Nuclear waste storage ….. no big deal

From CFACT

By Kelvin Kemm.

Nuclear power will be the future. There is no doubt about it. Nuclear is the cleanest, greenest, cheapest, safest, energy source ever. There is no doubt about that, no matter what anyone says. Also, just look at the energy density of sugar, coal, petrol, and uranium. Sugar contains about 20 megajoules per kilogram, coal 25, petrol 50, but uranium is 76,000,000. What this tells you is that you can carry your lifetime supply of electricity in a shopping packet, if you’re carrying uranium.

Let us face it, coal is going to be a primary energy source of the world for years to come. Stopping coal use is like shooting yourself in both feet with a machine gun. As time passes, rather rapidly, there’s no doubt that coal will give way to nuclear, for purely economic reasons. Certainly nothing to do with the myth of anthropogenic CO2 causing increased global warming. Meanwhile the Chinese are building new coal plants faster than the Western world is decommissioning theirs. The Chinese know what they are doing, and they are chasing their goal… of economic dominance.

Don’t burn banknotes

As coal gives way to nuclear power in the production of electricity, we should not stop using coal, but we should no longer burn it. Coal is composed of very valuable chemicals, so why burn them? Burning coal is something like burning banknotes instead of wood, to keep warm.

In South Africa we have the SASOL Company, which converts coal to petrol and diesel. About 1/3 of South Africa’s petrol and diesel comes from coal. The coal chemicals are also used to produce ladies’ cosmetics, aspirin, high-quality waxes, and more.

The ultimate answer is to use small nuclear reactors to drive the coal conversion plants.

The world’s consumption of electricity doubled over the past 25 years, and is set to double again in the next 25. In fact, it will double faster because more people are getting connected to electricity, and more and more electrical devices are coming into existence. So, forget about green extremist goals of reducing world energy consumption.

The most sensible route for doubling electricity consumption, on a world scale, is via nuclear. Electricity consumption is directly proportional to GDP, which in turn directly affects the take-home pay of citizens. Citizen wealth changes the nature of society.

Another Revolution is coming

Cast your mind back to the Industrial Revolution, of around 1760 to 1840. Abundant coal was linked to the development of steam engines, and iron production. Energy and engines led to deeper mining, mass textile production, and a host of other advances. So, the Industrial Revolution burst onto the scene and changed the world. A large adoption of nuclear power, together with AI, electronics, and massive scientific development will also change the world.

But let us return to nuclear, and the relentless anti-nuclear campaigns waged by the slogan-chanting greenies. One of their themes is; ‘what about the nuclear waste?’

Nuclear waste is no problem. Really. If you want a good night’s sleep, you can take a sleeping pill. If you take the entire bottle of pills, you will sleep really well, and never wake up. But people don’t usually do stupid things like that. Yes, without doubt a lot of nuclear radiation will kill you, if you are stupid. But small amounts of nuclear radiation are perfectly safe. Large amounts of nuclear radiation are also safe, when handled by professionals in a professional manner.

Why do the public somehow think that the Army can handle artillery ammunition in a safe, professional way, but somehow professional nuclear engineers can’t handle radioactive materials?

Does the Glacier worry you?

The radiation of concern is called Gamma radiation. It ‘shines’ like a light. Gamma rays are exactly the same as light, radio waves, X-Rays, or microwaves in the kitchen microwave oven. But the Gammas carry more energy than X-Rays, and so they can cause harm. The kitchen microwaves are safely contained inside the ‘box’ which is the microwave oven. When a radioactive object is put into a lead box the Gammas are safely contained in the box, and you can safely sit next to it and eat your lunch.

For long-term storage you put the box underground, and leave it there. Note that by international convention, no nuclear waste is ever dumped or thrown away. It is stored, like the gold bars at Fort Knox. The principle is that you can move the radioactive material at any time in the future. So, worrying about a glacier advancing in 100,000 years’ time is silly. When you see the glacier coming you have decades to move all your boxes.

