Managing Nuclear Power - A Solution for Nuclear Energy Waste
Sub-Seabed Disposal for Nuclear Energy Waste
Debating the pros and cons of nuclear power started with the development of nuclear fission. Accidents such as the ones at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 contributed to the U.S. stopping the building of plants for nuclear energy. A less known reason for this nuclear power slowdown was artificial price increases due to unusually high interest rates for building nuclear power plants. Technology advances have increased the pros for nuclear energy but pubic trust, corporate interests, cumbersome administrative structures and the not in my backyard (NIMBY) syndrome have stymied efforts for nuclear power expansion in the U.S.
The Forgotten Nuclear Energy Waste Option?
An example of the authorities making it hard for nuclear energy to solve some problems associated with dirtier forms of energy is the issue of sub-seabed nuclear energy waste disposal. Burying nuclear waste at sea may initially seem absurd. However, Scientists have made a case for this being a relatively safe way of dealing with nuclear energy waste.
The Department of Energy's Office (DOE) of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has this to say about sub-seabed disposal:
Scientists considered burying radioactive waste under the ocean floor, but there are problems associated with this option. Whether waste buried under the seabed could be recovered, if necessary, is questionable. Developing an effective international, legal, and administrative structure to develop, regulate, and monitor a sub-seabed repository would be challenging as well.
In October of 1993, the U.S. signed the London convention. This banned sub-seabed disposal of radioactive nuclear energy waste, at least until 2018. After that year, and in 25-year intervals thereafter, it can be re-considered. Why should legal and administrative hurdles stop what could be the solution to so many environmental problems? Affective ways to monitor sub-seabed oil drilling were certainly not America's top priority when we allowed oil companies to ravage our coastlines.
According to an October 1996 Atlantic Monthly article, the DOE stopped research funding "for sub-seabed and other disposal alternatives" in 1986. Diverting funds to the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada waste burial site has turned into a money hogging, political debacle.
Evidence for Nuclear Energy waste Sub-seabed Disposal
Indications are burying nuclear energy waste would be astronomically less risky than offshore oil drilling. The Atlantic Monthly article points out that an international team of 200 scientists lead by Charles Hollister of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution conducted a more than twenty -year study on sub-seabed disposal. The study, in which radioactive waste containers were buried at least 100 meters under the seafloor, had encouraging results. Quoting Hollister, the Atlantic Monthly states, "Nothing's going to bring it into the biosphere, unless we figure out how to reverse gravity."
Clay in many seabed environments binds radioactive material. Estimates are it would take millions of years for waste to surface. After this time, it is thought that radiation reduces to natural levels. Burying this radioactive nuclear waste at sea would also make it harder for terrorists to access.
What We Are Doing Now With Nuclear Waste
In announcing a lawsuit against the DOE April 12, 2010, Washington State Attorney General Rob Mckenna, is hoping to stop the termination of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site. As outlined on the Attorney Generals website, there are about 53 million gallons of waste being held in 177 underground tanks, 149 of these tanks are past their expected term of usefulness. Of these 149, "more than one-third are known or suspected to have leaked, releasing roughly 1 million gallons of waste...". This stuff is not going to just go away!
All energy sources have pros and cons. Mining for uranium is certainly not environmentally benign and like coal and oil, nuclear power is not renewable, although recycling technologies could make it so. Chances of an uncontained meltdown may be higher than a life-ending asteroid hitting the planet, but there is still a chance.
It is a fact that Devastating oil spills, coalmine explosions, out of control lung problems, mountaintop removal, mercury in water and soil, acid rain, climate change, and a myriad of other problems would end without the use of coal and oil. The Earth and life that depends on her all have stakes in making appropriate decisions. Is it too much to ask for all nuclear energy waste options to be explored? At least until 2018 it certainly is.
References: World Nuclear Association
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/whyu.htm
DOE: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.shtml
Atlantic Monthly: Sub-Seabed Soulution For Nuclear Energy Waste http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htm
Washington State Attorney General
http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?id=25526
Published by Don A Shepard
Don writes for numerous online sources while conducting research for a Master's in Natural Resources/Environmental Management. He enjoys working on his urban homestead with his family, outdoor activities, mo... View profile
- Heritage Foundation Paper Debunks Myths About Nuclear EnergyThe Heritage Foundation has published a new backgrounder refuting myths about nuclear energy.
- Native Americans of Minnesota Want Nuclear Waste Puzzle Solved Before New Era of N..."Solve the waste disposal problem and move the nation's nuclear waste to a safe and secure facility."
Nuclear Power Will Save the EnvironmentWith the dangers of global warming looming, environmentalists say that we need a new, cleaner source of energy. But we already have that, and it is called nuclear power.- Nation with Largest Nuclear Power Do you know which nation has the largest nuclear power production? Read on to know what led them to opt for nuclear power and what their current situation is in terms of power generation.
- The Future of U.S. Renewable Energy PolicyHolding back further use of hydropower has been the lack of an efficient, inexpensive, and environmentally friendly device to extract energy from water. Alexander Gorlov shows that his helical turbine is the solution.
- Why Nuclear Energy Should Not Be Considered Toxic
- Nuclear Energy: Contrasting Points of View
- Nuclear Energy - a Clean Way Forward
- Nuclear Power in America
- Nuclear Energy Sees Growing Support
- Energizing the Future: Nuclear Energy
- Nuclear Energy: Three Mile Island and the Future of Nuclear Energy
- Sub-seabed nuclear waste disposal may be a viable option for nuclear energy.
- The 1993 London Convention banned considering this disposal option until 2018.
13 Comments
Post a CommentGreat article and a super write up, I agree with L B Woodgate!
Considering that, in my lifetime, I can only remember two major nuclear power plant accidents, one in Russia and one in my own backyard, TMI, if stringent safety procedures could be guaranteed, nuclear IS the way to go.
It's clearly right that mankind needs the best scientific brains dealing with this problem, free of political considerations. But will the politicians stay blinkered till it's too late?...
There is of course a risk with almost anything, especially energy. The Woods Hole scientists were experimenting and suggesting we use tectonically inactive regions. These regions could change, but then if we had to deal with earthquakes that would surface things buried more than 100 meters down we would have even bigger problems. It's certainly valid to raise questions, and this is what scientists should be doing. The real crime is that they can't get the funding because politics have taken this option off the table, so the waste just sits and leaks.
It just worries me what might happen if the waste were to leak, or if an earthquake caused massive leaks to the undersea storage. The containment can only last for so long, so assuming mankind is still here in 2,000 or even 10,000 years, these long forgotten deposits could well be a major problem. We can't dispose of it - so let our future generations deal with it.
Excellent and important discussion.
Excellent point, L.B. These possibilities is what I allude to in the article when I mention that nuclear could be renewable at some point. There could likely be fast breed reactors that use existing nuclear waste. There is much debate about the expense of these,as with anything. I have numerous studies and articles saved on these technologies from an energy course I took last year. Looking forward to reading your artical, as you always uncover good stuff.
There's even a better solution for nuclear energy use and waste disposal Don. I wrote about it a few weeks back here - http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2790484/a_light_in_the_darkness.html?cat=58
It talks about 4th generation nuclear plants or IFRs that are designed to use existing nuclear waste to fuel them. There essentially would be no need to mine for uranium because we could use the radioactive material from nuclear bombs that we are willing to dispose of in our ban treaties. Plus, if necessary, we could get what uranium we might need from the sea.
Well-written article. Great job.
It may be that solving some of these problems on earth, such as energy, may help us ignite a more legitimate space program in the future.