Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Is nuclear energy really a long term solution? The radioactive waste still gets stored on earth and it lasts thousands of years. I realize that the CO2 mass emissions far surpasses what the equivalent radioactive waste would be but annually storing tonnes of radioactive waste on the planet will one day likely result in severe consequences.
|
Currently in Saskatachewan there is tons of uranium in the shield. As rich as 15% in some areas. Now this isn't enriched to it is less radioactive than the waste product but some of this radiactive material is right near the service. So doing nothing we have radioactive material that is stored in the earth that will last for thousands of years with no protection on how this material interacts with ground water.
If you bury radioactive waste in the Canadian shield you can ensure that it is designed safely to protect against ground water contamination. There are issues with it but in terms of volume it is relatively small. About 2000 tonnes of nuclear fuel are generated each year by the worldwide nuclear industry.
The desity of uranium is 20,000kg per cubic meter (20 tonnes) so the worldwide industy only procuces 100 cubic meters of highly radioactive waste per year. So a 10m by 10m by 10m storage area is the worlds waste for a year. Increasing this 10 or 100 fold is a easily managable problem. Compare it to say the tailings ponds at an oilsands mine which has pretty toxic sludge that needs to be buried at the end and kept out of the ground water.