As the United States continues its ambitious nuclear energy push, the government is looking for places to stash the "highly toxic" waste it will generate, according to Reuters.
What's happening?
In July, the federal government announced a pilot program to "fast-track" the development and deployment of nuclear energy.
In the months after the administration's "nuclear renaissance" plans emerged, experts such as the Union of Concerned Scientists voiced concerns about waste disposal and other planning gaps.
As Reuters reported, the government turned to an "age-old strategy" for handling nuclear waste, stockpiling it at the bottom of a "very deep hole."
Or, as Technology.org put it, officials hoped states would volunteer to "babysit" nuclear waste "until the sun burns out." According to the outlet, the pilot program's small modular reactors (SMRs) could generate more waste per unit of electricity than existing reactors.
Moreover, more than 100,000 tons of nuclear waste already sit in temporary storage across the U.S., and the amount is growing daily.
Perk up the winter blues with natural, hemp-derived gummies Camino's hemp-derived gummies naturally support balance and recovery without disrupting your routine, so you can enjoy reliable, consistent dosing without guesswork or habit-forming ingredients. Flavors like sparkling pear for social events and tropical-burst for recovery deliver a sophisticated, elevated taste experience — and orchard peach for balance offers everyday support for managing stress while staying clear-headed and elevated.
Learn more → |
Former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission official Lake Barrett told Reuters that by offering billion-dollar investments and promising jobs, the Department of Energy's tantalizing incentives risked eclipsing the reality of the proposal.
"By combining this all together in a package, it's a matter of big carrots being placed alongside a waste facility, which is less desirable," Barrett remarked.
Why is this concerning?
When the Union of Concerned Scientists discussed their reservations about the American "nuclear renaissance," they strongly emphasized a historically poor cost-benefit analysis.
Nuclear energy was, they said, expensive and time-consuming to build despite the program's focus on speed and target deployment date of Jul. 4.
TCD Picks » Upway Spotlight
💡Upway makes it easy to find discounts of up to 60% on premium e-bike brands
|
What's the most you'd pay per month to put solar panels on your roof if there was no down payment?
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. |
$200 or more 💰 UCS nuclear safety expert Edwin Lyman was highly doubtful that deregulation would change those basic facts. He went so far as to warn of a "hype bubble that is driving unrealistic expectations" in the energy sector.
Nuclear energy isn't entirely classifiable as clean energy, but it is a low-carbon energy source — albeit one that is far costlier and more logistically complex than wind and solar.
The nuclear pilot program's SMRs, according to Reuters, are "faster and cheaper" to construct than existing reactors.
"But none of the new SMR designs are expected to solve the waste problem," the outlet observed, noting that engineers typically don't focus on waste management when developing the technology.
What's being done about it?
Barrett told Reuters that Utah and Tennessee had already "expressed interest" in the government's nuclear waste storage initiative.
However, experts such as former Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board member Seth Tuler are concerned that the waste conundrum signals a hasty and potentially dangerous nuclear strategy.
"This rush to create new designs without thinking about the full system bodes really poorly for effective regulatory oversight and having a well-run, safe, and reliable waste management program over the long term," Tuler said.
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips to save more, waste less, and make smarter choices — and earn up to $5,000 toward clean upgrades in TCD's exclusive Rewards Club.
Cool Picks