A highly useful property of all radioactive materials is that they constantly advertise their presence. It is like a cricket in his hole in the lawn. His chirping tells you where he is. With a Geiger counter, even a radioactive pinhead is easy to find in your lawn. It calls you. But a lump of Arsenic is extremely difficult to find, because it hides. There is arsenic in advanced solar panels, but nobody panics about that.

Insignificant volumes

One huge advantage of nuclear is that there is so little nuclear fuel, so the resulting spent fuel is extremely small, unlike coal ash. The spent fuel is called High Level Waste (HLW). It is the really dangerous material, if you walk up to it. Then there is Intermediate Level Waste (ILW), which is things like pumps, pipes, and so on, which had radioactive material flowing through them. Finally, there is Low Level Waste (LLW) which is paper towels, lab coats, and items which were used in a radiation designated area, and could conceivably have some radioactive dust on them. All of these categories are packaged into drums and safely stored underground.

Nuclear waste is better handled than any other waste in the world. This is a positive spin-off legacy from all the exaggerated scare stories which have been generated by the anti-nuke lobby.

Nuclear people worldwide are very proud of what they do, and how they do it, and they do it well.

The big scare which has always been splashed in news media is if something explodes, then some of the radioactive material can be reduced to dust and scattered into the atmosphere. It then acts like any other dust, and blows with the wind, and then settles out. But remember the crickets in the lawn. If it were not radioactive you would not know where the dust was. You would not even know it was there. But even the dust ‘chirps’ its presence, and so the ‘chirp’ can be used to scare the public. Note that during the infamous Fukushima incident, not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation. Yet the popular news was full of scary stories of radiation spreading everywhere.

The nuclear waste repositories of the world are all perfectly able to safely store any radioactive material for centuries, just like Fort Knox stores its gold.

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a South African nuclear physicist who has been a CFACT Senior Advisor for over two decades. He is Chairman of Stratek Holdings, a nuclear project management company, and is past Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). He has given both Congressional and Senate briefings in Washington DC. He has been guest speaker at over 20 US

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 8 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
26 Comments
Andrew St John
September 5, 2026 6:27 pm

In 1972 French researchers were examining Uranium ore samples from Gabon in Africa. To their disbelief and later astonishment, they found that in certain places like Oklo in Gabon, that there was a big variation in the percentage of naturally occurring U235.
What had happened? 
Going back to 1956 when a Physicist highlighted that it was possible for a Naturally Occurring Fission reaction to start and finish.
Yes, that’s right, under certain conditions the naturally occurring U235 can undergo nuclear fission, under certain conditions.
In Oklo in Gabon, it is thought that there were U235 ore beds with a stream of water running through it.The French then thought that water over the ore bodies had acted as a moderator (a bit like a reaction promoter) to the U235, which then started to undergo fission.
The heat produced then boiled that water away and the reaction stopped. It is surmised that this reaction went on for hundreds of thousands of years, until the U235 was consumed or that the byproducts inhibited the reaction.
And so, part of the naturally occurring U235 was converted to waste, leading to the observed differences in ore distribution.
And the nuclear waste has stayed in situ for all that time.
Stable within the ore body.
This is somewhat similar to the current waste management practices such as vitrification (storage in glass) of nuclear waste and the Australian inspired Synroc process.
When did this sequence of nuclear fission take place?
Incredibly, probably 1.7 billion years ago – longer than we have had modern humans. 
There has been nuclear waste in Gabon in Africa, locked away in stable geology, that is older than the human race.
And will still be there when the human race has gone

.

Tom Halla
September 5, 2026 6:53 pm

The “waste disposal” problem was the creation of Jimmy Carter insisting on a “once through” fuel cycle.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 5, 2026 7:15 pm

He was worried about the security of it, and therefore opposed reprocessing. I think he was wrong about that.

