Question

DEBATE 1: It is the best we have today and (Nuclear fuel) the waste still has to be stored, extending the storage time is not sustainable in the long run.

DEBATE 2: Send the waste of (Nuclear fuel) to another country, we will solve the problem, better making countries do it really well than many do it half way!

What strengths support Debate 2 and what weaknesses that support debate 1?

so could u be specific with your answer and hope u send me answer like on pdf so i can copy the answer

Answer 1

Weakness to support debate 1:

Storage is a necessary step in the overall management of radioactive waste. In recent years, mainly because of the unavailability of permanent dis-posal facilities, stores originally intended as temporary facilities have had their
lifetimes extended and serious consideration has been given, in some countries, to the use of storage as a long term management option.

Like fossil fuels, nuclear fuels are non-renewable energy resources. And if there is an accident, large amounts of radioactive material could be released into the environment. In addition, nuclear waste remains radioactive and is hazardous to health for thousands of years. It must be stored safely.
The challenge of making nuclear power safer doesn't end after the power has been generated. Nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after it is no longer useful in a commercial reactor. The resulting waste disposal problem has become a major challenge for policymakers.

Low-level radioactive waste, such as contaminated gloves, can be disposed of in landfill sites. Higher level waste, which may be dangerously radioactive, is more difficult to dispose of. It can be reprocessed to extract nuclear fuel or encased in glass and left deep underground.

Low-level radioactive waste, such as contaminated gloves, can be disposed of in landfill sites. Higher level waste, which may be dangerously radioactive, is more difficult to dispose of. It can be reprocessed to extract nuclear fuel or encased in glass and left deep underground.

Strength that supports Debate 2:

All countries that have made a policy decision on a final step for the management of long- lived radioactive waste (and spent fuel if it is declared as a waste) have selected geological disposal as the endpoint.

Several other countries have a preference or assumption towards geological disposal, although this is not confirmed in policy. Some countries, with smaller amounts of radioactive wastes to manage, might prefer disposal in a regional or multi-national geological disposal facility.

Some countries are undertaking research on the feasibility of long-term storage (up to 100 years or more). For example, in France, research on long-term storage is being undertaken in the context of a comprehensive research programme to provide the basis for a decision on options to be made In order to pave the way for this decision, a draft law (“Projet de Loi”) regarding the management of radioactive waste and materials has been established and is currently being debated by the French Parliament (the draft law was passed by the National Assembly, after its first reading,

In Canada and the United Kingdom, formal consultations are currently taking place with a view to defining policy within the next few years, and long-term storage is or was an option under consideration.

In the Netherlands, a policy decision has been taken to store radioactive waste for at least 100 years, and a facility has been commissioned for this purposes.

A deep geological repository is a nuclear waste repository excavated deep within a stable geologic environment (typically below 300 m or 1000 feet).