The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 

WARNING: SIGN-IN

You need to be a member of Energy Central to access some features and content. Please or register to continue.

Post

Redefining Nuclear Waste in the Public

image credit: Mark Schneider

I had an epiphany yesterday while having a discussion online about nuclear waste. 

The average person thinks of the spent nuclear fuel storage containers as containing liquid. 

When I suddenly realized this and posted a picture of a fuel assembly there was a seismic shift in the way people looked at commercial nuclear waste. 

The fact is that the public literally believe that weapons production materials is the same as commercial waste. 

We can educate the public and fix this.

 

https://twitter.com/subschneider/status/1222723666858954754?s=21

Mark Schneider's picture

Thank Mark for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Jan 30, 2020 11:02 pm GMT

Education on the topics is definitely critical-- and this is a great start. What tools do you think would be most effective to disseminating this type of information to the skeptical segments of the population?

Audra Drazga's picture
Audra Drazga on Jan 31, 2020 12:43 pm GMT

I just recently attended DistribuTech and had a nice lunch with a couple of gentlemen from Eaton.  During our discussion, we were talking about nuclear waste and the perception of the public.  Also, the recent film produced by HBO about Chernobyl has not really helped nuclear's case.  I agree with Matt what do you think the industry needs to do to help the public understand that nuclear is a viable choice as clean power?  

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Feb 3, 2020 7:12 am GMT

Mark, I find most opposition to nuclear energy is based on misunderstandings, and that the most effective way to overcome it is by first providing opponents with accurate information.

For example, some facts related to nuclear waste:

  1. The by-products of generating electricity with nuclear fission are highly-radioactive chemical isotopes, which become less radioactive, or decay, over time. They must be stored safely to avoid exposing humans or animals to high doses of radiation.
  2. We're exposed to ionizing radiation every moment oif our lives, from both natural sources and man-made ones (mostly medical x-rays).. Throughout human evolution our bodies have developed processes for repairing most damage caused by radiation.
  3. The most radioactive by-products in nuclear waste decay the fastest, thus danger to humans decreases rapidly at first then slower as time passes. Though spent nuclear fuel remain radioactive for thousands of years, within several hundred years it's no longer dangerous.
  4. Compared to other fuels, the amount of nuclear waste generated, per unit of energy, is insignificant (if a person's entire lifetime electricity needs were met by nuclear energy, the resulting waste would fit inside a 12-oz. soft drink can).
  5. Because 95% of the uranium fuel in spent nuclear fuel rods is unused, it will be recycled long before it could leak into the environment (nuclear "waste" is valuable).
  6. Radioactivity from stored nuclear waste in the U.S. has never harmed anyone.

So if someone asks you what "they're going to do with the waste," tell them they're already doing it - they're storing it safely. It's a problem solved half a century ago.

Gary Hilberg's picture
Gary Hilberg on Feb 3, 2020 4:09 pm GMT

Mark - very good post.  Bob's comment on the volume (a drinking cup) below is a good visualization.  Also need to be aware of comparison's for alternatives - all generation assets require materials/energy to build and operate - most renewable (solar, hydro & wind) require lots more initial materials and will require much more disposal.  So comparison volumes are good.  

Also we tend to ignore chemicals and waste/long term potential hazard if not handled properly - most hazardous chemical remain hazardous forever until reacted to a safe state.  So these landfills will be dangerous forever and their volumes will be higher and less controlled vs. nuclear waste. 

 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Feb 5, 2020 8:10 pm GMT

Excellent points, Gary. In testimony before a House committee a few weeks ago, Michael Shellenberger claimed solar generates 300 times as much hazardous waste as nuclear power. Not sure that's an accurate representation of its danger, but I do know toxic cadmium is leaking into groundwater from thousands of tons of solar cells disposed in regular landfills.

U.S. coal plants emit an estimated 50 tons of toxic mercury and arsenic into the atmosphere each year, from which it settles to the ground and is absorbed by plants, fish, and forest animals. Unlike nuclear waste, the half-life of mercury and arsenic is forever.

