4 ms·

Assuming the data given is correct: The article seems to assume the waste is uranium, with a density of 19.1g/cubic centimeter. That's roughly 3.325×10^9 cubi

Assuming the data given is correct: The article seems to assume the waste is uranium, with a density of 19.1g/cubic centimeter. That's roughly 3.325×10^9 cubic centimeters of waste (70000 tons / 19.1grams) in cubic centimeters, or 117421 cubic feet 1 acre, 10 feet high, is 435602 cubic feet. So it's a little more than 1/4 acre, 10 feet high, filled with uranium. IMHO, that is not a lot especially over 60 years.

canoebuilder 9y ago
At first blush this calculation may seem to placate some concern, but on second thought it's mostly worthless without any discussion of the current dispersal of the waste and it's "potency," i.e. the potential harmful effects of a given quantity.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  "At first blush this calculation may seem to placate some concern, but on second thought it's mostly worthless without any discussion of the current dispersal of the waste and it's "potency," i.e. the potential harmful effects of a given quantity. " Sure, but you'd have to do the same for every other power source as well. Even making solar panels currently generates toxic waste ...
  - canoebuilder 9y ago
    I wasn't talking about comparing the toxic byproducts of various forms of energy production, although that would be an illuminating exercise. I was simply pointing out that when talking about potential danger from a given substance, the absolute amount, X ft^3, doesn't tell us much with knowing more about the substance's potential for deleterious effects at a given quantity of the substance. If deleterious effects start at X * 4, X is less concerning. If deleterious effects start at X * .0000000004, X is more concerning. I've got this little thimble full of material, just a small thimble. No big deal right? I'll just leave it laying somewhere around your house. Would your assessment of this situation change if you knew it was a thimble full of cyanide? P.S. I didn't mean for my original post to sound hostile, though with it's conciseness and using 'worthless,' I could understand such an interpretation. I have no problems with this line of analysis, I'm a fan and found the visual it provided interesting. I just intended to point out that if the intention was to give a sense of the danger posed by nuclear waste produced over the past 60 years, then the analysis was incomplete for the reasons stated above. P.P.S Is the amount of toxic waste produced by solar vs nuclear per unit of energy produced in any way comparable? If so that would no doubt be of interest to the world at large.
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      "I was simply pointing out that when talking about potential danger from a given substance, the absolute amount, X ft^3, doesn't tell us much with knowing more about the substance's potential for deleterious effects at a given quantity of the substance. " Of course. Someone just asked "is 70,000 tons a lot", and I was just doing the math to show how much it is in measures people might understand a little better. I make no claims as to the danger represented by that amount, only "is it a large amount". IE it may be a small amount, and totally and completely horrible. "P.P.S Is the amount of toxic waste produced by solar vs nuclear per unit of energy produced in any way comparable? If so that would no doubt be of interest to the world at large. " I actually don't know, but i may go try to figure it out.
jessaustin 9y ago
Can one actually stack nuclear waste like that? It's my impression that some nuclear material cannot be stored too densely, otherwise it "goes critical" i.e. sustains an ongoing nuclear reaction.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  Correct, you wouldn't be able to pack it that tightly together for the reason you theorized, but the point is it doesn't take a lot of space for the fuel itself. Radioactive waste is far more than just used fuel though as another person here has repeatedly pointed out.
orwin 9y ago
Yes, but most of nuclear waste is metal and plastics. Screwdriver and stuff. The guy that wrote the article either don't know anything about nuclear plants (well, less than me so almost nothing) or is misleading everybody on purpose. Either way, wait until someone reliable and knowledgable talk about this to forge an opinion, this is bullshit to me (and im a pro-nuclear guy)

canoebuilder 9y ago

At first blush this calculation may seem to placate some concern, but on second thought it's mostly worthless without any discussion of the current dispersal of the waste and it's "potency," i.e. the potential harmful effects of a given quantity.

DannyBee 9y ago
"At first blush this calculation may seem to placate some concern, but on second thought it's mostly worthless without any discussion of the current dispersal of the waste and it's "potency," i.e. the potential harmful effects of a given quantity. " Sure, but you'd have to do the same for every other power source as well. Even making solar panels currently generates toxic waste ...
- canoebuilder 9y ago
  I wasn't talking about comparing the toxic byproducts of various forms of energy production, although that would be an illuminating exercise. I was simply pointing out that when talking about potential danger from a given substance, the absolute amount, X ft^3, doesn't tell us much with knowing more about the substance's potential for deleterious effects at a given quantity of the substance. If deleterious effects start at X * 4, X is less concerning. If deleterious effects start at X * .0000000004, X is more concerning. I've got this little thimble full of material, just a small thimble. No big deal right? I'll just leave it laying somewhere around your house. Would your assessment of this situation change if you knew it was a thimble full of cyanide? P.S. I didn't mean for my original post to sound hostile, though with it's conciseness and using 'worthless,' I could understand such an interpretation. I have no problems with this line of analysis, I'm a fan and found the visual it provided interesting. I just intended to point out that if the intention was to give a sense of the danger posed by nuclear waste produced over the past 60 years, then the analysis was incomplete for the reasons stated above. P.P.S Is the amount of toxic waste produced by solar vs nuclear per unit of energy produced in any way comparable? If so that would no doubt be of interest to the world at large.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    "I was simply pointing out that when talking about potential danger from a given substance, the absolute amount, X ft^3, doesn't tell us much with knowing more about the substance's potential for deleterious effects at a given quantity of the substance. " Of course. Someone just asked "is 70,000 tons a lot", and I was just doing the math to show how much it is in measures people might understand a little better. I make no claims as to the danger represented by that amount, only "is it a large amount". IE it may be a small amount, and totally and completely horrible. "P.P.S Is the amount of toxic waste produced by solar vs nuclear per unit of energy produced in any way comparable? If so that would no doubt be of interest to the world at large. " I actually don't know, but i may go try to figure it out.

jessaustin 9y ago

Can one actually stack nuclear waste like that? It's my impression that some nuclear material cannot be stored too densely, otherwise it "goes critical" i.e. sustains an ongoing nuclear reaction.

jsjohnst 9y ago
Correct, you wouldn't be able to pack it that tightly together for the reason you theorized, but the point is it doesn't take a lot of space for the fuel itself. Radioactive waste is far more than just used fuel though as another person here has repeatedly pointed out.

orwin 9y ago

Yes, but most of nuclear waste is metal and plastics. Screwdriver and stuff. The guy that wrote the article either don't know anything about nuclear plants (well, less than me so almost nothing) or is misleading everybody on purpose. Either way, wait until someone reliable and knowledgable talk about this to forge an opinion, this is bullshit to me (and im a pro-nuclear guy)