The issue of vast amounts of hazardous radioactive waste doesn’t seem to have a place in the political spotlight, but on October 25th the nation got a reminder in upstate New York. Water that was contaminated with radioactive materials was accidentally spilled into the Mohawk River from a nuclear research site that dates back to the 1950s. No drastic effects were suffered in the immediate environment but this only reinforces the importance of finding a place to store radioactive waste on a national and even worldwide scale. Radioactive waste is already a huge danger to all areas where it is temporarily stored, and even if we can stop the production of new waste, we still must handle the transport of this hazardous waste to a central location.
Due to the lack of a permanent disposal facility and the termination of the only proposed solution, it doesn’t seem as if our country, or any place that values its safety, will ever be able to agree upon a place to store high volumes of radioactive material. Waste that has radioactive characteristics can come from many processes besides the production of nuclear energy, but nuclear power is the largest contributor by far. Although the United States has been shying away from the construction of nuclear power plants, China and India have proposed a combined 59 nuclear reactors to be constructed by 2030. The vast amount of waste that is to be produced by these facilities must either find a place to go, or be prevented altogether.
Radioactive waste becomes more of a hazard when it is transported. The United States use strict regulation when moving radioactive waste, but even heavy precautions cannot prevent disaster. Countries like France that produce 75% of their energy by means of nuclear power, have taken to collecting and reprocessing not only their own radioactive waste, but that of many other countries as well. France is not only endangering the area around the temporary storage facility, but because it uses much less precaution than the United States, its transportation is very hazardous. Rail cars containing radioactive waste are allowed to enter railway traffic without further regulation than is standard. The dangers of radioactive waste are too high to continue production and must be stopped in favor of cleaner processes.
Since nuclear energy is the largest contributor to radioactive waste, renewable energy sources like solar photovoltaic and wind turbines must be implemented swiftly to reduce the need for additional nuclear power plants. Countries must collaborate on a global scale to put an end to the production of such hazardous wastes. Political leadership must create a solution to this stalemate and must do so quickly to meet rising energy demand with clean alternatives.
I'm going to disagree that the US should shy away from nuclear power and look only at other forms of renewable energy. Though there is possibilities of meltdowns, nuclear energy can be created and used in much greater quantities than wind or solar energy.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the NRC webiste, the US currently has 104 operable reactors; the second closest is France with 58. So we have a fair amount and have not had any major disasters. Also, wind farms and solar farms need vast amounts of land with specific guidlines. You need land that gets large quantities of solar radiation for a solar farm, and you can only get optimal amounts of wind on either a mountain or out in the ocean. However, power plants can be built anywhere on land.
I do agree however that a central holding area for nuclear waste should be created or that the US begins reprocessing fuel rods. Yucca Mountain had been a proposed site, but the Obama administration cut funding to it and the site is not currently in use. Is there a reason the US does not reprocess fuel rods?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree that we should shy away from nuclear power, but also think that you overstate the risks involved. While the transport of nuclear materials and reprocessing creates more risks of a catastrophe and while meltdowns are an understood risk of using nuclear power, there hasn't been a serious nuclear incident since Three Mile Island. With improving technology, nuclear reactors have become far safer than they used to be.
ReplyDeleteStill, we do need a more permanent storage facility. Like Scott mentioned, the United States had planned on using Yucca Mountain, but the Obama administration backed out.