

Inside story

Hot stuff

Nuclear waste: Researchers are devising new ways to deal with the byproducts of nuclear power. But it is not just a technological problem

See article

Readers' comments




It's a real shame that this article buys into the (widely held) mythology that nuclear waste is unique in terms of long-term hazard, when in fact the nuclear waste stream will pose much smaller risks to distant future generations than many, if not most, other industrial waste streams will.

This is the only waste stream for which complete containment, for as long as it remains hazardous, must be demonstrated. Other waste streams are simply dumped directly into the environment or carelessly shallow-buried (do you know that toxic coal ash is not even classified as a hazardous material?!). The result is a biosphere (soil, water, air) that is laced with toxic elements/compounds, many of which never decay away (unlike nuclear waste). It is the (impeccible) requirements for nuclear waste disposal that are unique, not the long term hazard.

The nuclear waste "problem" is largely a fabrication. Nuclear waste has never hurt anyone, and almost certainly never will, whereas the impacts of fossil fuel power generation, now and into the distant future, are horrendous. Part of this is due to the fact that the volume of nuclear waste is microscopic compared to other waste streams. Whether direct disposal or any type of reprocessing option is chosen, nuclear waste will represent a negligible risk to future generations. Other waste streams (e.g., those from coal or oil) do and will have a much greater impact.

It should be noted that Yucca Mountain DID meet all of the scientific/techinical requirements (despite how absurdly strict those requirements were), but the program was shut down for purely political reasons. So, it's not like technical solutions do not exist. Reprocessing will only make isolation (until the waste is no longer hazardous) that much easier.

Finally, it must be noted that the costs of storing, processing and disposing of (the miniscule volume of) nuclear waste are minimal, only a fraction of a cent/kW-hr. In the US, all handling and disposal costs are fully covered by a 0.1 cent/kW-hr fee on nuclear electricity. Reprocessing, or long delays in siting a repository, could make the total cost somewhat more (e.g., ~0.25 cents?).

The notion that the store and wait (for better technologies) approach creates an unacceptable burden on future generations is absurd. Delaying final disposal may not even increase the required kW-hr fee, due to long-term compounding interest on the trust fund. Also, the advanced technologies would presumably reduce the cost of processing and disposal. In any event, under the store and wait approach, money would be set aside to pay for the costs that occur well down the road. All future generations would get are (paid for) jobs, with no economic burden.

How many other industries or waste streams can say that? When other industries' garbage or toxic waste dumps become leaking/contaminated sites (requiring clean up) in the future, who is going to pay for that? Do you think other industies (or municipal garbage landfills) are setting up trust funds to pay for future site cleanups? How much has the coal industry set aside for future generations to clean up all the arsenic, mercury, etc.. that are now distributed throughout the bioshpere (not to mention CO2 in the air)? The most anyone will ever ask of them is to please stop emitting those toxins into the environment.


Fortunes are made when paradigms change. Words matter. The unquestioned cliché of lazy journalism that this material is “waste” needs to be continually challenged.

The fact is there remains vast amounts of energy in this once-used LWR fuel. The decay heat given off by the 3% of the material that are fission products, decreasing exponentially, is reliable and predictable to a fraction of a calorie per gram. In fact it is so reliable that no one knows how to turn it off! This “problem” is in fact a solution to any process that can utilize a constant source of low-grade heat over a period of several centuries. Some of the fission products are rare materials useful for medical diagnostics, radiography, or food preservation. And the recycled plutonium is NOT “weapons-grade”, but is quite usable in reactors. Get the politicians and fear-mongerers out of the way and send in the engineers.

The remaining 97%, consisting of fissile or fissionable uranium or transuranic isotopes, is capable of producing massive amounts of energy in Generation IV IFR or LFTR reactors (google them). There is enough fissionable/fertile material already mined, processed, and refined in the United States alone to supply this country with electric power for more than a century - if it is utilized properly, and not just buried in a ludicrously expensive desert tomb. Only the tiny percentage of the fission products that are truly unusable should be vitrified and safely stored there, and only a few centuries (NOT millennia) would be required before their radioactivity has decayed to background levels. Yucca Mountain could supply an all-nuclear America with thousands of years of storage space if used thusly.


If Nevadans are smart, they would not only charge a hefty fee for accepting the “waste”, but would insist on taking legal title to it, thereby positioning themselves as the Saudi Arabia of Gen IV atomic fuel.


"The trouble is that reprocessing also separates out pure plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons."
Except that it isn't nuclear grade plutonium and it is easier to make plutonium from uranium than using that waste plutonium.


I do wish waste storage for all technologies had as robust a discussion and longterm outlook as nuclear does.
My question, though, is why bury it underground? if it requires a special storage containment system regardless, why not have that on the surface? It would be easier to service in the future and the land above the burial would have a stigma against use anyway.

James Aach

An interesting summary. What I've read elsewhere echoes the article: when the folks who actually deal with nuclear waste talk about it, they emphasize that finding "solutions" tends to be as much about dealing with public opinion (and misconceptions) as it does with engineering problems.

FYI: I've worked in the US nuclear industry well over twenty years but am not a "true believer". Awhile back I wrote the novel "Rad Decision" providing an inside look at how a nuclear plant works in good and bad times. It turns out the plant profiled and the bad times bear a strong resemblance to Fukushima. Rad Decision is available free online - just google the title - and there are no advertisements and no sponsors. The book has garnered a lot of positive reviews from readers but no attention from the media - they're busy, I guess. (I would note, however, that I have no expertise in spent fuel issues and only lightly touch on that topic. But there's so many other things to cover…….)
James Aach


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The week explained: March 14th 2014: Fuelling tensions
The Economist explains March 14th, 0:00
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18


Products & events