Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Mille grazie!

Should we take Italian nuclear waste?

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 1:39 PM on 07 May 2008

Read more about: waste | recycling | energy | nuclear power | Italy | insanity

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.

Huh?

I'll avoid the usual arguments here but does anyone have insight into what this waste actually is? Italy doesn't have any nuclear power plants. They closed them all about 20 years ago and, to the best of my knowledge, all the nuclear material is already gone.

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?

Perhaps we should use it

Maybe we could mix it in with the dead fish?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article ...

Ken and Steve

Maybe Ken and Steve, and other nuclear afficianados, could use it to heat their trailers?  Just bury it under the "skirt" area?  It would give off some nice free heat, after all it is perfectly safe, right Ken?  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Just send it to Naples or Rome...

...they already have trash piled high in the streets there.

Low Level Waste

I'd be glad to take my share of low level waste. It would amount to about 8 cubic inches per year (only one cubic inch is from reactors) and, unfortunately won't do much toward heating my "trailer" since the heat (and radiation) is hardly detectable above natural background.

Granted

Granted it's a spokesperson for an industry, but...

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.

  1. We already have lots of waste that really should be dealt with.

  2. 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.


You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks