7 ms·

The total cost for storing and securing shit for 100.000 years is also 'externalized.' Both costs are more or less impossible to establish upfront.

by kpil 10y ago

hackuser 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. We do establish the costs for carbon. In some countries you (or major users) must buy a permit to emit carbon. Some establish the maximum carbon the environment can handle, then auction permits, establishing a market price. The U.S. effectively estimates zero cost (without looking into the details); that certainly is a bad estimate.
- vidarh 10y ago
  That's not the only cost of fossil fuel power plants. Coal plants kill huge numbers of people. The coal industry pumps huge quantities of uranium dust into the atmosphere alongside fly ash. The biggest externality of coal in particular is not carbon emissions but the massive health costs and human suffering. If fossil fuels were subjected to the same safety requirements as nuclear in terms of preventing public health effects, the cost would increase substantially.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > The biggest externality of coal in particular is not carbon emissions but the massive health costs and human suffering The carbon emissions cause climate change, which causes human suffering at a scale, as I understand it, far beyond that of the pollution you describe (which is also substantial).
    - vidarh 10y ago
      While that is true, coal is just one of the sources that play into that, and the point that you yourself made was that it can be offset. While the dust and radioactivity released by coal plants kills hundreds of thousands of people now, and we can't meaningfully offset it by trading quotas - it's not like having more kids makes up for killing other people.
      - pas 10y ago
        Well, it gives us cheap electricity, which helps us run our hospitals, for example. Thus helping kids live through the early years (where mortality is more likely). But as we all know, replacing coal powered plants with safer things (nuclear, solar, wind, tidal) would cost nothing compared to healthcare costs.
        vidarh 10y ago
        This is a strawman - the discussion was not about investing more in alternatives, but about the effect shutting down nuclear has in prolonging the phase-out of coal. Given that the shutdown of nuclear is extremely expensive, and that decommissioning before the planned lifespan also involves massive payouts to the owners and reduced time to amortise cleanup costs etc., the economics also vastly favour keeping them running. It also ignores the vast healthcare costs involved in dealing with respiratory illnesses - including for children - as a result of coal. Few people fall over dead with no cost of care for respiratory illnesses. So if your concern in healthcare spending, that's another reason to at a minimum not shut down nuclear plants until all of the coal plants are gone.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        Great point, though let's not assume 100% effectiveness for offsets.
opo 10y ago
Right now waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor How does coal waste compare to that? "Coal ash – the waste material left after coal is burned – contains arsenic, mercury, lead, and over a dozen other heavy metals, many of them toxic." http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/code-black/coal-ash-toxic-and-leaking.html http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/code-black/coal-as... "The study found that levels of radioactivity in the ash were up to five times higher than in normal soil," https://phys.org/news/2015-09-radioactive-contaminants-coal-ash.html https://phys.org/news/2015-09-radioactive-contaminants-coal-... How much coal waste is produced per year? "According to the American Coal Ash Association's Coal Combustion Product Production & Use Survey Report, nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in 2014." https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics#03 https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics#03
- kpil 10y ago
  I am not an expert but many seem to consider the increased handling risk related to the toxicity and activity of plutonium and other products, especially considering terrorism, and also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium. But I agree; Coal is not the future. Either.
  - opo 10y ago
    I think you will agree there is no reason why we need to throw away 95+% of the fuel that is left in high level nuclear waste and bury it in the ground for thousands of years. There are better options. >...I am not an expert but many seem to consider the increased handling risk related to the toxicity and activity of plutonium and other products, I agree that nuclear waste needs to be handled carefully. >...especially considering terrorism, and also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium. There is very little terrorism risk from nuclear waste. The weight, size and danger of high level waste means it would be beyond the capability of terrorist group to take advantage of it. Other sources of power have much, much more of a risk from terrorism. >....also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium. None of the nuclear states got their start by using nuclear waste from a commercial reactor. This wasn't a coincidence - it is much easier to get nuclear fuel by using a special purpose reactor or enriching uranium.
nbanks 10y ago
This cost would be much easier to calculate if every country reprocessed spent nuclear fuel like France does instead of storing it. Reprocessed MOX fuel costs almost ten times as much as enriched uranium, but the left over waste products decay to levels similar to natural uranium in 300 years instead of 10,000. Molten Salt reactors would probably make reprocessing cheaper.
- pmyteh 10y ago
  Yeah, Britain did that. The reprocessing plant has turned into another money pit full of leaking pipes and dubious practices, with a multi-billion pound decommissioning budget. Plus, as you suggest, no-one wants to buy the MOX fuel product because it's more expensive than enriched uranium.
jhartmann 10y ago
There is absolutely no reason to store anything for 100,000 years. If we were sane and reprocessed our fuel (like France), something like 400-500 years would put us below standard ambient radiation levels. Still a long time, but no we don't need to store anything for 100k years. Remember, almost all the long lived Transuranics are generally usable as further fission fuel. The other Transuranics and fission by products will typically decay rapidly to something stable or barely radioactive within a reasonable timeframe.

