IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v72y2014icp186-189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can deep boreholes solve America׳s nuclear waste problem?

Author

Listed:
  • Bates, E.A.
  • Driscoll, M.J.
  • Lester, R.K.
  • Arnold, B.W.

Abstract

The United States is in need of a new and more adaptive long-term strategy for spent nuclear fuel. In this communication, we outline the fundamental reasons why deep borehole disposal should receive more detailed investigation, alongside traditional shallow mined repositories. This potential solution is supported by advancing drilling technologies and an improving understanding of extremely long fluid residence times in deep bedrock. Radionuclide isolation is supported by verifiable and stable geologic barriers such as long transport distances to aquifers, low permeability, and reducing chemical conditions. The modular nature of implementing deep borehole disposal could offer unique programmatic and economic advantages. Experience with a pilot borehole program will be required to confirm the feasibility of drilling and emplacement operations, and key chemical and hydraulic conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bates, E.A. & Driscoll, M.J. & Lester, R.K. & Arnold, B.W., 2014. "Can deep boreholes solve America׳s nuclear waste problem?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 186-189.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:186-189
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514001505
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank von Hippel & Rodney Ewing & Richard Garwin & Allison Macfarlane, 2012. "Time to bury plutonium," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 167-168, May.
    2. McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard A. Muller & Stefan Finsterle & John Grimsich & Rod Baltzer & Elizabeth A. Muller & James W. Rector & Joe Payer & John Apps, 2019. "Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste in Deep Horizontal Drillholes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-28, May.
    2. Stefan Finsterle & Richard A. Muller & John Grimsich & Ethan A. Bates & John Midgley, 2021. "Post-Closure Safety Analysis of Nuclear Waste Disposal in Deep Vertical Boreholes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-24, October.
    3. Stefan Finsterle & Richard A. Muller & John Grimsich & John Apps & Rod Baltzer, 2020. "Post-Closure Safety Calculations for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in a Generic Horizontal Drillhole Repository," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-31, May.
    4. Nicholas Charles Collier & Neil Brennan Milestone & Karl Patrick Travis, 2019. "A Review of Potential Cementing Systems for Sealing and Support Matrices in Deep Borehole Disposal of Radioactive Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lai, N.Y.G. & Yap, E.H. & Lee, C.W., 2011. "Viability of CCS: A broad-based assessment for Malaysia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3608-3616.
    2. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    3. Bogdanov, Dmitrii & Toktarova, Alla & Breyer, Christian, 2019. "Transition towards 100% renewable power and heat supply for energy intensive economies and severe continental climate conditions: Case for Kazakhstan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Lafond, François & Bailey, Aimee Gotway & Bakker, Jan David & Rebois, Dylan & Zadourian, Rubina & McSharry, Patrick & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2018. "How well do experience curves predict technological progress? A method for making distributional forecasts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-117.
    5. Harborne, Paul & Hendry, Chris, 2009. "Pathways to commercial wind power in the US, Europe and Japan: The role of demonstration projects and field trials in the innovation process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 3580-3595, September.
    6. Kukkikatte Ramamurthy Rao, Harshadeep & Gemechu, Eskinder & Thakur, Ujwal & Shankar, Karthik & Kumar, Amit, 2021. "Techno-economic assessment of titanium dioxide nanorod-based perovskite solar cells: From lab-scale to large-scale manufacturing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    7. Astariz, S. & Iglesias, G., 2016. "Output power smoothing and reduced downtime period by combined wind and wave energy farms," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 69-81.
    8. Bolinger, Mark & Wiser, Ryan, 2009. "Wind power price trends in the United States: Struggling to remain competitive in the face of strong growth," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1061-1071, March.
    9. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    10. Chakravorty, Ujjayant & Leach, Andrew & Moreaux, Michel, 2009. ""Twin Peaks" in Energy Prices: A Hotelling Model with Pollution Learning," Working Papers 2009-10, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    11. Williges, Keith & Lilliestam, Johan & Patt, Anthony, 2010. "Making concentrated solar power competitive with coal: The costs of a European feed-in tariff," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3089-3097, June.
    12. Brandt, Adam R. & Plevin, Richard J. & Farrell, Alexander E., 2010. "Dynamics of the oil transition: Modeling capacity, depletion, and emissions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 2852-2860.
    13. Rochedo, Pedro R.R. & Szklo, Alexandre, 2013. "Designing learning curves for carbon capture based on chemical absorption according to the minimum work of separation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 383-391.
    14. Méjean, Aurélie & Hope, Chris, 2008. "Modelling the costs of non-conventional oil: A case study of Canadian bitumen," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4205-4216, November.
    15. Lee, Shun-Chung & Shih, Li-Hsing, 2010. "Renewable energy policy evaluation using real option model -- The case of Taiwan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(Supplemen), pages 67-78, September.
    16. Criqui, P. & Mima, S. & Menanteau, P. & Kitous, A., 2015. "Mitigation strategies and energy technology learning: An assessment with the POLES model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 119-136.
    17. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2017. "Optimizing systematic technology adoption with heterogeneous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 287-296.
    18. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    19. Chang, Yu Sang, 2014. "Comparative analysis of long-term road fatality targets for individual states in the US—An application of experience curve models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 53-69.
    20. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V., 2021. "The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:186-189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.