Mark Silverstone's picture
Mark Silverstone on Feb 3, 2020 9:39 pm GMT

Interesting timing for this post. The World Nuclear Waste Report for 2019 was just issued and will be presented this week in Brussels.

I am sure there will be occasion to quote from this report as nuclear advocates defer, distract, deny that the management of nuclear waste is a problem.  I do highly recommend a thorough reading of the report which discusses the risks, hazards and costs of nuclear waste with respect to uranium miners, nuclear workers and the public during mining, operations, reprocessing and decommissioning.  There are separate reports for many countries that need to deal with the problem, including the US.  For now, suffice it to say, before the deniers start asking for names, voluminous data sets (referenced in this report)  from epidemiological studies of cancer rates near nuclear facilities.  Indeed, there are also data where no evidence of increased cancer rates are observed near specific nuclear facilities.  But, please don´t tell me that no one has been hurt by radioactive waste associated with the nuclear industry.  That would be absurd!

Let´s start with US law:
Disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the US is governed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as amended in 1987. This law established the need for the deep geological disposal (DGD) of commercial spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from the nuclear weapons complex.

Please tell me if you don´t think this is a problem, or if it has already been solved. Or if you have quite a few billion to spare to solve it.

The nuclear industry loves to advertise that the money for disposal of nuclear waste is already paid!

«Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product.»

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

Would you call that a misunderstanding or a lie? Or "redefining"?

However, an excerpt from the report:

High-level nuclear waste disposal is supported by the Nuclear Waste Fund, which was established by the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This money is dedicated solely to the development of a DGD (deep geological disposal) for high-level waste.  (This was supposed to happen at Yucca Mountain.) The fund charges electricity ratepayers US$1 per MWh and is managed by Congress. Over time the fund has amassed over US$34.3 billion. Though the fund was supposed to act as an escrow, or trust, account, Congress has instead used it to offset the US debt. Money collected into the fund is treated like tax revenue whereas money appropriated out of the fund is subject to spending restrictions. As a result, Congress has difficulty supplying funds when needed. Money is no longer being collected in the fund as a result of a federal lawsuit against the Department of Energy in 2013, because the agency had not made enough progress removing fuel from power plants. The Department of Energy’s cost estimates of disposing of US high-level waste at repository at Yucca Mountain was US$96 billion in 2008 dollars.

In addition, unfortunately, the NRC declined in 2014 to spend $4 billion to move most spent fuel that now is held in pools to be moved to dry casks and storage vaults. This would have reduced the likelihood and consequences of a spent fuel fire, the possible consequences of which will scare the daylights out of you, as it should. I would like to ask the nuclear experts/advocates to describe an out of control spent fuel fire.  Could never happen? Who is buying that?  That NRC decision may yet turn out to be the worst of the many egregious errors in this entire, seemingly, never ending saga. 

Sounds like a problem to me!  And I don´t see the nuclear industry stepping up. On the contrary.  I hear denial. The private sector has developed what appears to be a viable DGD technology.  One would think the nuclear industry would jump at the possibility.  (Perhaps it has and I just haven´t heard?)  

While nuclear should, perhaps, be a viable choice as clean power, the industry´s denial and irresponsibility with regard to its egregious  errors and abuse of the public trust make it far less likely to ever move forward.

 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Feb 3, 2020 10:14 pm GMT

While nuclear should, perhaps, be a viable choice as clean power, the industry´s denial and irresponsibility with regard to its egregious  errors and abuse of the public trust make it far less likely to ever move forward.

What would you think the public needs to hear from nuclear industry officials, regulators, etc. that would make you consider that it was ready to be a part of the clean energy solution?

Mark Silverstone's picture
Mark Silverstone on Feb 4, 2020 9:45 am GMT

First and foremost, the truth would help.  The nuclear experts seem to think that the public cannot handle the truth.  Considering how far off the rails nuclear has gone, it will be a long road back.

Truth with respect to waste management would be a good place to start.  There is a mess to clean up.  It is highly visible. Own it.   There is good technology to get it done, independent of Yucca Mountain.

