So an industry CEO tells E&E News that nuclear is the only non-carbon baseload power (not!) and that therefore nuclear is our only future and since the United States does such a great job of dealing with low-level radioactive waste, we should become the world's repository.
That would be the logic of one Steve Creamer, CEO of EnergySolutions, "a full-service nuclear fuel cycle company" (in contrast to all of those "partial-service nuclear fuel cycle companies," sometimes called electric utilities).
Why shouldn't we take the world's low-level radioactive waste? asks Creamer. Other countries take our recycled computers [!], so it's the perfect division of global labor:
Monica Trauzzi: But why should the U.S. be a dumping ground for other countries' waste?
Steve Creamer: We don't believe it is a dumping ground. I know, when you look around the world you say, OK, the computer sitting on your desk and there, when it's recycled, where does it go? Does it go to the U.S.? No. It goes to China or it goes to Taiwan or goes to Thailand and there they recycle it. Well, there's hazardous waste in that. That material does not come back to the U.S., it stays there. What we're talking about doing is supporting an industry where we can do things that no one else can do. Just like China can recycle our computers like we can't do here and they take a small amount of byproducts left there. We're talking about taking the byproducts off of doing something that's good to help energy security and global warming and what we're trying to do and support nuclear energy worldwide.
Sure, they get our old PCs, we get their radioactive waste. That is the best deal I've seen since some Nigerian offered to send me millions of dollars if I would only send them a few thousand dollars. Well, all I can say is, Barrister Buba Moha of Lagos, where is my money? Why won't you return my calls? Can I interest you in some low-level radioactive waste from Italy?
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Comments
View as Flat
KenG Posted 7:36 am
07 May 2008
Is this actually medical, industrial and research waste? Would that make a difference to those who are opposed to this miniscule importation of low level material?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:21 am
07 May 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:25 pm
07 May 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:41 pm
07 May 2008
Permalink
KenG Posted 1:00 am
08 May 2008
Permalink
PJD Posted 7:02 am
08 May 2008
As pointed out, even without nuclear power reactors the world is still dependent on nuclear technology, such as widespread use in medicine, food safety, research, etc.
What is the better solution to deal with this waste...
1) Aggregate the waste from around the world to a few countries where facilities can be built as safe as possible and permanently staffed (or until such time as governments collapse and we forget where the site is).
or
2)Have waste collect all around the world in small quantities, either stored permanently in temporary storage or disappear through unmonitored means likely ending up in the environment.
It often seems to me as if some anti-nuke folks accept (promote) the very unsafe storage of existing waste because they believe (hope) that by preventing dealing with it, future waste will not be generated. In my opinion this ignores two factors.
We already have lots of waste that really should be dealt with.
Even without civilian power reactors (which will likely be built overseas even if not here), we have military nuclear waste and we have industrial nuclear waste.
Permalink