Trying to solve the long-term nuclear waste storage problem

Despite the uncertainties, the authors argue that there are very real reasons to start using Yucca Mountain: 60,000 metric tons of waste, currently stored in 72 sites, "many adjacent to metropolitan areas and all next to rivers, lakes, or the ocean." It's easy to default to inertia while waiting for greater certainty about Yucca Mountain or hoping something better comes along, but the authors argue that the current storage system creates far too much risk ... Full Story »

Posted by Rebecca Hale

See All Reviews »

Review

Tom Maertens
3.5
by Tom Maertens - Oct. 1, 2008

The U.S. currently obtains one-fourth of its power from 103 nuclear reactors. The problem is that nuclear waste storage is building up at the reactor sites, a potential safety and proliferation risk. Yucca Mountain has been studied and reviewed for 20 years with an investment of billions of dollars. The biggest objection is the NIMBY phenomenom...Not in My Back Yard. There is another repository near White Sands that might actually be better geologically, but is only certified for low-level waste, which has been stored there for years. Longer term, the answer is cleaner-burning reactors, perhaps such as the gas reactor being tested in South Africa (by an American firm). There is still a great deal of nuclearphobia in the U.S., however, despite the fact that no one has ever died as a result of nuclear power plant accidents -- including at Three Mile Island. What the nuclearphobes don't know, however is that coal -- which produces about 50% of our power -- is roughly 40 times more polluting than nuclear power AND produces even more radioactive pollution nuclear power plants. Hard to believe, but you can look it up (but not on any coal industry sites). And no, there is no such thing as "Clean Coal." That is an advertising slogan, not a reality. Not of this appears in the article, however, which is really a review of an article.

See All Reviews »

Tom's Rating

Overall
3.5

Good
from 7 answers
Quality
3.4
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.0
Sourcing
3.0
Context
3.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.0
More How our ratings work »