Second, truth with respect to cost might yield good arguments.  SMRs may well reduce delivery time of new plants.  I have no problem with subsidies to support them if they can deliver what is needed in the appropriate markets.    I think nuclear needs to define its markets much better, instead of taking the “nothing but nuclear” approach. They may find that in places where the right conditions exist, nuclear is the right solution and a faster SMR delivery time would be worthwhile.   I hesitate to suggest what I think would be the ideal market for nuclear.  But, it is clearly not for everywhere and everyone, especially as the range of alternatives increases.   It sure sounds like South Carolina was not a great site selection: "South Carolina Spent $9 Billion to Dig a Hole in the Ground and Then Fill It Back In."

Actual GHG emissions reporting for all related activities such as mining, construction and decommissioning will help convince the public that they understand that there is no free lunch with respect to GHG emissions. This is not carbon free power.

Above all, stop lying to regulators. They hate that!  Try educating the public with truth about hazards and risks.  

Finally, get rid of at least one of their trade organizations and start over.  The World Nuclear Org. is just silly.   They provide too much fodder for skeptics like myself.

There is no “undoing” Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Idaho Falls, Enrico Fermi , etc. But SMRs may represent great new technology.  So, at the moment, the  nuclear industry is in the process of self-destruction.  How often do real accomplishments related to nuclear appear in the pages of Energy Central, especially compared to wind, solar, PV, storage, etc?  We hear passionate defenses and pie in the sky prognostications.  But how often is there good, hard,  evidence based news about nuclear? 

 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Feb 4, 2020 2:10 pm GMT

 I think nuclear needs to define its markets much better, instead of taking the “nothing but nuclear” approach. They may find that in places where the right conditions exist, nuclear is the right solution and a faster SMR delivery time would be worthwhile.

I agree with this-- there's never going to be a silver bullet, and different markets/geographies/demand curves all warrant unique consideration. And SMRs make that customized approach more viable for nuclear than traditional nuclear plants ever did. 

 

Actual GHG emissions reporting for all related activities such as mining, construction and decommissioning will help convince the public that they understand that there is no free lunch with respect to GHG emissions. This is not carbon free power.

Definitely agree with this, too. I'd love to see some sort of official centralized methodology and reporting for all generation sources-- would help to also show lifetime emissions of utility scale renewables vs. on-site/decentralized renewables, nuclear vs. renewables, SMRs vs. traditional nuclear, etc.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Feb 5, 2020 8:52 pm GMT

"Truth with respect to waste management would be a good place to start.  There is a mess to clean up.  It is highly visible."

Do you have a photo of highly-visible nuclear waste you can share with us?

"So, at the moment, the  nuclear industry is in the process of self-destruction."

Seems more like you're in the process of self-destruction, Mark, but you needn't be. There's nothing particularly more dangerous about nuclear waste than chlorine, benzene, or any among hundreds of toxic chemicals, of which tons are responsibly disposed every day in hazardous waste landfills.

"But how often is there good, hard, evidence based news about nuclear?"

There is good news about nuclear all the time, Mark. Here is a good place to start:
 http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/features/

The only time most people hear about nuclear energy is when a catastrophe occurs in a foreign country (it's happened twice). But at this moment, 60 nuclear plants across the U.S. are generating 91 billion watts of electricity 24/7 - safely and quietly, with no smoke or carbon emissions. You never see it or hear about it - but that's a good thing.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Feb 5, 2020 8:24 pm GMT

"But, please don´t tell me that no one has been hurt by radioactive waste associated with the nuclear industry!"

No one has been hurt by radioactive waste associated with the nuclear industry, your exclamation point and bolded text notwithstanding.

"This would have reduced the likelihood and consequences of a spent fuel fire, the possible consequences of which will scare the daylights out of you, as it should. I would like to ask the nuclear experts/advocates to describe an out of control spent fuel fire.  Could never happen? Who is buying that?"

I'm buying that, because spent fuel doesn't burn, Mark (it's made out of metal). Your imagination is running away with you, now calm down.

