In my previous posts I've given a very barebones introduction into the world of nuclear waste and how we're going to deal with it. In this last post I'd like to revisit why I thought this topic was worth writing about and also what my final opinion on it is.
This topic is important for two reasons. Firstly, because it is very often what anti-nuclear arguments boil down to, and secondly because no matter how you feel about nuclear, no matter what happens in the future to nuclear power plants around the world, we will still already have 276,000 tonnes of waste to deal with. Its a problem that we just have to solve.
So, is the geological deposition of nuclear waste the answer to the nuclear issue? Let me tell you from my own perspective.
I've always been against nuclear energy, the idea that it could produce toxic waste that would remain toxic for time scales beyond my comprehension just seemed frightening. And especially in this day and age when renewables have been proven to be physically capable of taking the on the responsibilities of the fossil fuel industry, it seemed almost unnecessary to turn to nuclear power. But in the summer of 2017 I applied on a whim to a summer course in nuclear power and waste storage in Sweden. I went with the intent of finding out for myself what exactly was going on with the age-old question of what we can do with nuclear waste. What I found was that I was going to leave still anti-nuclear, but I definitely have much more sympathy with the pro-nuclear stance.
I was impressed by the lengths they had gone to ensure that the radioactivity remained contained. The use of natural analogs such as Oklo and the reaction of copper cannons from a 1600s shipwreck with seawater to the copper canisters they were storing the waste within below the ground. But the number of barriers they had designed to keep the waste contained (see figure below), meant that risk of radioactivity leaking out affecting a person they claimed was less than that of the average human being's likelihood to be harmed by the radiation they were exposed to in everyday life (by which I assume they meant a life not spent being exposed to radiation leaking from a nuclear repository).
In fact according to complex risk calculations that you can find alongside a more detailed explanation of the mechanisms used in Sweden, the maximum risk from any form of radiation is about 10000 times lower than that of the risk from Sweden's background radiation and this is even in a combined situation involving both earthquakes and groundwater intrusions breaking down the barriers to the nuclear waste.
Now this all sounds pretty good. However when I read further about the uncertainties associated with this risk assessment I realised that it's just nonsensical to ask scientists to make predictions 100,000 years into the future no matter what when we have alternatives in front of us. So I accept the safety of geological repositories as our best option moving forward to deal with nuclear energy, but I don't see a point in relying on it when we don't have to. And my second and probably more relevant rejection to this situation is the context of nuclear waste disposal in Sweden. They have low to no corruption, high standards of living and an effective democracy. How many other countries have that? Furthermore, how many other countries have low tectonic activity and suitable bedrock for disposal?How many other countries can the world rely on, because a large nuclear incident will have global affects? Our track record in terms of taking things for granted and then having them kill a bunch of people before we start picking up our game is dreadful.
So I hope that this blog has left you with maybe not so much of an opinion as rather a better understanding to bring to the table when you argue for or against nuclear energy.
This topic is important for two reasons. Firstly, because it is very often what anti-nuclear arguments boil down to, and secondly because no matter how you feel about nuclear, no matter what happens in the future to nuclear power plants around the world, we will still already have 276,000 tonnes of waste to deal with. Its a problem that we just have to solve.
So, is the geological deposition of nuclear waste the answer to the nuclear issue? Let me tell you from my own perspective.
I've always been against nuclear energy, the idea that it could produce toxic waste that would remain toxic for time scales beyond my comprehension just seemed frightening. And especially in this day and age when renewables have been proven to be physically capable of taking the on the responsibilities of the fossil fuel industry, it seemed almost unnecessary to turn to nuclear power. But in the summer of 2017 I applied on a whim to a summer course in nuclear power and waste storage in Sweden. I went with the intent of finding out for myself what exactly was going on with the age-old question of what we can do with nuclear waste. What I found was that I was going to leave still anti-nuclear, but I definitely have much more sympathy with the pro-nuclear stance.
I was impressed by the lengths they had gone to ensure that the radioactivity remained contained. The use of natural analogs such as Oklo and the reaction of copper cannons from a 1600s shipwreck with seawater to the copper canisters they were storing the waste within below the ground. But the number of barriers they had designed to keep the waste contained (see figure below), meant that risk of radioactivity leaking out affecting a person they claimed was less than that of the average human being's likelihood to be harmed by the radiation they were exposed to in everyday life (by which I assume they meant a life not spent being exposed to radiation leaking from a nuclear repository).
In fact according to complex risk calculations that you can find alongside a more detailed explanation of the mechanisms used in Sweden, the maximum risk from any form of radiation is about 10000 times lower than that of the risk from Sweden's background radiation and this is even in a combined situation involving both earthquakes and groundwater intrusions breaking down the barriers to the nuclear waste.
Now this all sounds pretty good. However when I read further about the uncertainties associated with this risk assessment I realised that it's just nonsensical to ask scientists to make predictions 100,000 years into the future no matter what when we have alternatives in front of us. So I accept the safety of geological repositories as our best option moving forward to deal with nuclear energy, but I don't see a point in relying on it when we don't have to. And my second and probably more relevant rejection to this situation is the context of nuclear waste disposal in Sweden. They have low to no corruption, high standards of living and an effective democracy. How many other countries have that? Furthermore, how many other countries have low tectonic activity and suitable bedrock for disposal?How many other countries can the world rely on, because a large nuclear incident will have global affects? Our track record in terms of taking things for granted and then having them kill a bunch of people before we start picking up our game is dreadful.
So I hope that this blog has left you with maybe not so much of an opinion as rather a better understanding to bring to the table when you argue for or against nuclear energy.
Comments
Post a Comment