|
|
| Fig. 1: Nuclear waste that is in a spent fuel pool. [7] (Courtesy of the GAO) |
Nuclear energy is currently seeing a resurgence in investment due in part to increased demand for energy from companies with power intensive AI technologies. Large tech companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have invested billions into nuclear projects ranging from Small Nuclear Reactors (SMR) to fusion. [1] This potential growth raised concerns for how the likely growing amount of nuclear waste will be handled in the United States. Nuclear energy infrastructure has not been built out in the United States to handle nuclear waste at scale. Managing this waste will be an important factor in the success of next generation nuclear power in the United States.
A key issue that will arise is how nuclear waste will be managed. Vast infrastructure is needed for storage. The brand of nuclear energy has not fared well and plans to build such infrastructure have faced political challenges. The Department of Energy attempted to find a longer term solution to this problem by researching several sites for mass nuclear waste storage. Yucca Mountain in the Las Vegas Valley was selected through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendment of 1987. [2] The waste site faced political and legal opposition from the Nevada government so operations never commenced.
The Yucca Mountain project did pose several ethical issues. The project created possible environmental injustices. Yucca Mountain, like most other considered sites that were designated as "wastelands" and potential options for a permanent waste facility, resided near Native American land. Additionally, the State of Nevada felt that it had been imposed an unnecessary burden and that the project did not make practical sense since most nuclear plants were on the eastern half of the United States. [3] The nuclear waste poses a transgenerational danger as it is remains lethal for tens of thousands of years. [3] It is challenging to say whether government agencies would be able to ensure the safety of these sites for future generations. Another separate consideration is that spent nuclear fuel can be used to create nuclear weapons so managing it is a matter of national security. [4] Physical security of nuclear waste has its limitations so the security resources of a national nuclear waste repository would likely be high and may affect local communities.
 |
| Fig. 2: Nuclear waste that is in dry cask storage in vertical casks. [8] (Courtesy of the NRC) |
In the United States it is standard practice to store nuclear waste on a smaller scale onsite. [5] There are two main methods for storage. Spent fuel rods are stored in pools in individual nuclear sites, as wheon in Fig. 1, or spent fuel is placed in dry cask storage, as shown in Fig. 2. Occasional, dry cask storage systems are sent offsite to decommissioned reactor sites or interim storage facilities. Both methods are not long-term solutions for current and future waste.
On-site storage has led to its own sets of challenges and concerns. The United States has over 86,000 metric tons of this nuclear waste from spent nuclear energy and it grows by 2,000 tons a year. [6] The Department of Energy is responsible for operating a national repository for this nuclear waste and the federal government has paid billions in damages to utility companies for failing to dispose of waste. [6]
Political gridlock has prevented the establishment of a permanent nuclear waste repository and has stalled advancements into storage more broadly. Although there are ethical considerations to make when establishing a permeant waste site, the risks of not finding a solution and improperly storing the waste are too great. There should be greater resource allocation and political will to work through the issues and establish a permanent repository. Renewed investment into nuclear energy will only accelerate the need for a better storage strategy. Continuing with current storage methods will not only inhibit scale but also cost billions, security concerns, and risk dangerous waste mismanagement.
© Cristobal Garcia. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] I. Penn and K. Weise, "Hungry for Energy, Amazon, Google and Microsoft Turn to Nuclear Power," New York Times, 16 Oct 24.
[2] T. Gomez-Franco, "Yucca Mountain," Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2017.
[3] D. Kyne and B. Bolin, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13, 700 (2016).
[4] "Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing And The Problems Of Safeguarding Against The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons," Comptroller General of the United States, EMD-80-38, March 1980.
[5] "Radioactive Waste: Production, Storage, Disposal," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-2016, May 2002. pp. 9-10.
[6] "Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel: Congressional Action Needed to Break Impasse and Develop a Permanent Disposal Solution," U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-21-603, September 2021.
[7] "Spent Nuclear Fuel: Accumulating Quantities at Commercial Reactors Present Storage and Other Challenges," U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-12-797, August 2012.
[8] "Backgrounder: Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 2023.