Introduction
There lacks a safe way of nuclear disposal, despite the harm caused by nuclear waste. Nuclear power generates electricity with little emissions of carbon dioxide and other waste products, most of which are radioactive. These waste products can be harmful to both the environment and human life. Notwithstanding the risks that may be posed by poor nuclear disposal, most governments pay little attention to this issue, during public policy making. As a result, many communities place use of land on nuclear facilities on the top list of locally unwanted land uses (LULUs). Again, these communities do not have confidence on the policies of the government regarding nuclear disposal processes.
Discussion of Findings
A study by Jenkins-Smith et al. demonstrates that many communities position uses of land on nuclear facilities on the top list of LULUs, with nuclear waste repositories obtaining the greatest resistance (629). Concerns of LULUs normally involve opposition to facilities that can be hazardous, or have potential to pose risks to communities. Normally, residents reject facilities due to distrust, environmental threats, communication of risk, and when such facilities seem to have more potential losses than benefits to the community (Jenkins-Smith et al. 630). The fact that communities position use of land on nuclear facilities on the top list of LULUs, with nuclear waste repositories obtaining the greatest resistance, demonstrates that the whole process of nuclear disposal is not safe.
A different study by Macfarlane reveals that the world has about 437 nuclear reactors, in different countries, and every reactor generates its own wastes (31). However, none of these countries has a repository for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. High-level wastes comprising wastes from the recycling of spent fuel, as well as, used nuclear fuel are vastly radioactive and emit lots of heat. Conversely, intermediate level wastes have high amounts of long-standing radionuclides, although, they do not emit heat. Macfarlane indicates that waste storage does not gain consideration during the planning stages. However, several consequences may arise from this lack of forethought, since reactor sites can be overloaded with spent fuel devoid of any clear strategy for handling this material in an apt way.
Blowers and Goran reveal that treatment of wastes gets considered as a back-end, while production of nuclear energy gets considered as a front end, in public policy making (150). Nuclear power has strong connections to leading corporations and government, which has made it achieve a strong political place in energy policy making, in several nations. On the other hand, radioactive waste management seems to have a poor link to political terms. Nonetheless, there may be diminutive disparity between issues that arise at the front end of the nuclear power creation and those that appear at the back end, when it comes to the rigorousness of a disaster at a nuclear facility. For instance, an accident relating to spent nuclear fuel may cause a threat that is equally devastating as that caused by melt- downs at the reactor core. Particularly, if spent fuel ponds get ruined or are not vigorously cooled, a key catastrophe could be imminent, especially when the ponds are filled with newly discharged spent fuel (Macfarlane 31).
Besides, various nations leave flows of waste from extremely active and toxic liquids, or solid, spent fuel strewn in stores, ponds or directed into sea, rivers and the atmosphere (Blowers and Goran 151). In a number of instances, the cleaning of legacy wastes has just begun, while, in regions like Sellafield, cleaning of a few of intricate and inadequately, managed wastes will be an extremely long and expensive process.
Macfarlane explains that a strategy for handling nuclear waste is necessary to a triumphant nuclear power program, and the strategy should be performed early in the preparation of a nuclear power plan (33). All nations with entrenched nuclear programs need spent fuel storage, as well as, spent fuel ponds, at reactors. A country like the United States employs dry storage designs like storage vaults or entity casks that get positioned at reactor sites.
Sweden has a vast pool, which is underground and at a centralized facility, CLAB, whereby diverse reactors propel their spent fuel a year subsequent to discharge, in order to ensure that spent fuel does not accumulate at reactor sites. Dry storage is economical and safer than wet storage, since active flow of water is not essential. Also, dry storage gets preferred because it utilizes passive air cooling, instead of the active cooling that exists in a pool. Besides, these systems receive used fuel several years following discharge.
The waste management plan of a nation with a novel nuclear program should contain supplementary, spent fuel storage from the start, rather than adding it when unprepared, so as to, guarantee safety. Most nations lack supplementary, spent fuel storage from the start. Besides, most nations, which have made efforts to site a radioactive waste repository, have experienced an extremely rough journey. Only countries like Finland, France and Sweden have come near to getting it right, and only following several iterations of the Siting procedure (Macfarlane 34).
Again, France, Canada, and Germany have undergone through several challenges in repository siting, although, some countries have experienced more triumph than others. Germany, in the 1970s, decided to establish a repository at the Gorleben site. Nevertheless, with the appointment of a Red”Green coalition regime, in the late 1990s, a reorganization of repository siting became announced and the regime created the AkEnd group to reassess the Siting course (Macfarlane 34). This group drew a comprehensive siting process beginning from scratch, although, presently, too much political discrepancy exists to continue with the process.
Efforts of France failed, in 1990, after a granite site that had been chosen drew strong dissent and the administration decided to reorganize its approach to nuclear waste disposal, totally. However, the government has experienced more success after this incident. In 2006, the French government proclaimed that it wanted a geologic repository for high-level waste, selected a viable region, and approved laws requiring a license application to be offered in 2015 and the site starts collecting high-level waste before 2025.
Recently, Canada reorganized the Siting course for nuclear waste disposal and established an agreement-based participatory method. In 2002, The Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization became founded, following failures in earlier attempts to site a repository. The siting course started with three years merit of discussions with the public concerning the best method to deal with spent fuel. At present, this organization is requesting volunteer communities to reflect on a repository, although, much of the procedure remains to be determined, together with the amount and nature of reparation given to the contributing communities.
The United States put much effort towards building a high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Macfarlane 34). However, their efforts ended in 2010, after the Obama government decided to overturn this decision due to political draws and lack of public agreement concerning the site.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no country that has a repository for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. Nonetheless, a strategy for handling nuclear waste is necessary to a triumphant nuclear power program, and the strategy should be performed early in the preparation of a nuclear power plan. Nations like France, Canada, and Germany have undergone through several challenges in repository siting. Only countries like Finland, France and Sweden have come near to getting it right, and only following several iterations of the Siting procedure.
A safe way of nuclear disposal lacks because of lack of some vital elements in the program. The waste management plan of a nation with a novel nuclear program should contain supplementary, spent fuel storage from the start, rather than adding it when unprepared, so as to, guarantee safety. Elements like an organization to site, control, and run waste facilities have to be in place to, for a flourishing waste management program. Besides, facilities for waste storage should gain consideration during the planning stages. Further, the siting procedure has to be established. This must comprise decisions on whether to let a community to sanction a site and the duration that such as sanction stays operational. Lastly, the site has to be assessed against a set of standards that become founded by a government agency in the concerned nation.
Works Cited
Blowers, Andrew and Goran Sundqvist. “Radioactive Waste Management – Technocratic Dominance in an Age of Participation.” Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7. 3 (2010):149–155. Print.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank, Carol Silva, Matthew Nowlin and Grant deLozier. “Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility.” Risk Analysis 31. 4 (2011):629-644. Print.
Macfarlane, Allison. “It’s 2050: Do you know where your Nuclear Waste is?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67.4(2011): 31-36. Print.
