|
Politics aside, I
maintain that from a standpoint of public health and safety, as well as
economics, ocean disposal of nuclear waste is still preferable to any
alternative method. Disposal of SNF is a bad idea in any case, as is the
concept of retreivability.
Now considering
politics, if we are to continue to allow the environmental wackos
(greenpeace et al) dictate our nucwaste policies, there is no chance of success
to begin with and it is stupid to even try. The nuclear waste impasse is their
best shot at halting nuclear power production and they will strongly oppose
adoption of any approach toward nuclear waste management. It is a waste
of time and money to try to appease them.
Perhaps even
worse, if we allow the national labs/contractors to dictate policy, the
situation is also hopeless. Nucwaste "research" is their cash cow and it is not
likely that they want it to go away. Perhaps you
have noticed that their "studies" on nuclear waste generally conclude
with a recommendation that further study is needed. Although such
recommendations are little more than their attempt at further money
grubbing, it comes across to the public that we don't know what we are doing
and it is logically concluded that it is too dangerous to proceed.
The recent GAO report reflecting the views of Becctel/SAIC is a classic example
of this sort of thing.
Therefore, as I have
previously suggested, it appears that there exists a symbiotic condition, if not
an out and out conspiracy, between the national labs/contractors and anti-nuke
activists to prevent implementation of a solution to the nuclear waste problem.
If Greenpeace, Unplug, etc. did not exist, Sandia, Bechtel/SAIC,
and their cohorts would have had to invent them.
The only way out
of the morass, after ~50 years of blundering, is to get an administration and
congress in Washington with the courage to say "enough already", and to
implement any of several previously proposed alternative methods that would
adequately protect the public health and safety at reasonable cost. Of these, I
still think that Oceanic Disposal
is the best.
Continuation of
current policies would essentially guarantee failure. In stating all of
this, why do I feel like "a voice in the
wilderness"?
Not so. The investigation of deep ocean disposal was stopped when it was by no means at a point at which disposal could actually begin. Moreover, SNF would not be retrievable from the deep ocean. My guess is that another 20 years would pass before we would actually dispose of any spent fuel in the ocean. Instead of the State of Nevada we would have Greenpeace and other international anti-nuke groups, and who knows how many nations. Instead of national politics, we would have international politics. If the problems with Yucca Mountain are political, they are NOT insurmountable -- it just takes a tiny bit of political courage, and maybe not even that. Moreover, I submit that if Yucca Mountain is "scrapped" we will never be allowed to forget it and there will not be another nuke plant built in the US in my granddaughter's lifetime (she is 11). I'd say get on with it. And by the way, opening Yucca Mountain will cut a lot of jobs. Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. ruthweiner@aol.com |