The Problem Of Nuclear Power

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

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.

If there are to be more nuclear power plants, then there must be a safe way to store the nuclear waste created by such plants. There are no new plans on how to safely store the

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

Well don't worry here it is. 90% of the nuclear waste is still uranium that can be used, so that's 90% of unused fuel. This uranium which is in the waste can be processed until it is just the reusable materials left and then can be placed in a advanced fast reactor (this is similar to a normal reactor but it works at a much faster speed and can remove mor particles-neutrons-from the fuel) this is the process of recycling nuclear waste. Also when the processed nuclear waste is placed in these reactors a lot of the dangerous extremely radioactive waste is butchered. So the waste that still has to be disposed of by burying it will be gone in a couple of hundred years rather than a few millenniums which still isn't perfect but a lot better than the other way of dealing with it. So why is ninety percent of our energy resources

Modern concerns about global warming have rekindled ideas about nuclear power in the United States but one concern still remains: what is to be done with the waste? Right now most spent nuclear fuel is stored in large casks at the plants where it was used with plans in the works for a common location to store the waste for long periods of time. Long term storage is not the only option, technology exists to take this spent nuclear fuel and remove the unused plutonium and uranium from the waste products to create more fuel. The remaining waste would be stored in a long term facility as discussed above. This process is highly controversial due to economic and safety concerns, but could increase the capacity of a long term storage facility.

Some argue the lack of a permanent, safe storage site for nuclear waste is reason enough to oppose proposals in President Bush's energy plan to speed licensing of new nuclear power plants and extend the operating licenses of existing plants. As Allison Macfarlane, a geologist and senior researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says, "Until we can figure out what to do with the waste, we shouldn't make any more of it (Macfarlane, 2015)." But those who tout the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear energy argue a safe, permanent storage site has already been found and only politics has prevented its opening. Others point to changing methods of nuclear power generation that could ultimately reduce waste

One major unresolved issue arises as the result of using nuclear power: what happens to waste generated in this process. As of right now, the waste is stored on site or in deep geological repositories. However, with what was to be the country’s end all storage site (the Yucca Mountain repository) no longer an option due to recent legislation, long-term storage seems unfeasible. In addition, as more nations move towards reprocessing, there are experts and lawmakers in this country who have been looking into reprocessing the country’s nuclear waste as well. While many experts say that reprocessing is the best solution for freeing the country of the nuclear waste issue, there are others who say that reprocessing is simply too dangerous and

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

The hazardous radioactive nuclear waste stockpiles, created over several decades due to the expansion of nuclear industry in the domains of power generation, science, industry, military and medical fields, is an intensified global concern today. There are several categories of nuclear waste and the most unfavorable are the intermediate level and the high level nuclear leftovers because of their radioactivity (International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) 2013, p.9). The majority of this highly radioactive waste is produced in nuclear power generation as spent fuel in nuclear reactors. According to International Atomic Energy Agency there are 30 countries, operate 449 nuclear reactors for power generations and another 60 nuclear power plants

Nuclear waste is also bad because of the cost to keep it in safe and contained areas. The nuclear business let's waste cool for a considerable length of time before blending it with glass and putting away it in enormous cooled, solid structures. This waste must be kept up, observed and

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?