There are some interesting points in this article about siting a nuclear used-fuel/waste facility, which states:
- Acceptance of nuclear is high in communities with operating facilities – the communities understand and accept the risks and benefits. So, building a used-fuel/waste repository in a willing host community near existing nuclear facilities (and their expertise) makes sense.
- There is also a strong argument to be made for co-locating nuclear facilities and building a “nuclear hub.” Savings in packaging and treatment for shipping would be significant.
- Geology is also a key consideration for siting a deep geological repository (DGR) as a suitable rock formation is important for ensuring the long-term safety of stored materials.
Turning waste repositories into nuclear energy hubs
By Jason Deign on Jul 17, 2012
The search for final repository sites tends to focus on putting waste as far out of sight as possible. But there are sound arguments for turning a repository into a nuclear centrepiece.
Dr Charles Forsberg probably knows as much about nuclear power life cycle costs as anyone. And the executive director for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a pretty clear message when it comes to final waste repositories.
“We have a strong recommendation that if you build a repository you should seriously consider co-locating lots of other facilities at the repository site,” he says.
“The problem right now in a repository is that because of the history of the cold war, what we did is we built all these fuel cycle facilities after everything was totally built. Then we said: ‘let’s go find a single-purpose repository to dump the trash.’
“We very efficiently separated all the benefits from the liabilities.”
This has led, in the US at least, to a policy-driven quest to find repository sites that are far from anywhere, and particularly far from other nuclear facilities.
Read the entire article in Nuclear Energy Insider. Click here.