7 ms·

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

by 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.
luca_ing 10y ago
The remnants of decommissioned reactors can't be recycled though. There will be literal mountains of moderately to highly dangerous rubble.
- opo 10y ago
  No, anything that has residual radiation will be entombed in clay/rock/etc. The total amount of material and radiation from this will be trivial compared to coal waste. "...Nearly every major river in the Southeast has one or more unlined, leaking pits on its banks filled with water and holding coal ash from power plants. Containing millions of tons of toxin-laden waste, these pits are unlined and have leaked arsenic, mercury, thallium, selenium, and other contaminants into the rivers and the underlying groundwater for decades. " https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/coal-waste https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/coal-...
  - luca_ing 10y ago
    > No, anything that has residual radiation will be entombed in clay/rock/etc Fine, it'll be an underground mountain :-) > [...]compared to coal waste[...]Containing millions of tons of toxin-laden waste[...] Holy shit, I had never even considered ash. It just never crossed my mind somehow. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It doesn't make me any less opposed to nuclear energy, but you've given me one more reason to be against coal plants (as if there weren't enough already).

by opo 10y ago

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.

luca_ing 10y ago

The remnants of decommissioned reactors can't be recycled though. There will be literal mountains of moderately to highly dangerous rubble.

opo 10y ago
No, anything that has residual radiation will be entombed in clay/rock/etc. The total amount of material and radiation from this will be trivial compared to coal waste. "...Nearly every major river in the Southeast has one or more unlined, leaking pits on its banks filled with water and holding coal ash from power plants. Containing millions of tons of toxin-laden waste, these pits are unlined and have leaked arsenic, mercury, thallium, selenium, and other contaminants into the rivers and the underlying groundwater for decades. " https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/coal-waste https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/coal-...
- luca_ing 10y ago
  > No, anything that has residual radiation will be entombed in clay/rock/etc Fine, it'll be an underground mountain :-) > [...]compared to coal waste[...]Containing millions of tons of toxin-laden waste[...] Holy shit, I had never even considered ash. It just never crossed my mind somehow. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It doesn't make me any less opposed to nuclear energy, but you've given me one more reason to be against coal plants (as if there weren't enough already).