Is nuclear a "waste" of time? Part 1

Two of the major challenges that nuclear energy faces is the production and disposal of nuclear waste. Often the greatest concerns are attached to the high level waste which is made up of the used nuclear fuel (WNA 2015), with the inclusion of fission products (WNA 2015). However, this contributes 3% of the total waste, with 90% classified as low level which includes clothing or tools that may have experienced a minimal level of radioactive exposure (WNA2015). The issue being that Uranium-235/238 which is used within the energy production have half-lives of 704 million years and 4.46 billion years respectively (IEER 2012). Therefore the storage has to be secure for many years to prevent the radionuclide material entering the biosphere, which as seen from the two previous case studies can have substantial health risks. Often it is initially stored within water to both cool the waste and to act as a shield to the radioactivity (WNA 2015). Greenpeace, a publicised opponent to nuclear energy, uses the long-term decay to argue against the expansion of the sector. They suggest there is no guarantee that the dangerous material will not enter the environment over such a prolonged persistence (Greenpeace 2006).

Nuclear waste stored in a cooling pool (WNA 2015).

There has been evidence to support these claims, for example there is evidence of the corrosion resistance alloys, often used in the storage, being exposed to the risk of localised corrosion and consequent seepage (Feron 2008). The localised corrosion may be from exfoliation corrosion in relation to the surrounding sediment or “pitting” of the barrel’s surface if it is highly exposed (Frankel 2008). Furthermore evidence from Hanford, Manhattan showed how the seepage of nuclear waste into the groundwater caused large detrimental health effects (Hanson 2000). This would be a particular concern when looking at the potential for a wide scale nuclear expansion – with much of the arid and semi-arid parts of the world highly dependent on groundwater as a freshwater resource (Taylor 2013). Consequently, many may be reluctant to risk a decline in the vital resource's quality by introducing nuclear energy.

The susceptibility of the groundwater is due to the fact that much of the high level waste is stored in deep geological areas (WNA 2015). Low and intermediate level waste is capable of being stored nearer the surface due to the limited risks  in contrast to the used nuclear fuel (WNA 2015). Storage in stable geological formations in essential, which for example raises a greater challenge for certain countries such as Japan that are unlikely to have geological areas that are stable for long enough periods due to the seismic susceptibility (Normile 2015). Despite the potential threats and concerns there are many established safety standards managed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the European Commission and the Nuclear Energy Agency to name just a few (WNA 2015)! These aid in the formation of national policies and legislation in regards to internationally agreed safety standards. This displays nuclear waste storage to take safety strongly into consideration and therefore the risks may once again by general public exaggerations. However, as seen by Fukushima even if such safety procedures are in place the potential for disaster is still apparent!

Further concerns arise with the transgenerational effect. The radioactive waste management impacts future generations, despite these future popualtions not directly benefiting from the original use (La Porte 1978). Therefore suggesting a socially unjust procedure that is far too short sighted.

However, for all the issues and media exaggerations surrounding the waste, there is evidence to suggest that the issues are perhaps not as great as one would initially suspect. For example nuclear energy produces 200,000m3 low and intermediate waste and 10,000m3 of high level waste annual on a global scale (WNA 2015). This is relatively low when compared to other forms of energy, therefore the singling out of nuclear as being the one energy sector that generates large amounts of waste would be incorrect. Furthermore, unlike other waste products it is seen that the risk diminishes overtime as the radioactive isotopes decay (WNA 2015) – this contrasts fossil fuel CO2 emissions, for example that provides a continually high radiative forcing effect (IPCC 2013). Arguably the threat of climate change is of far greater probability and magnitude on a planetary scale than nuclear – therefore the waste of nuclear surely should be viewed as preferential in contrast the continued climatic warming and ecosystem degradation?

I am not sure eating the nuclear waste is the answer to the storage issue?!

Another point to make is that the claims by Greenpeace and other oppositions that the threats can last millions of years are potentially false. That it may “only” be 1,000 years before the radioactivity decays to a level that is similar to the natural levels in uranium ore within the geology (WNA 2015). The only difference may be that the concentration is higher and therefore would still be seen to provide a greater level of risk than its natural counterpart. This mitigates the longevity of the issue, but 1,000 years is still a vast period of time that will continue to provide a substantial challenge for waste management. This is central to the persistent public fear and negativity towards nuclear waste, based upon imagery of mutations and apparently imaginations of nuclear waste initiating an apocalyptic destruction leading to a rebirth of society (Slovic 1991)?! The contestation and NIMBYism of nuclear waste is therefore likely to limit the locations for storage.

The radioactive decay may reach natural levels within 1,000 years - despite a half life of U-238 for example extending to 4.5 billion years (BBC 2014).

The fears are not solely directed towards health, for example NIMBYism is likely to arise  with evidence to show how house prices dropped greatly with nuclear waste transport routes directed through areas of South Carolina (Gawande 2001).