IN THE nuclear industry, memories can be distressingly short. In 1976, the declared that it would be 鈥渕orally wrong鈥� to make a major commitment to nuclear power without demonstrating a way of safely isolating radioactive waste. Yet the UK is about to embark on a programme to build at least 10 reactors while still lacking a disposal site for the waste that has accumulated over the past 50 years. What鈥檚 more, spent fuel from these reactors will be far more radioactive than existing waste and may even require a second repository (see 鈥淣uclear super-fuel becomes too hot to handle鈥�).
At the same time, it seems the US is planning a new generation of nuclear reactors without having fully taken on board lessons from the past about safety. In 1979, a fault with a valve triggered the worst nuclear accident in US history at in Pennsylvania. Yet now US power companies are planning to submit applications to build up to 30 reactors, despite safety fears over the fuel they will burn. The is having to rewrite its rules to guard against the threat that the new 鈥渉igh burn-up鈥� fuel will leave the cladding around the fuel rods dangerously brittle.
We should have learned that compromising public safety for economic gain is a dangerous game. Ploughing ahead with a vast reactor-construction programme without finding a solution to the waste problem and without knowing how to deal with the additional risks of high-efficiency fuel seems irresponsible. History is full of similar compromises that were later regretted, if we only care to remember.
Advertisement
The Nuclear Age 鈥� Learn more about all things nuclear in our explosive .
Energy and Fuels 鈥� Learn more about the looming energy crisis in our comprehensive special report.
