With Canada’s nuclear reactors creating enough radioactive waste over the years to fill a football field one meter deep, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is looking for a place to store the stuff.
Well, says a recent NWMO draft report, why not Saskatchewan? Not only is the province a source of uranium (maybe we can just put it back where it came from?), it’s also geologically stable: no fault lines for earthquakes or pressure points for volcanoes, which could cause the radioactive material to leak into the earth.
Sadly, this seems to be the best option anybody's put forward, despite some obvious drawbacks:
(T)rucking radioactive material across Canada looks like an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen...A truck crash, fire, or possible terrorist act would spew radioactive material into the air, rendering square miles of Canadian countryside—or cityside—unlivable.
Linda McQuaig makes largely the same points in discussing why new nuclear plants aren't the right answer to an impending energy crisis:
Right here in Ontario, the McGuinty cabinet, under pressure to make good on promises to close coal-fired electricity plants, is contemplating reviving its nuclear commitment...
(E)ven if we're unfazed by the prospect of a meltdown, a terrorist attack, a million-year waste problem and the mega-billion-dollar cost of new reactors, there's an added hitch: New reactors can't be built in time.
A reactor takes 15 years to build, notes energy consultant Ralph Torrie. Cutting corners on regulatory standards — hardly a great idea — could shave five years off that time, still leaving us five years short.
The amazing part is that just as the NWMO is finally coming around to dealing with the aftermath of previous nuclear construction, others are proudly ignoring the problems with those past projects. We can't undo the past damage; we can avoid causing even more of it now. No new nukes.
No comments:
Post a Comment