Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Comments
The DOE has just submitted a license application to the NRC that concludes the repository will remain safe for 1 million years. How much "safer" do we need to be?
NRC needs to complete its technical review of this license application, and Congress needs to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to use this repository in a more logical way, which means not rushing to send spent fuel there when it could be recycled instead, and instead using Yucca for defense and civilian high level wastes.
As for "rushing" spent fuel to Yucca - I think your observation is timely. Now is the right time to get ahead with all the above waste-reduction programs, to avoid pointless shipments in ten years time.