Apologies for the delayed posting, I was on a transcontinental flight back home.
The American government promised nuclear power utilities that by 1998 they would begin collecting their waste and disposing of it safely. To this day the waste remains uncollected, and the growing bill in owed damages is estimated by some to be up to $50 billion. So why hasn't this been dealt with yet? In this post I'd like to explain exactly why Sweden managed to find a home for its nuclear waste in a far timelier fashion than America.
The process by which Sweden arrived at finding sites for a nuclear waste repository started in 1977 and was only really finalised in 2009. This long process involved five stages:
What the diagram doesn't show is that stage 2 'regional studies', involved them asking each individual municipality if they actually wanted to have a nuclear waste repository in their backyard. And unsurprisingly if you look at the shift from stage 2 to 3 in terms of what was shaded green and is now shaded yellow, more than 90% of the municipalities were immediately opposed to it (Sjöberg 2004).
In a chat I had with Eva Hall (who's presentation I grabbed that diagram off), she explained to me the hugely democratic process by which they gave the citizens who lived in and around the sites they thought might be feasible the options to decide for themselves. She described travelling around in a van from municipality to municipality, setting up shop in the main squares of towns and inviting Swedish civilians to come in and have a chat and to talk about the pros and cons of a nuclear waste depository. Ultimately, there was no government imposition on citizens to have to take on an unwanted nuclear waste repository.
The result? Four out of the 200 or so municipalities that were asked, not only accepted the nuclear waste repository, but wanted it. Something that Eva said she could not more strongly emphasise was absolutely key to the project running smoothly and as successfully as it is now.
So what went wrong in the US? Well here my (slightly simplified) own diagram of what I imagine the American siting process looked like:
Why did the Yucca Mountain nuclear disposal project fail? Why did the Obama Administration in 2010 declare that "We're done with Yucca Mountain?". Well a recent survey showed that 55% of potential voters said a politician's support for the Yucca Mountain project made it less likely for them to vote for him/her. And in general supporting Yucca mountain is not a platform that politicians trying to get elected in Nevada want to run on due to the public's either apathy or dislike of the project.
Trump's declaration that the Yucca Mountain project would restart in 2018 was very typical of his 'slightly' bullish way of handling sensitive issues, and as far as everyone involved in the Swedish siting process that I spoke to, was simply not the way to go about things. The idea of radioactive nuclear waste that remains toxic for millions of years is simply too scary a topic to just dismiss people's fear of, and I think the US government will find constant political and civilian opposition to its renewal of the Yucca Mountain Project. Meanwhile across the Atlantic, the Swedes will be happily burying their nuclear waste deep underground as the American's rack up a growing damages bill.
So how do you avoid this?
Well as the Swedes have proven, you need a lengthy democratic process through which the site selected is one where you can work with the local people living there and with their blessing, not by drilling without approval into land deemed sacred by a marginalised minority group.
And as the Swedish situation showed, a nuclear repository can be desirable. The four municipalities that wanted a repository didn't just want one because of the goodness in their heart, they wanted one for its benefits. This range from employment opportunities in a high tech industry, to tourism, where people like me visit the nuclear facilities within the municipalities.
The American government promised nuclear power utilities that by 1998 they would begin collecting their waste and disposing of it safely. To this day the waste remains uncollected, and the growing bill in owed damages is estimated by some to be up to $50 billion. So why hasn't this been dealt with yet? In this post I'd like to explain exactly why Sweden managed to find a home for its nuclear waste in a far timelier fashion than America.
The process by which Sweden arrived at finding sites for a nuclear waste repository started in 1977 and was only really finalised in 2009. This long process involved five stages:
 |
| (I've shamelessly ripped this diagram off the slides of a presentation I attended by the Swedish company (SKB) that runs the nuclear waste disposal program in Sweden) |
 |
| I sadly couldn't find a version of this photo from 1980s anti-nuclear depository protests without the middle fingers cropped out |
In a chat I had with Eva Hall (who's presentation I grabbed that diagram off), she explained to me the hugely democratic process by which they gave the citizens who lived in and around the sites they thought might be feasible the options to decide for themselves. She described travelling around in a van from municipality to municipality, setting up shop in the main squares of towns and inviting Swedish civilians to come in and have a chat and to talk about the pros and cons of a nuclear waste depository. Ultimately, there was no government imposition on citizens to have to take on an unwanted nuclear waste repository.
The result? Four out of the 200 or so municipalities that were asked, not only accepted the nuclear waste repository, but wanted it. Something that Eva said she could not more strongly emphasise was absolutely key to the project running smoothly and as successfully as it is now.
So what went wrong in the US? Well here my (slightly simplified) own diagram of what I imagine the American siting process looked like:
Why did the Yucca Mountain nuclear disposal project fail? Why did the Obama Administration in 2010 declare that "We're done with Yucca Mountain?". Well a recent survey showed that 55% of potential voters said a politician's support for the Yucca Mountain project made it less likely for them to vote for him/her. And in general supporting Yucca mountain is not a platform that politicians trying to get elected in Nevada want to run on due to the public's either apathy or dislike of the project.
Trump's declaration that the Yucca Mountain project would restart in 2018 was very typical of his 'slightly' bullish way of handling sensitive issues, and as far as everyone involved in the Swedish siting process that I spoke to, was simply not the way to go about things. The idea of radioactive nuclear waste that remains toxic for millions of years is simply too scary a topic to just dismiss people's fear of, and I think the US government will find constant political and civilian opposition to its renewal of the Yucca Mountain Project. Meanwhile across the Atlantic, the Swedes will be happily burying their nuclear waste deep underground as the American's rack up a growing damages bill.
So how do you avoid this?
or this?
Well as the Swedes have proven, you need a lengthy democratic process through which the site selected is one where you can work with the local people living there and with their blessing, not by drilling without approval into land deemed sacred by a marginalised minority group.
And as the Swedish situation showed, a nuclear repository can be desirable. The four municipalities that wanted a repository didn't just want one because of the goodness in their heart, they wanted one for its benefits. This range from employment opportunities in a high tech industry, to tourism, where people like me visit the nuclear facilities within the municipalities.
Hi Gianluca. I really enjoyed reading your post on Yucca Mountain, and more so your comments on Donald Trump. I completely agree with you, I think the Trump administration will be met with constant political and civilian opposition to its renewal of the project (if it goes ahead). I think the process needs to be democratic which takes into the account the local people living and working in the area. I am interested to know if you think this will make all the difference? For some, I would think that no matter how democratic a process is, nobody wants to live alongside toxic waste. I personally think that a lengthy, democratic approach is required as this could help with shifting attitudes towards the storing of toxic waste.
ReplyDeleteHi Bailey! Thank you, good question. I do think that it will, the economic benefits can be highly beneficial to stagnating economies which I think will get a majority vote in some county/state/place eventually. However, I do think such a process is much easier in a country like Sweden or Finland compared to America. I did ask the Swedish company what they would have done if every municipality had said no, and they admitted that they didn't actually plan for that eventuality since they probably would have been out of a job!
DeleteHey Luca,
ReplyDeleteSo, if nuclear waste were to be disposed of in a democratic and appropriate fashion, as has been done in Sweden, would you be pro-nuclear, or would you still consider other methods to be more favourable?
I answer this in my last post! :)
Delete