Background:
It is very refreshing to see an article that points out the fundamental hypocrisy of industrial and governmental promoters in wanting to call this technology “clean” when in fact it produces the deadliest waste and the most insidious poisons of any industry that has ever been allowed to operate.
A few caveats however:
(1) Perhaps the most hilarious typo of the year: “Unlike solar power, it [nuclear] works when the sun shines.” (Haha!! We all know what the author meant to say…)
(2) The author does not make the connection between nuclear waste and nuclear accidents. What makes nuclear reactors dangerous is simply this – that they may accidentally RELEASE some of that nuclear waste into the environment.(3) The author fails to make the connection between nuclear waste and nuclear weapons. It is the newly-created plutonium that is contained in the reactor fuel waste (and is not found in nature) that allows weaponeers to build their nuclear arsenals.(4) The author apparently accepts the unsupported claim that the cost of electricity from these untested reactors will be less than the cost from existing reactors. (Spoiler alert: it ain’t so.)
Gordon
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors:
New technology comes nowhere close to solving the problem of nuclear waste
Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star, May 27, 2021 https://tinyurl.com/yatxnb3m
What is to be done with nuclear waste? It is a question that dominates the Atomic Age. It is also one that has never been satisfactorily answered.
If it weren’t for the waste it creates, nuclear power would be a political slam dunk. It produces a vast quantity of electricity at an affordable price. It is also reliable. Unlike solar power, it works when the sun [doesn’t] shine[s]. Unlike wind power, it works in the deadest of calms.
Sure, it can be a nightmare if a reactor spins out of control. The residents of Japan’s Fukushima district can attest to that. They are still coming to terms with a 2011 meltdown that mercilessly devastated towns, cities and villages there.
But accidents on the scale of Fukushima or Chernobyl are rarities.
By comparison, nuclear waste is a relentless certainty. A plant that produces nuclear power creates nuclear waste. It is that simple.
But what to do with that waste? Up to now, the assumption was that such waste would be buried in deep geological caverns, or repositories. Two potential sites for such repositories have been identified — one in Northwestern Ontario and one near Lake Huron. The usual political battles are being waged over whether either or both sites are safe.
But over the last few years, more attention has been paid to a different solution — using radioactive waste as fuel to create more nuclear power from so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). The governments of Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick have been particularly interested in developing this new SMR technology.One New Brunswick start-up, Moltex Energy of Saint John, has received $50.5 million in federal funds.
The new technology has its critics. In the first place, it can create new and even more dangerous radioactive waste. As the Globe and Mail reports, Moltex says it produces an impure form of plutonium as a waste byproduct from its SMRs. Pure plutonium is used in the manufacture of atomic bombs.
Indeed, some nuclear experts, including former senior U.S. officials, were so alarmed that seven of them took the unusual step of penning an open letter this week to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
In that letter, they warned that reprocessing waste in a manner that creates plutonium would undermine global efforts to limit nuclear proliferation.
They also noted that the new technology wouldn’t solve the waste problem. Rather, it would just produce different kinds of nuclear waste.
“Moltex, even in the R&D stage, would create a costly legacy of contaminated facilities and radioactive waste streams and require substantial additional government funding for cleanup,” the letter said.All of this is true. But none of it is enough to derail the new interest in SMR technology. Governments like it because it promises to be cheaper to build than classic Pickering-style nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry sees it as a political lifeline at a time when atomic power is not particularly popular.
So regardless of what its critics say, don’t expect this new technology to fade away. It may not be the silver bullet that its adherents claim it to be. It comes nowhere close to solving the waste problem.
But it is supported by important political constituencies. History has shown how crucial this support has been to the nuclear industry.