"Sounds like a problem to me!"

Irrational fear is a problem for a lot of people, but fortunately is treatable with therapy and modern medications.

Mark Silverstone's picture
Mark Silverstone on Feb 7, 2020 9:09 am GMT

You  seem to have inhaled all of the nonsense that the World Nuclear Institute spews.  No references, no data, no proof. Just nuclear industry claptrap. 

Again, I refer you to the World Nuclear Waste report. With data and references. I am under no illusion that you will read or understand any of it. That is just not in your playbook. But others may be interested, and not so lazy.

Can you please tell me one example of final disposal of high level nuclear waste in the world?  The fact is “No country has a final disposal site for nuclear waste in operation yet; Finland is the only country that is currently constructing a permanent repository. All  else is interim.” It is no longer  a technological problem. It is simply a matter of responsible business.

First rule of waste disposal:

«In order “to avoid imposing undue burdens on future generations” (Article 3 of the Joint Convention), one unifying concept, observed in nearly every country, is the polluter-pays-principle, which makes the operator liable for the costs of these activities.» Take a look at the right hand column of the table below.

Not one operator of a nuclear plant in the world complies with this principle for high level waste, let alone the less radioactive nuclear waste. We certainly apply it to oil spills, municipal waste, coal ash (so far), though far from the extent to which they should be responsible, especially with respect to air emissions.   Why are nuclear operators fully exempt (and, even worse, pretend otherwise)?  The US nuclear industry even refuses to commit to put all high level waste into casks.  San Onofre is the exception, not the rule. It should be the exception that proves the rule.

 

Do nuclear waste sites leak? There are many well documented cases. The poster child, of course, in Hanford.

 

 

 

We have discussed Vermont Yankee previously. You said they lied because the public would not understand the truth.  That is sick.

Then there is Indian Point. And Carlsbad storage facility. Colombia, SC nuclear fuel facility.  It is not difficult to find documentation on these leaks, some purportedly relatively harmless, others much more dangerous.

Who has been hurt by leaked radiation?

As a result of mining:

«In a 1983 report, the US Environmental Protection Agency estimated the lifetime excess lung cancer risk of residents living near a bare tailings pile of 80 hectares (0.8 km²) at two cases per hundred residents.”

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983, “40 CFR Part 192 Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites,” in: Federal Register Vol.48, No.196, Washington D.C. October 7 1983, pp. 45940. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1983-10-07/content-detail.html

As a result of operations:

The majority of annual air emissions (about 70 to 80 percent) are released during annual refueling. These increase the estimated doses to residents nearby by a factor of at least 20 compared to releases averaged over a year.

«The first recorded leukemia cluster near nuclear facilities in Europe was in 1984 in the UK near the Sellafield nuclear facility. In subsequent years, increased incidences of childhood leukemia occurred near other nuclear facilities in the UK, in France, and in Germany.»

Forman, D., Cook-Mozaffari, P., Darby, S., Davey, G., Stratton, I., Doll, R., and Pike, M. 1987, Cancer near nuclear installations, Nature, 329(6139), pp. 499-505. 

Gardner, M.J. 1991, Father’s occupational exposure to radiation and the raised level of childhood leukemia near the Sellafield nuclear plant, Environmental health perspectives, 94, pp.5-7. 

Pobel, D. and Viel, J.F. 1997, Case-control study of leukemia among young people near La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant: the environmental hypothesis revisited, Bmj, 314(7074), pp. 101.

Baker, P.J. and Hoel, D.G. 2007, Meta‐analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities, European Journal of cancer care, 16(4), pp. 355-363. 

«In 2008, the German government published a major epidemiological study  called Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants. Another report found a 120 percent increase in leukemia and a 60 percent increase in all cancers among infants and children under five years old living within five kilometers of all German reactors»

Kaatsch, P., Spix, C., Schulze‐Rath, R., Schmiedel, S. and Blettner, M. 2008, Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. International Journal of Cancer, 122(4), pp. 721-726

Spix, C., Schmiedel, S., Kaatsch, P., Schulze-Rath, R. and Blettner, M. 2008, Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003, European Journal of Cancer, 44(2), pp. 275-284. 

