6 ms·

The promise of nuclear power in the 60s and 70s was "we don't know yet how to manage the waste, but in a few decades we'll have it sorted out". We didn't. Nobod

by wazoox 9y ago

The promise of nuclear power in the 60s and 70s was "we don't know yet how to manage the waste, but in a few decades we'll have it sorted out". We didn't. Nobody knows how to safely decommission old nuclear facilities, how to manage nuclear waste for thousands of years.

cfadvan 9y ago
We know how, it’s just that nobody wants to pay for it or have it stored in their state. This is a failure of politics, not technology. Ironically the result is that of course we still store the stuff, but it’s on-site in pools all over the country, which is much less secure than known alternatives. Because no one is willing to spend political capital to centralize and modernize storage in their backyard, it’s in everyone’s backyard.
- 7952 9y ago
  But proposals need to be politically viable in order to actually be built! Human weakness is a serious failure mode in complex engineering projects and needs to be treated seriously.
  - girvo 9y ago
    But what about when collectively we decide to optimise for short-term rather than long-term? I mean that’s basically the modus operandi of politics, and that means that engineering problems — following your line of thinking — must do the same? Because getting politicians and even regular people to care about the future has proven intractable, to my mind.
    - 7952 9y ago
      That seems to be true. Although I think people can be pursuaded to care about such things. But the problem needs to be framed as a moral question rather than just an objective one. That we should adopt particular technology because it is the right thing to do. The difficulty is that these issues will become politicised and emotional. You have people like Trump emerge who think that clean energy is an abomination. But perhaps that is a step we have to go through in order to win the argument.
      - girvo 9y ago
        > Although I think people can be pursuaded to care about such things. But the problem needs to be framed as a moral question rather than just an objective one. That we should adopt particular technology because it is the right thing to do. Although it's somewhat distasteful to a lot of engineers, I completely agree with you here. It's difficult, but if we don't play politics, we will lose. Iterated prisoners dilemma, almost. > The difficulty is that these issues will become politicised and emotional. You have people like Trump emerge who think that clean energy is an abomination. But perhaps that is a step we have to go through in order to win the argument. In some ways, I think it is, yeah. A lot of the time, people (even technical ones!) don't see the future negative uses of things as particularly dire, up until it's about to come crashing down on their heads.
- nisa 9y ago
  > We know how [...] decomission plants There are some poeple in Tchernobyl and Fukushima that are eagerly waiting for your call with instructions. Sarcasm aside existing long-term storage projects also turned out to be problem-prone i.e. look up Gorleben[1]. 1: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-curse-of-gorleben-germany-s-endless-search-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump-a-672147.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-curse-of-gor...
  - cfadvan 9y ago
    Gorleben is thirty years old, and problems with it are hardly indicative of current technology. Chernobyl, also decades old, catastrophically melted down, so “decommission” seems a bit rich. Fukushima was hit by a historic tsunami, and then partially melted down. That’s not so much sarcasm you’re employing, as misdirection.
monocasa 9y ago
To be fair, this is a bomb manufacturing site, not a site for generating fuel rods.
- Maybestring 9y ago
  Not just a bomb material manufacturing site. The first one.
rsynnott 9y ago
This was a weapons site; the rules for weapons sites were dramatically laxer than for energy sites. You don't see this sort of problem at energy sites, generally.
StreamBright 9y ago
We actually did. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-bre...
- wazoox 9y ago
  Are you serious? Fast breeders failed everywhere, they were extremely dangerous, and they didn't solved anything. Phenix and SuperPhenix in France have been pathetic failures, with frequent incidents on very dangerous (lithium cooled) installations.
  - wbl 9y ago
    The Alfa is still the fastest thing below the waves thanks to lead cooled fast reactors. They solve the coolant loss issues.
    - wazoox 9y ago
      And how will this solve the nuclear waste problem exactly? Do you believe the Russians have a good track record in this matter? Did you hear of the Kola peninsula nuclear graveyard?
      - petre 9y ago
        The nuclear waste problem can be solved by further burning it in fast breeder reactors. The problem is they're quite expensive to build and operate. The VVER PWRs have a good track record, yes. It is the RBMK reactor that is an irresponsible design. Just about every major nuclear power has a sub graveyard: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-28157707 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-28157707
    - petre 9y ago
      Actually it's a lead-bismuth eutectic alloy and the sub pen required steam generators to melt it in case is was frozen solid. Otherwise it's quite safer than molten sodium.

