The problem of waste

The editorial “Miracle derailed” about “misguided environmentalists” mentions Three Mile Island. That incident, fortunately contained with minimal radiation release, revealed a lack of planning and design inadequacies and raised legitimate concerns that additional oversight was required. Those public concerns did lead to additional regulation and safety requirements that made nuclear power less cost-effective. An equally significant objection, however, was the failure to realistically address the long-term costs of dealing with radioactive waste. The “More no-nukes” editorial also ignores that problem.

The early euphoria about nuclear power in the 1950s ignored the 100 percent reality of radioactive waste. Dealing with the radioactive waste from fuel replacement and eventual decommissioning of nuclear plants was left as a problem for later resolution. Some of those byproducts must be contained for tens of thousands of years before they are safe—a longer time period than any structure or government constructed by man has ever survived. The long-term waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., is still not operational after many decades. I thought it interesting that a piece originating from the Las Vegas Review-Journal would seem unaware of this issue, since opposition in Nevada is one of the reasons the Yucca Mountain facility is in limbo.

For now, each nuclear power plant is storing its own radioactive waste on-site, meaning all nuclear power plant sites must be guarded indefinitely by future generations against accident or attack. Forcing hundreds of future generations to pay for the upkeep of sites that only benefit our generation hardly seems fair. We need to give them better alternatives than dealing with our nuclear garbage.

At the very least, any new nuclear power plants should use emerging reactor technology that produces less nuclear waste than the water-cooled reactor design used by existing nuclear power plants.

JOEL EWING

Bentonville