During reprocessing:

«The global collective dose, truncated at 100,000 years, resulting from the discharges of the La Hague reprocessing facility alone has been calculated to be 3,600 person sieverts per year. Continuing discharges at similar levels for the years of La Hague’s operational life until 2025 would cause over 3,000 additional cancer deaths globally, if the linear no-threshold theory of radiation is applied.»  We can debate the linear no-threshhold theory again if you like.  It involves dogs and plutonium. Very ugly results.

Smith, R., Bexon, A., Sihra, K., Simmonds, J.2007, “The calculation, presentation and use of collective doses for routine discharges,” In Proceedings of IRPA12: 12. Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association: Strengthening Radiation Protection Worldwide-Highlights, Global Perspective and Future Trends

Fire?

«Published by researchers from Princeton University and the Union of Concerned Scientists, the article argues that NRC inaction leaves the public at high risk from fires in spent-nuclear-fuel cooling pools at reactor sites. The pools -- water-filled basins that store and cool used radioactive fuel rods -- are so densely packed with nuclear waste that a fire could release enough radioactive material to contaminate an area twice the size of New Jersey»

This reference is an especially authoritative one.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/spent-fuel-fire-us-soil-could-dwarf-impact-fukushima

"At most U.S. nuclear plants, spent fuel is densely packed in pools, heightening the fire risk. NRC has estimated that a major fire at the spent fuel pool at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania would displace an estimated 3.46 million people from 31,000 square kilometers of contaminated land. But Von Hippel and Schoeppner think that NRC has grossly underestimated the scale and societal costs of such a fire...The academies panel recommends that NRC “assess the risks and potential benefits of expedited transfer.” NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell in Washington, D.C., says that the commission’s technical staff “will take an in-depth look” at the issue and report to NRC commissioners later this year." The NRC certainly considered the risk significant enough to run the simulation.

You say there is no such thing as a core fire?

Short description of Chernobyl: “While a nuclear reactor can never explode like an atomic bomb, an explosion can still occur. All power plants are a potential site for an explosion, because the fuel used, whether it is coal, uranium, or natural gas, needs to be energy dense...Typically at a nuclear reactor, the type of explosion seen would be a steam explosion. A steam explosion could only occur if the reactor suffered a meltdown. A meltdown means that due to lack of coolant, or too much fission, the core becomes so hot that it melts. Due to the intense heat produced, water is turned to steam. Also, the fuel rods melt, turning them into a liquid. This allows the metal to react with the steam, causing an explosion.

The destruction at Chernobyl was caused by a steam explosion. Since the turbine feed valves were closed, the steam in the core had nowhere to go.... When the reactor core began to meltdown, liquid metal touched the steam, causing an explosion. The explosion caused the roof of the core to lift off, exposing the core to air. The air reacted with the graphite moderator in the core, resulting in the production of carbon monoxide. Since carbon monoxide is flammable, it caught fire due to the extreme heat in the core. The fire burned for days.»

https://science.fusion4freedom.com/why-a-nuclear-reactor-cannot-explode-like-an-atom-bomb/

By the way. Yes, metals burn. https://books.google.no/books?id=GTyxNeyaiuUC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=can+metal+burn&source=bl&ots=BtRkbxPvz9&sig=ACfU3U3HjhNYnNc-PxQAzbRRqyvBP4DlSA&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPkqbFh7_nAhVN2aYKHeguDPo4HhDoATAHegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=can%20metal%20burn&f=false

 

Irrational fear? Your blinders cause irrational complacency.  I overestimated you. I thought you knew some chemistry.  And some history.

 

 

 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Feb 11, 2020 3:11 am GMT

Mark, I suspected you would pull waste from an atomic weapons research facility, half a century old, out of your hat. But spent fuel from a power reactor - the kind that makes electricity, and uses uranium fuel at one-fifteenth the enrichment - has never harmed anyone.