We need safe storage of high and mid level waste (which we’ll have even after reprocessing) such that our fleeting human memories don’t need to keep track of it. The Europeans are already starting to do this, but we still store most our waste “temporarily” in the back 40 of the plants/facilities that wasted it. Long term solutions would not only get us out of that jackpot, but would also offer a final solution for the extra waste that would be the end products of even the “cleanest” combination of SMR’s and reprocessing.

cgh
Reply to  bigoilbob
September 5, 2026 7:49 pm

I agree. But we already have safe storage of high- and mid-level radioactive materials. It exists in the form of dry surface storage in concrete. This method has been in use for all Western commercial nuclear reactors for more than half a century. Thus far, it has a perfect safety track record. There have been zero injuries or fatalities from radiation from spent nuclear fuel. And there is no credible scenario in which its radiation can cause any injury.

Reprocssing of used nuclear fuel is indeed done by France, Japan and a number of other nations. This too was demonstrated decades ago. Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is simply a matter of economics. It will occur when the cost of newly mined uranium is greater than that of reprocessing it. There is so much uranium in the world that this is many decades or centuries into the future.

Carter was an idiot who was worried about weapons proliferation.

September 5, 2026 7:09 pm

A [Ctrl-F] search on “Chernobyl” came up 0/0

This wasn’t in Kemm’s article either:

Google AI
On January 24, 1961, a U.S. B-52 bomber broke apart mid-air over Goldsboro, North Carolina, accidentally dropping two powerful hydrogen bombs that nearly detonated

cgh
Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 7:52 pm

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is about civilian used nuclear fuel, not military uses of uranium.

Reply to  cgh
September 5, 2026 9:08 pm

Well you’re right the topic was USED nuclear fuel.

However Klemm mentioned Fukushima and the military handling
nuclear munitions, so I figured mention of Chernobyl and the B-52
incident was fair game.

My point is that articles from my side of the coin need to be honest.
Ignoring Chernobyl and the B-52 crash isn’t any different than your
favorite left-wing lunatic ignoring the “Dust Bowl” and CO2’s role in
photosynthesis.

Thanks for the reply

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 9:46 pm

Both topics are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and your doubling down on the claims is just more evidence of your inability to think clearly regarding the subject.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 9:46 pm

Well, I’ve not yet encountered a nuclear generator flying around in the sky, so we can safely reject that comparison. Chernobyl is an old fashioned original design Russian reactor. Reactor designs have developed a long way since the Russian ‘rough and ready’ technologies, so I think we can safely put that to bed as well. Fukashima on the other hand demonstrates how safe modern technology is even after being inundated by a tidal wave.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 9:45 pm

Chernobyl wasn’t mentioned because it wasn’t relevant.
The second case also is totally irrelevant to any discussion regarding nuclear power. Secondly, the weapons weren’t armed so the idea that they could have exploded is ridiculous.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 10:08 pm

“… nearly detonated” ????

Edwin Cottey
Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 10:18 pm

How can you tell if a bomb ‘nearly ‘detonates? Either it detonates or it doesn’t. All the old WW2 bombs that are dug up regularly over England and safely defused, did they all ‘nearly’ detonate too?

September 5, 2026 7:17 pm

Research from the University of Texas shows that U.S. coal ash contains up to 11 million tons of rare earth elements—nearly eight times the current domestic reserves. The recoverable rare earth minerals stored in these waste sites are valued at roughly $8.4 billion. About 70% of the coal ash produced between 1985 and 2021 sits in accessible landfills and ponds, ready for potential recovery.

So there is that potential benefit.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 5, 2026 7:45 pm

Properly used and reused nuclear waste is a fear monger/activist bread and butter.

Mr.
September 5, 2026 7:47 pm

Back in the 1980s, then-Australian Labor Party prime minister Bob Hawke (RIP) floated a proposition that Australia was well-positioned to act as the world’s biggest supplier of raw uranium and also processed fuel to client countries that joined a treaty to use safely, and then Australia would take back used fuels and safely store them in deep concrete-lined pits in vast remote central Aust desert areas.

His practical proposition was of course quickly sidelined by the ideological left-wing of his party, whose only irrational position on nuclear energy is –
“just say no!”

Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 7:55 pm

” Large amounts of nuclear radiation are also safe, when handled by professionals in a professional manner.”
Pu239 has a half-life of 24,000 years Other isotopes last millions. Can you guarantee professional handling over that period?

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 8:42 pm

Ah, you mean professionals become unprofessional. That’s what happens when STEM subjects are ignored.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  leefor
September 5, 2026 9:37 pm

I mean 24000 years. Do you know what will happen there?

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 12:07 am

Do you mean there will still be a planet earth and homo sapiens? 😉

Max More
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 9:41 pm

The longer the half-life, the lower the level of the radiation. Also, regular poisons have no half-life, they just stay there. You are being very silly if you are worrying about the ability of people to handle radioactive waste who are thousands of years more technologically advanced that us.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Max More
September 6, 2026 12:31 am

“the lower level per milligram. But we have prodiced about 3000 tons of plutonium.

Plutonium 239 generates enough heat to keep warm – about 2 watts/kg.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 9:50 pm

The longer lived an isotope is, the less dangerous it is.

Most chemical waste lasts forever.

Alejandro
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 11:01 pm

Those figures are quite striking, but it’s important to put them in context. The most radioactive elements, such as Sr-90, Cs-137, and Pu-238, have short half-lives of less than a century. Long-lived actinides, such as Pu-239 and Pu-240, are less radioactive, which does not mean they are not dangerous if their dust is inhaled or ingested. Industry generates a great deal of waste that is just as dangerous if inhaled or ingested, yet it is stored without issue in places considered safe, and no one bats an eye at it. The only difference is that it doesn’t carry that dreaded “radioactive” label—even though radioactivity in and of itself does not imply any danger.
In my mineral collection, I have uraninite and pitchblende, and if I bring a Geiger counter near them, it will beep—a sound that usually causes alarm when I show the collection to people with little knowledge of mineralogy. But it won’t beep if I hold it near crocidolite or orpiment, which visitors will look at without alarm, even though both can be much more dangerous to health due to their asbestos and arsenic content.
I suppose we all agree that waste from today’s nuclear power plants, if not recycled, must be stored in secure locations until its level of radioactivity is similar to that of the radioactive minerals from which nuclear fuel is derived. The estimated time for this to happen is between 100,000 and 300,000 years. This may seem like a long time, but on our planet there are numerous rock formations that have remained stable for hundreds of millions of years and will undoubtedly remain unchanged for several million more years. For example, the Onkalo repository in Finland is excavated from metamorphic rocks that are 2,000 millions years old. The repository is located more than 400 meters underground. Furthermore, the fuel is encapsulated in ceramic. The ceramic pellets, in turn, are housed in cast-iron and graphite containers with an outer copper wall. And the containers are encased in expansive clays—bentonites—which are very compact and impermeable. The risk of a radioactive leak is zero. I suppose we could imagine something—like the impact of a large meteorite—that might penetrate all those barriers, but in that case, the radioactivity of the stored waste would be the least of our problems.
On the other hand, IV generation reactors could solve the problem of long-lived radioactive waste by converting it into usable nuclear fuel that would leave only short-lived waste, which would need to be kept isolated for only a few hundred years.
In the 1970s, I was an active, young, and ignorant activist against nuclear energy. Now I believe that its development and expansion are essential to addressing current and future energy challenges. Quite simply, in the medium term, we have nothing better.

Bryan A
September 5, 2026 8:03 pm

As long as they’re operated with Humble Respect and not with Hubris Disregard they are extremely safe. In fact more people have been killed since Columbime in all school shootings (535) than have ever died from nuclear generation accidents. (currently 31 from Chernobyl and that’s it)

Paul Redfern
September 5, 2026 8:50 pm

Breeder reactors are the way to go. They can use nuclear waste as fuel and make their own fuel so we don’t run out of uranium. The one pass reactors that we are using now have over 90% of the energy still left in the nuclear waste.

Bob
September 5, 2026 8:56 pm

Very nice.