Where should we put our nuclear waste?
Nevada's Yucca Mountain site for a proposed nuclear waste repository has lost much of its funding in President Obama's proposed budget. Personally, I think this is a good call - I never thought that the Yucca Mountain site seemed viable for the geological long-term. For a facility being designed to outlast human civilization (warning signs are not written in English, but in sign language that's predicted to still be useful when potential meddlers show up 10,000 years from now), Yucca Mountain is located in too tectonically-active an area for my liking. Basin and Range extension, with associated earthquakes and volcanism, imperils the facility's security over the long-term.
But then where do we put this nuclear waste? We've got more and more of it every day. I'm a fan of nuclear energy because I feel that in spite of the risks associated with radioactive leaks, it's a proven technology that looks better all the time because it produces no carbon emissions. To me, the relatively short-term (local) risk of radiation leaks is outweighed by CO2's long-term (global) risk of climate change. Provided sufficient security, I think it's a great "halfway house" between fossil fuels and 'alternative' energies like solar, wind, and geothermal.
Yucca Mountain has several advantages in terms of its location: it's dry, and it's not in someone's backyard (far from large populations -- though Los Vegas residents might quibble with the definition of "far"). But Nevada's regular seismic shaking (3rd in rank among the U.S. states, after California and Alaska) and the proximity of some young volcanic extrusions make me think it's not so great a spot if you want the waste to stay put. I'm thinking that the best place for nuclear waste would be in the craton, the stable interior of the continent. I'm thinking: Canadian Shield, maybe in Minnesota or Michigan or Wisconsin. The issue there is water: you would be trading tectonic stability for saturation and precipitation.
I'll readily admit I'm not an expert here -- just a geologist speculating on an issue that's more complex than mere geology. What do you think? Where's the best place to store nuclear waste until radioactive decay makes it reasonably safe? Use 10,000 years as your hypothetical timeline, bearing in mind how different the world is today than it was 10,000 years ago.
But then where do we put this nuclear waste? We've got more and more of it every day. I'm a fan of nuclear energy because I feel that in spite of the risks associated with radioactive leaks, it's a proven technology that looks better all the time because it produces no carbon emissions. To me, the relatively short-term (local) risk of radiation leaks is outweighed by CO2's long-term (global) risk of climate change. Provided sufficient security, I think it's a great "halfway house" between fossil fuels and 'alternative' energies like solar, wind, and geothermal.
Yucca Mountain has several advantages in terms of its location: it's dry, and it's not in someone's backyard (far from large populations -- though Los Vegas residents might quibble with the definition of "far"). But Nevada's regular seismic shaking (3rd in rank among the U.S. states, after California and Alaska) and the proximity of some young volcanic extrusions make me think it's not so great a spot if you want the waste to stay put. I'm thinking that the best place for nuclear waste would be in the craton, the stable interior of the continent. I'm thinking: Canadian Shield, maybe in Minnesota or Michigan or Wisconsin. The issue there is water: you would be trading tectonic stability for saturation and precipitation.
I'll readily admit I'm not an expert here -- just a geologist speculating on an issue that's more complex than mere geology. What do you think? Where's the best place to store nuclear waste until radioactive decay makes it reasonably safe? Use 10,000 years as your hypothetical timeline, bearing in mind how different the world is today than it was 10,000 years ago.
Labels: CO2, earthquakes, energy, environmental, michigan, minnesota, nevada, volcano, wisconsin
6 Comments:
Frankly, I think thick succession of clay are the best alternative. The Swiss are investigating to store their nuclear waste in the several hundred m thick Opalinuston-Formation. All of Switzerland is somehow tectonically active. The clay is plastic enough to seal potential fissures by it's own weight or by expanding when in contact with water. I don't support storage in salt. I am not convinced of the "dryness". Just look at the problems they now face in the German Asse Nuclear Waste facility nowadays with water threatening to flood the entire salt dome and all caverns inside of it. I am not trained with radioactive waste problems though. Just my personal geological speculations.
I think Yucca Mountain is fine. Incidentally, that 10,000-year design lifetime was a political decision and not based on any kind of science at all. A design for 1000 years of storage would still probably be conservative.
We are going to want to dig it up to reprocess it in a few decades anyway.
I fully agree with the Lost Geologist. The problems of the German Asse Nuclear Waste facility are a perfect example what happens when politicians set goals on technical (and scientific) problems.
Well, I can think of two places to put it. Turn it to glass an drop it at the base of the newest Hawaiian volcanoe. It will then be buried by the growing preemergant island for millions of years. Or drop the radioactive glass into the Marianis trench where subduction will send it back into the earth continueing the heat cycle that gives this planet life.
This post has been removed by the author.
Plant it in the foothills to the Sierra Nevadas, Himalayas, or anywhere that one plate subducts under another, and let the plates do the recycling work for us.
Or, plant it under Manhattan, Paris, etc., any scene of the "crime" as it were. I leave out Los Angeles and Tokyo because of the seismic risks, but here again, if they're in a plate subduction zone, they might be good candidates.
By burying under cities, we ensure the waste isn't forgotten, and like Eric said, we'll want to dig it back up again, anyway.
I'm an expert of nothing, least of all this topic!
Post a Comment
<< Home