I'm sorry you spent so much effort writing that long screed of debunked talking points - it took me all of 4 minutes to refute the prinicpal one. Suggestion: start by learning some basics about radiation and nuclear energy, because you're wasting your time. I'm already sorry I wasted 4 minutes!

"The air reacted with the graphite moderator in the core, resulting in the production of carbon monoxide. Since carbon monoxide is flammable, it caught fire due to the extreme heat in the core. The fire burned for days."

No, carbon monoxide is not flammable. Graphite (carbon) is, however - it reacts with oxygen to form carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is the product of the reaction, not a reactant. Did this come from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, none of whom is an atomic scientist? No wonder, whoever wrote it wouldn't receive a passing grade in a high school chemistry class.

Mark Silverstone's picture
Mark Silverstone on Feb 11, 2020 7:44 pm GMT

 

"No, carbon monoxide is not flammable."

Surely, you are pulling my leg here.

Not good for your credibility. Suggest you take a course.

https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_monoxide.html

(Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety)

Gary Hilberg's picture
Gary Hilberg on Feb 8, 2020 12:02 am GMT

Mark - the industry is stuck, the Federal Government has the responsibility for long term storage - that is clear and set forth in law.  The nuclear operators are spending their own dollars, with costs be passed on to consumers, to store nuclear waste as safely as possible in dry casks onsite.  Until the Federal Goverment completes their mandated long term storage facility, the industry can do no more.  The Yuca site is a very good location, but politics have stopped it after many billions of dollars being spent.    

Employees of nuclear facilities are monitored for radiation at levels which are quite low.  Studies show that airline staff on planes get more radiation exposure than nuclear worker see https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html.  So attributing deaths in nuclear energy due to long term exposure is difficult and during the accidents in the civilian world, I am not aware of any deaths due to radiation, if you have data please share.  

Mark Silverstone's picture
Mark Silverstone on Feb 10, 2020 12:31 am GMT

Thanks Gary.  A few points:

1) The nuclear industry claims, at least the World Nuclear Association  does, to take full responsibility for waste. 

«Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product.»

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

From what you say, you realize that the World Nuclear Institute is wrong - and lies about it.

2) No doubt, successive governments have failed to deal with this problem effectively.  However, as you have seen from other posts, some people simply claim that it is not a problem.  It clearly is a very big problem

As you say, the consumer pays through their rates for the interim disposal (unless tne NRC finds some money to subsidize it.)   However, the costs for final disposal should also be accounted for in the costs of the electricity.  It obviously is in the interest of the industry to ignore those costs so that the cost of the electricity is a bit closer to competitive with other propositions. But the public is well aware that those costs are going to  be borne by consumers.  The Nuclear Industry  books simply look a lot better without the billions for final disposal.

So, the deceit by the industry is on many levels.   A. Deny it´s a problem B. Charge consumers for interim disposal. C. Claim the issue has been handled effectively, knowing that D. - the final disposal issue needs to be solved and paid for by someone else, ultimately by consumers. 

3) It baffles me that the nuclear industry takes such a passive role in this.  Nobody seems to even be interested in the drilling technology that can put high level waste in highly stable formations, and be able to retrieve it if necessary.  In spite of the finger pointing, lying, posturing, at some point someone will wake up to the reality that Yucca Mountain is no solution. And even if it could work, the politics of it will not.

4) I can only lead you to water.  I cannot make you drink. Please see at least one of the many studies cited above. These are from respected main stream journals. Yes, people in other workplaces get more radiation from either the radon in their  basement or from high atmosphere radiation to which they are exposed in airplanes, But these researchers know how to run controlled experiments. I´m sure you do. Take a look at their data. See if they do not contain highly suggestive data with respect to the hazards of working in and living near nuclear installations.

5) At its core, it is a matter of public trust. The nuclear industry and its apologists violate that trust constantly and consistently.  It has only itself to blame if the public does not believe what they say. 

There is an opportunity here to change all that prior to roll-out of SMRs. But it is going to be a tough road to hoe.

 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »