En continuant à naviguer sur ce site, vous nous autorisez, ainsi que nos partenaires, à placer des cookies d'identification sur votre navigateur et à accepter l'utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique sur les cookies pour plus de détails.
Evaluations of any proposed power source should take into account cradle to grave costs (reliability, social, labour, environmental, financial) to ensure a level playing field. Too often hypothetical best case scenarios of one source are compared to real world worst case scenarios of another. Laying the foundation now, that all energy sources will be holistically evaluated, will ensure that all future builds select those that have the least cost and are most effective.
• Any Strategy for Radioactive Waste in Canada should make provisions and allowances for reprocessing and recycling to extract all the heavy elements and actinides (isotopes of Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu, Am, etc.) found in spent nuclear fuel or partially reprocessed nuclear fuel and targets, for subsequent recycling and reuse as new fuel for different reactor technologies (SMRs, Gen-IV, and Gen-III/Gen-III+ reactors).
• Thus, if any spent nuclear fuel is placed in a deep geological repository (DGR), then at the very least, it should be made to be easily retrievable.
• Ideally, all heavy elements / actinides found in spent fuel should be extracted and recycled for transmutation and destruction.
• Placing actinides in a Deep Bore Hole or DGR is not the best long-term strategy.
• However, placing fission products in Deep Bore Holes and/or a DGR is a reasonable strategy.
• However, provisions should also be made for extracting long-lived fission products (LLFPs) and long-lived activation products (LLAPs) for isolation and potential destruction/transmutation in targets placed in different reactor technologies, or using accelerator-based neutron sources.
• Ultimately, the only radioactive items that should be placed in Deep Bore Holes or a DGR are intermediate-life fission products and activation products (ILFPs / ILAPs) that have a half life of less than 100 years. Within 10 half lifes (~1000 years), then most of these ILFPs/ILAPs will have decayed by 3 or more orders of magnitude, with a radiotoxicity that is far below that of natural uranium ore.
• By implementing full recycling of actinides, and implementing partitioning and transmutation of LLFPs and LLAPs, it will enhance the protection of the public and the environment, and thus it will help build public confidence, assurance and support, and thus will improve public “buy-in” and and “social license” to continue using nuclear energy and radioactive sources.
Changing circumstances whether risks or opportunities should be discussed with the independent stakeholders periodically to review, discuss and provide recommendations on incidents, changing conditions and opportunities for improvement. Recommendations brought forward to consideration and implementation where applicable.
The time is now, the will of the operators and maturity of the technology is clearly here. The challenge is maintaining the political will through changes in government. This can be made durable through legislation of this Strategy by Parliament, much like the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA) which has survived numerous changes in government since it was passed in 2002. The NFWA can either be amended or a new stand-alone Act can be drafted and passed. The NWMO is best qualified and positioned to manage this new strategy under similar checks and balances of the NFWA.
The first objective has to be to stop making more. We don't need nuclear energy, have far cheaper alternatives, and don't need to burden the future, politicians and citizens with additional nuclear waste. It will be much easier in the democratic process to develop policy and regulation if future governments know they don't have to deal with more.
Imprimez cette page
Commentaires
Level playing field for all power sources
Wesley RossEvaluations of any proposed power source should take into account cradle to grave costs (reliability, social, labour, environmental, financial) to ensure a level playing field. Too often hypothetical best case scenarios of one source are compared to real world worst case scenarios of another. Laying the foundation now, that all energy sources will be holistically evaluated, will ensure that all future builds select those that have the least cost and are most effective.
Key Requirement for Best Waste Management Strategy
BlairPBromley• Any Strategy for Radioactive Waste in Canada should make provisions and allowances for reprocessing and recycling to extract all the heavy elements and actinides (isotopes of Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu, Am, etc.) found in spent nuclear fuel or partially reprocessed nuclear fuel and targets, for subsequent recycling and reuse as new fuel for different reactor technologies (SMRs, Gen-IV, and Gen-III/Gen-III+ reactors).
• Thus, if any spent nuclear fuel is placed in a deep geological repository (DGR), then at the very least, it should be made to be easily retrievable.
• Ideally, all heavy elements / actinides found in spent fuel should be extracted and recycled for transmutation and destruction.
• Placing actinides in a Deep Bore Hole or DGR is not the best long-term strategy.
• However, placing fission products in Deep Bore Holes and/or a DGR is a reasonable strategy.
• However, provisions should also be made for extracting long-lived fission products (LLFPs) and long-lived activation products (LLAPs) for isolation and potential destruction/transmutation in targets placed in different reactor technologies, or using accelerator-based neutron sources.
• Ultimately, the only radioactive items that should be placed in Deep Bore Holes or a DGR are intermediate-life fission products and activation products (ILFPs / ILAPs) that have a half life of less than 100 years. Within 10 half lifes (~1000 years), then most of these ILFPs/ILAPs will have decayed by 3 or more orders of magnitude, with a radiotoxicity that is far below that of natural uranium ore.
• By implementing full recycling of actinides, and implementing partitioning and transmutation of LLFPs and LLAPs, it will enhance the protection of the public and the environment, and thus it will help build public confidence, assurance and support, and thus will improve public “buy-in” and and “social license” to continue using nuclear energy and radioactive sources.
Future generation considerations
AnonymousChanging circumstances whether risks or opportunities should be discussed with the independent stakeholders periodically to review, discuss and provide recommendations on incidents, changing conditions and opportunities for improvement. Recommendations brought forward to consideration and implementation where applicable.
No More Kicking the Can Down the Road
AdvocateThe time is now, the will of the operators and maturity of the technology is clearly here. The challenge is maintaining the political will through changes in government. This can be made durable through legislation of this Strategy by Parliament, much like the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA) which has survived numerous changes in government since it was passed in 2002. The NFWA can either be amended or a new stand-alone Act can be drafted and passed. The NWMO is best qualified and positioned to manage this new strategy under similar checks and balances of the NFWA.
nuclear waste management
AnonymousThe first objective has to be to stop making more. We don't need nuclear energy, have far cheaper alternatives, and don't need to burden the future, politicians and citizens with additional nuclear waste. It will be much easier in the democratic process to develop policy and regulation if future governments know they don't have to deal with more.