A Synthesis and Response of Two Articles Concerning Nuclear Waste Reprocessing

Nuclear waste is a radioactive waste that is dangerous, and a fair percentage of people would agree on this topic. However, is it really dangerous or is it just harmful to an extent? In society, many debates are held over trying to prove to the world that this substance is harmful. In the essay, “Nuclear Waste,” Muller states clearly that he sides with the anti-nuke of the debate and how he pinpoints the facts of nuclear waste with great persuasion. Yet, it is uncertain whether Muller clearly has a good argument and/or answers the questions that many people linger to know.

•     Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.

The Institute for Energy and Environment offered and alternative in 1999 for the management of nuclear waste. For short term storage the Institute for Energy and Research (IEER) recommended nuclear waste should be stored as near and safely as possible from where it was produced. IEER suggests that the sites need to be dry and as close as possible to the place where the waste was generated to avoid a potential terrorist disaster. The funding for the extra storage on the site should come from the Federal Governments Nuclear Waste Fund. For short term storage the Institute for Energy and Environment Research (IEER) recommended nuclear waste should be stored as near and safely as possible from where it was produced. IEER suggests that the sites need to be dry and as close as possible to the place where the waste was generated to avoid a potential terrorist disaster. The funding for the extra storage on the site should come from the Federal Governments Nuclear Waste Fund. Many repositories should be looked and studied for more than a decade and none prioritized. Finding a permanent and safe solution is very difficult and would require a lot of time because of the want for good science (Ledwidge,

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

The United States should use nuclear energy to help supplement energy demand because it’s cost-effective, safer for the environment, and a more reliable source of energy than any of the other types of fuel. Some of the topics of interest are cost-effectiveness, recycling options, long term storage options, environmental protection technologies currently being used, and a breakdown of how nuclear energy out performs other sources of power year round.

Today, a considerable amount of energy is provided by nuclear energy. The technology is well organized and developing every passing day and as a result the cost of operation is falling. Using radioactive resources to produce energy generates waste. Waste that contains radioactive materials is called nuclear waste. The secure and environmentally-friendly disposal of nuclear waste is a crucial aspect of nuclear power programs. [1]

Highly radioactive waste disposal has become one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear technology. As the amount of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste from defense-related processing plants has continued to mount, the issue has become increasingly contentious and politicized.2 The politicization of this issue is especially evident in the site selection process of a permanent national repository for the disposal of highly radioactive waste.

I say nuclear waste should be stored in Texas rather than being stored in Washington because Texas is a very large state. Texas is a flat land where it’s surface is very flat and stable. It should be a good place to store nuclear waste because there is a low possibility of any earthquakes that can affect the nuclear waste. There is a low risk of any flooding near Texas. There aren’t many people. Texas can also handle up to 100 earthquakes so there isn’t a high risk that the volcanoes can damage any nuclear waste.

The need for a permanent and efficient depository for nuclear waste was a growing problem in the United States. The federal government had failed to administer the issue over the storage of our nuclear wastes. Despite efforts to recycle and reuse nuclear fuel, it presented another problem. Myers (1986) explains that this process isolates the plutonium

Nuclear Waste The essay “Nuclear Waste” by Ricard A. Muller talks about the controversial matter of the disposure of radioactive waste. Despite the overwhelming concerns of citizens, Richard Muller believes the dangers associated with the transportation and deposit of nuclear waste is not as paramount as the issue may seem. The concepts that seems most alarming to the public are the number of year it takes for the radioactivity of the waste to subside and where it will be stored in the mean time that will not affect their safety. As Muller explains, ”Even after 100,000 years the radiation will still be above 10% of the level it had when it left the reactor.

The U.S. spends much of its capital on fuel. About $100-200 billion is required for federal expenditures to process spent fuel from U.S. reactors. About $1-2 billion is charged per reactor. GNEP undercuts a successful 30-year U.S. nonproliferation policy to discourage the spread of national reprocessing plants. These plants give us access to separated plutonium. All around the world, plutonium recycling has been a failure. The U.S. will spend approximately $3.5

While reading Richard A. Muller Nuclear Waste a professor of physics from the University of California. I really enjoyed the reading and learning how nuclear waste “is one of the biggest technical issues that any president is likely to face”. In this chapter he also spoke of Plutonium which is a transuranic radioactive chemical element with symbol Pu and atomic number 94. Richard also went on to say that there is a “safe” nuclear waste disposal located in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In order to keep the waste disposal safe, it is buried in a storage room in which is 1000 feet below the surface.

Due to the situation, that places us back to where we were on the crucial question of “What are we going to do with all the radioactive waste being discharged by U.S. nuclear power reactors?”. Although when you bear in mind the other radioactive waste streams made by converting and plutonium recycling, the amount of the long lived radioactive waste is not reduced. The French reprocessing company AREVA states that its process lowers the amount and endurance of the radioactive waste created by the nuclear power reactors.

Nuclear waste needs a proper and safe place to be put in, because if you don't, you could put others lives in danger and contaminate certain things, such as the water supplies or the plants that the wildlife would have to eat for example, storing nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain would be a bad idea because the containers that they store nuclear waste in are known for corroding and leaking and eventually getting into the water supply in the ground. The Yucca Mountain would not be a safe place to store high level nuclear waste because the Yucca Mountain is an active volcano right now and if an earthquake should happen, the toxins from the nuclear waste would contaminate the water line in the ground.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?