The total cost for storing and securing shit for 100.000 years is also 'externalized.' Both costs are more or less impossible to establish upfront.

by kpil 10y ago

The total cost for storing and securing shit for 100.000 years is also 'externalized.' Both costs are more or less impossible to establish upfront.

hackuser 10y ago

I'm not sure what you mean. We do establish the costs for carbon. In some countries you (or major users) must buy a permit to emit carbon. Some establish the maximum carbon the environment can handle, then auction permits, establishing a market price. The U.S. effectively estimates zero cost (without looking into the details); that certainly is a bad estimate.

vidarh 10y ago
That's not the only cost of fossil fuel power plants. Coal plants kill huge numbers of people. The coal industry pumps huge quantities of uranium dust into the atmosphere alongside fly ash. The biggest externality of coal in particular is not carbon emissions but the massive health costs and human suffering. If fossil fuels were subjected to the same safety requirements as nuclear in terms of preventing public health effects, the cost would increase substantially.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > The biggest externality of coal in particular is not carbon emissions but the massive health costs and human suffering The carbon emissions cause climate change, which causes human suffering at a scale, as I understand it, far beyond that of the pollution you describe (which is also substantial).
  - vidarh 10y ago
    While that is true, coal is just one of the sources that play into that, and the point that you yourself made was that it can be offset. While the dust and radioactivity released by coal plants kills hundreds of thousands of people now, and we can't meaningfully offset it by trading quotas - it's not like having more kids makes up for killing other people.
    - pas 10y ago
      Well, it gives us cheap electricity, which helps us run our hospitals, for example. Thus helping kids live through the early years (where mortality is more likely). But as we all know, replacing coal powered plants with safer things (nuclear, solar, wind, tidal) would cost nothing compared to healthcare costs.
      - vidarh 10y ago
        This is a strawman - the discussion was not about investing more in alternatives, but about the effect shutting down nuclear has in prolonging the phase-out of coal. Given that the shutdown of nuclear is extremely expensive, and that decommissioning before the planned lifespan also involves massive payouts to the owners and reduced time to amortise cleanup costs etc., the economics also vastly favour keeping them running. It also ignores the vast healthcare costs involved in dealing with respiratory illnesses - including for children - as a result of coal. Few people fall over dead with no cost of care for respiratory illnesses. So if your concern in healthcare spending, that's another reason to at a minimum not shut down nuclear plants until all of the coal plants are gone.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Great point, though let's not assume 100% effectiveness for offsets.

opo 10y ago

Right now waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor How does coal waste compare to that? "Coal ash – the waste material left after coal is burned – contains arsenic, mercury, lead, and over a dozen other heavy metals, many of them toxic." http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/code-black/coal-ash-toxic-and-leaking.html http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/code-black/coal-as... "The study found that levels of radioactivity in the ash were up to five times higher than in normal soil," https://phys.org/news/2015-09-radioactive-contaminants-coal-ash.html https://phys.org/news/2015-09-radioactive-contaminants-coal-... How much coal waste is produced per year? "According to the American Coal Ash Association's Coal Combustion Product Production & Use Survey Report, nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in 2014." https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics#03 https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics#03

kpil 10y ago
I am not an expert but many seem to consider the increased handling risk related to the toxicity and activity of plutonium and other products, especially considering terrorism, and also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium. But I agree; Coal is not the future. Either.
- opo 10y ago
  I think you will agree there is no reason why we need to throw away 95+% of the fuel that is left in high level nuclear waste and bury it in the ground for thousands of years. There are better options. >...I am not an expert but many seem to consider the increased handling risk related to the toxicity and activity of plutonium and other products, I agree that nuclear waste needs to be handled carefully. >...especially considering terrorism, and also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium. There is very little terrorism risk from nuclear waste. The weight, size and danger of high level waste means it would be beyond the capability of terrorist group to take advantage of it. Other sources of power have much, much more of a risk from terrorism. >....also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium. None of the nuclear states got their start by using nuclear waste from a commercial reactor. This wasn't a coincidence - it is much easier to get nuclear fuel by using a special purpose reactor or enriching uranium.

nbanks 10y ago

This cost would be much easier to calculate if every country reprocessed spent nuclear fuel like France does instead of storing it. Reprocessed MOX fuel costs almost ten times as much as enriched uranium, but the left over waste products decay to levels similar to natural uranium in 300 years instead of 10,000. Molten Salt reactors would probably make reprocessing cheaper.

pmyteh 10y ago
Yeah, Britain did that. The reprocessing plant has turned into another money pit full of leaking pipes and dubious practices, with a multi-billion pound decommissioning budget. Plus, as you suggest, no-one wants to buy the MOX fuel product because it's more expensive than enriched uranium.

jhartmann 10y ago

There is absolutely no reason to store anything for 100,000 years. If we were sane and reprocessed our fuel (like France), something like 400-500 years would put us below standard ambient radiation levels. Still a long time, but no we don't need to store anything for 100k years. Remember, almost all the long lived Transuranics are generally usable as further fission fuel. The other Transuranics and fission by products will typically decay rapidly to something stable or barely radioactive within a reasonable timeframe.