http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/goodbye-yucca-mountain-hello-d.html
As oil and natural gas reservoirs continue to decline, the race to find an alternative “green” energy source to power our global society has never been more critical. While efforts are being made to further develop hydro, wind and solar power sources, nuclear energy continues to be an area of intense interest. Unfortunately, one of the major issues with nuclear power is the management of the nuclear waste. Originally, nuclear waste was stored in facilities both above and underground. Now new reprocessing technology offers an alternative to the nuclear waste management dilemma. However, opinions continue to be divided over which strategy is better.
In The New Scientist Short sharp science blog, “Is it safe to store US nuclear waste above ground?” (19 May 2009), correspondent Phil McKenna criticizes the current direction that the United States is taking in terms of the management of its nuclear waste. McKenna claims that the United States should be directing money and effort towards investing in existing reprocessing technology rather than storing the nuclear waste in storage facilities until more efficient technology is developed. While McKenna does provide evidence to support his claim, the lack of statistical data weakens the impact and persuasiveness of his evidence.
Two main pieces of evidence are presented:
1. Storage facilities are not safe because conditions are less than ideal.
2. Reprocessing technology is a better alternative because weapon grade plutonium is produced.
McKenna attempts to support his claim by questioning the safety of existing facilities and promotes the benefits of reprocessing technologies used in Japan. However, every point he makes is backed up by little evidence which at best provides little if any credible data.
When he questions the safety of storage facilities the only “evidence” he presents is:
“So which is better? Storing spent fuel for decades on end in less than ideal storage conditions while working on developing safer, more efficient reprocessing technology, or reprocessing the fuel today into plutonium rich fuel?”(McKenna 2009)
He makes a statement questioning the safety of storage facilities but provides no actual data to strengthen it. In fact, he adds that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission states that the storage facilities have had no incidences for the past 20 years. Where he actually provides some numerical proof it contradicts what he is claiming. He mentions that the UK has had some leakage issues with similar facilities but again he doesn’t back it up with actual examples or even numerical statistics.
For his second piece of evidence McKenna also fails to provide significant data or even examples that would give stability and credibility to his evidence. Matthew Bunn, a scientist, claims that existing reprocessing technology is not worth investing in because it is expensive, inefficient and does not produce that much more energy. The only rebuttal McKenna provides is a single sentence stating that the technology can produce weapon grade plutonium. Once again, the evidence that is provided is very limited and lacks any actual facts or certainty.
The main weakness in McKenna’s argument is the strength of his evidence. He provides little numerical data or actual examples of the claims he is making, while only providing actual data and quotes to points that contradict his evidence. The lack of examples and certainty in his evidence weaken his claim and therefore the overall impact of his argument.
References
McKenna, P. (2009) Is it safe to store US nuclear waste above ground? The New Scientist, Short Sharp Science, 19 May 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/goodbye-yucca-mountain-hello-d.html. Accessed 23 Sept 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJessica, your article is well written and encouraged me to read more about the topic. I agree that little evidence is presented neither for nor against continued storage of nuclear waste or investment in reprocessing. However, I believe one of the statements you made about the author's position was inaccurate. For example, in your second paragraph you say "McKenna claims that the United States should be directing money and effort towards investing in existing reprocessing technology rather than storing the nuclear waste in storage facilities until more efficient technology is developed". Upon reading McKenna's article, I find no such claim. I do agree that the tone of his writing suggests that he leans towards a policy of immediate reprocessing, but at no time does he make such a definitive claim. He instead questions the prudence of the alternative. For example, he asks "are dry casks, originally intended as a short-term fix for nuclear waste, a safe bet?", and "...which is better? Storing spent fuel for decades... or reprocessing the waste today...?". Again, from the tone and wording of his questions, I suspect McKenna leans against the long-term storage policy, but I think one should be careful as to not paraphrase claims he is not definitively making. I suppose that by not unambiguously stating support for one side or the other, McKenna is further failing to support his loose argument.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your introduction paragraph I immediately thought that you did a really good job on summarizing the debate on nuclear waste. To be honest I didn't have much background knowledge on the topic but your explaination cleary taught me the gist of it.
ReplyDeleteWhen you said that the author provided limited evidence after his rebuttal, I think that you could have went on to mention that the author never even explained the benefit of producing weapon grade plutonium. When the author just states that this plutonium outweighs the expensiveness and inefficiency that comes with reprocessing technology, he does not give any reasoning behind his rebuttal.
I personally enjoyed reading your critical review because I had little previous knowledge on the topic but am now aware of the reasons for and against nuclear waste storage.
I liked the introduction for this critique, I think its a good follow up to you topic. However I disagree about the part where you said the author contradicted himself with the evidence that the US storage facility had no incident for 20 years. 20 years when you think about it is not that long a span of time, its actually sounds slightly alarming to think that only 20 years ago they had a breach and that the technology has not been updated since then. It should cause more concern about this storage method.
ReplyDeleteBut other than that I think your critique is very well structured, a reader would easily be able to recognize what you're trying to convey, you also provoke some thought on such a popular topic with your own clear and concise views
Jessica, I agree with what you said about how the author of this article does not give enough evidence to clearly back up his claim that we should be investing money into existing reprocessing technology rather than keeping nuclear waste in storage facilities. First of all, the author states that the current storage facilities are not safe, but he only comes up with one incident that has happened more than twenty years ago and although he does say it was a leakage, he does not clearly explain what happened and therefore it is hard to judge how serious of an incident it really was. Also, although it seems like one incicident in twenty years could be a lot, considering the number of nuclear storage facilities there are, one leakage in only one of the facilities in the last twenty years really is not something that I believe we should be overly concerned with.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you, that without using numerical stastistics and data in his arguments, it is hard to be persuaded that McKenna's argument is a strong one and I think that readers would tend to dismiss his views as they would probably feel as though they do not have enough information on the subject to make a decision.
I think that your blog was very well written and it made me more interested in the subject of nuclear waste management than I was before.