As governments react to Fukushima by testing the safety of nuclear power stations, Paul Suff reminds us that the problem of nuclear waste still has to be dealt with
Much of the debate surrounding nuclear power since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was seriously damaged by the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan on 11 March has focussed on safety.
Energy secretary Chris Huhne immediately announced a safety review of UK nuclear power stations, while the European Commission said the EU's 143 nuclear plants will be subject to safety and stress tests taking into account risks as earthquakes, flooding, aircraft crashes, cyber or terrorist attacks, cooling systems and their stability and local electricity supply failure.
In light of events in Japan, safety tests are undoubtedly necessary, not least to reassure people living near to nuclear power plants.
Unlike Japan, the UK does not sit on one of the Earth’s major fault lines, so its plants are likely to pass the safety and stress tests, though several sites may be at risk from rising sea levels and storm surges.
But even if the outcome of the reviews give existing plants the all clear in terms of safety, there is still another issue that needs resolving before plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations should receive the go ahead. That’s what to do with the waste.
Nuclear waste is dangerously radioactive and remains so for thousands of years. Storing it is expensive and not without its own safety risks.
The situation at Fukushima was made worse because spent fuel rods, which over heated, were stored on site – it was cheaper them sending them to a specialist facility.
Reprocessing and recycling the fuel is also expensive and the Thorp reprocessing plant at Sellafield has been dogged by problems, including being shutdown for two years due to radioactive leaks.
Operating safety is a priority, but it is not the only factor to consider when deciding whether nuclear should be part of our future energy mix in the aftermath of the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi.
Tweet
Do you agree? Why not start a discussion in the IEMA LinkedIn Group and have your say?
