel is far too valuable as a transportation fuel, which has to be portable). And I fully support those working to get there. I would love to see the numbers. I have to admit that I am skeptical enough to think that we cannot get there just be inventing new renewable sources, and better power grids. Energy sustainability will require a fundamental change in how we live. And I don’t think that Americans, especially, are willing to go there.
  
  Nevertheless, even if we were to stop producing rad waste today, we have an awful lot of it to contend with now. Some of the thorniest problems are leftovers from the Cold War. But my hat’s off to anyone who can find ways around producing more rad waste while achieving energy sustainability. It is a worthy goal. Still and all, I’d prefer the waste that comes with nuclear power over the waste we are currently generating with coal, hands down.
  
  Comment by RadWasteEngineer | June 1, 2010 | Reply
  - For those looking for “the numbers’ – one good place to start is at http://www.energyscience.org.au
    
    Of course, ultimately energy sustainability will require a fundamental change in how we live. (That change will inevitably happen, one way or another, in the unsustainable “consumer society” – with ever more materialism, ever more people)
    
    Nuclear waste is not the only alternative to coal waste, as suggested above.
    And there’s some strange logic going on these days – that, as we don’t know what to do with the existing nuclear wastes, then we have to keep on creating more. Doesn’t make sense, does it?
    
    Comment by Christina MacPherson | June 1, 2010
  - I wish to emphasize the distinction between serious problems that are here now (like the tanks at the Savannah River Site and at the Hanford Site) and the similar problems that we will be generating if we get into reprocessing. I am perfectly willing to accept the challenge of the existing problems, and do our best with the physics and geochemistry we have. I am less willing, however, to accept the idea that it is OK to keep making this waste. Sadly, many in the activist community have posited that they actively do not want a solution to our existing problems, because that solution could be applied to future problems, and they want to preclude the future problems entirely. I understand this perspective, but it has a very unfortunate outcome: No solution to our current problems. And that is a bad place to be.
    
    Comment by RadWasteEngineer | June 9, 2010
[…] Nuclear Non-Proliferation not solved, nor is Nuclear Waste … […]

Pingback by What steps did George W. Bush take to permanently solve the nuclear situations in Iran and North Korea? | June 2, 2010 | Reply
There’s a guy named Fred Fleitz who actually retired from the CIA for a bunch of different things, but one of them is for nonproliferation. This stands out to me and I feel like people who are interested in this article would really be interested in listening to him talk about things that have to do with this topic. He’s going to be on a radio show this Wednesday at noon. Here’s the link if you guys want to listen to it. I really think that if you’re interested in this article, you will get a lot of knowledge from this radio show; http://www.blogtalkradio.com/empact-radio/2011/07/27/pvp59-two-guests–reza-kahlili-and-fred-fleitz

Comment by alk09 | July 25, 2011 | Reply
Actually it all ends in the way of politics and even a few that they do not agree that the others will go along.

Comment by Debate blog - Julio | October 6, 2011 | Reply

nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope