While at school, pupils start to study subjects, which are somehow related to nature. They learn more about ecology and the state of our planet’s environment. From the study we learn a lot about the sources of pollution and about what contribution we can do to keep Earth safe. Whenever we hear the word ”nuclear”, automatically we think about a devastating power which causes an unimaginable harm to our planet. It means that the reprocessing of the nuclear fuel should be urgently done. However, this question turned out to be argumentative and questionable. This article addresses why nuclear wastes are so harmful to our environment and the ways of decreasing the upcoming danger.
As the nuclear reactor operates, it releases the fission product which then causes less amount of produced energy. Because of this we get the spent fuel, which is being recycled. This process is called reprocessing.
Of course, nuclear fuel reprocessing does the immense contribution to the nuclear waste problem. The long-term reprocessing caused some arguments because it requires much more money rather than the short-term reprocessing; however, the benefit is not obvious and fast. Nevertheless, the benefit will be visible in some decades or even a hundred years’ time. As the result of the long-term benefits we get the immense decrease of nuclear waste, the reduction of the harm caused by the uranium preservation as well as the environmental damage caused by its mining. The processed fuel waste can be stored in aboveground buildings or in geologic repositories until the temperature decreases. Moreover, according to Richard Garwin and Georges Charpak in the book “Megawatts and Megatons” reprocessing can effectively double the capacity of a Yucca Mountain-sized permanent repository if the geological place which was chosen for reprocessed wastes could be reduced by one-half (Dennis, 294).
As the humanity causes the upraised phenomena of nuclear and later spent fuel, they should also be responsible in finding storage for it. Kate J. Dennis in her article “The Case for Reprocessing” mentions that before the beginning of 2009 it was kept in swimming pool-sized tanks and in “dry casks” (Dennis, 294). Later, the plan was made and an appropriate site was chosen – it was supposed to be situated at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The reason why this site was chosen for repository of nuclear waste is still under the question. Was it a financial cut by the president of the United States Barack Obama, which caused the delay of the deadline for finding a permanent site? Still the decision remains in shade.
The acceptance of the reprocessing comes as more or less a safe perspective of decrease the harm caused by nuclear fuel and wastes, making it possible to smooth the indelible harm made up on our planet and its environment. The question is vital and without denying its general benefits, the cheaper alternative is to be found.
Works Cited
Dennis K.ate J. et al. The Case for Reprocessing. Thomas College, 2009, pp. 294-296.
Garwin Richard, Charpak Georges. Megawatts and Megatons. The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons. Alfred A. Knopf, 2001.