by wazoox 9y ago

cfadvan 9y ago

We know how, it’s just that nobody wants to pay for it or have it stored in their state. This is a failure of politics, not technology. Ironically the result is that of course we still store the stuff, but it’s on-site in pools all over the country, which is much less secure than known alternatives. Because no one is willing to spend political capital to centralize and modernize storage in their backyard, it’s in everyone’s backyard.

7952 9y ago
But proposals need to be politically viable in order to actually be built! Human weakness is a serious failure mode in complex engineering projects and needs to be treated seriously.
- girvo 9y ago
  But what about when collectively we decide to optimise for short-term rather than long-term? I mean that’s basically the modus operandi of politics, and that means that engineering problems — following your line of thinking — must do the same? Because getting politicians and even regular people to care about the future has proven intractable, to my mind.
  - 7952 9y ago
    That seems to be true. Although I think people can be pursuaded to care about such things. But the problem needs to be framed as a moral question rather than just an objective one. That we should adopt particular technology because it is the right thing to do. The difficulty is that these issues will become politicised and emotional. You have people like Trump emerge who think that clean energy is an abomination. But perhaps that is a step we have to go through in order to win the argument.
    - girvo 9y ago
      > Although I think people can be pursuaded to care about such things. But the problem needs to be framed as a moral question rather than just an objective one. That we should adopt particular technology because it is the right thing to do. Although it's somewhat distasteful to a lot of engineers, I completely agree with you here. It's difficult, but if we don't play politics, we will lose. Iterated prisoners dilemma, almost. > The difficulty is that these issues will become politicised and emotional. You have people like Trump emerge who think that clean energy is an abomination. But perhaps that is a step we have to go through in order to win the argument. In some ways, I think it is, yeah. A lot of the time, people (even technical ones!) don't see the future negative uses of things as particularly dire, up until it's about to come crashing down on their heads.
nisa 9y ago
> We know how [...] decomission plants There are some poeple in Tchernobyl and Fukushima that are eagerly waiting for your call with instructions. Sarcasm aside existing long-term storage projects also turned out to be problem-prone i.e. look up Gorleben[1]. 1: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-curse-of-gorleben-germany-s-endless-search-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump-a-672147.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-curse-of-gor...
- cfadvan 9y ago
  Gorleben is thirty years old, and problems with it are hardly indicative of current technology. Chernobyl, also decades old, catastrophically melted down, so “decommission” seems a bit rich. Fukushima was hit by a historic tsunami, and then partially melted down. That’s not so much sarcasm you’re employing, as misdirection.

monocasa 9y ago

To be fair, this is a bomb manufacturing site, not a site for generating fuel rods.

Maybestring 9y ago
Not just a bomb material manufacturing site. The first one.

rsynnott 9y ago

This was a weapons site; the rules for weapons sites were dramatically laxer than for energy sites. You don't see this sort of problem at energy sites, generally.

StreamBright 9y ago

We actually did. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-bre...

wazoox 9y ago
Are you serious? Fast breeders failed everywhere, they were extremely dangerous, and they didn't solved anything. Phenix and SuperPhenix in France have been pathetic failures, with frequent incidents on very dangerous (lithium cooled) installations.
- wbl 9y ago
  The Alfa is still the fastest thing below the waves thanks to lead cooled fast reactors. They solve the coolant loss issues.
  - wazoox 9y ago
    And how will this solve the nuclear waste problem exactly? Do you believe the Russians have a good track record in this matter? Did you hear of the Kola peninsula nuclear graveyard?
    - petre 9y ago
      The nuclear waste problem can be solved by further burning it in fast breeder reactors. The problem is they're quite expensive to build and operate. The VVER PWRs have a good track record, yes. It is the RBMK reactor that is an irresponsible design. Just about every major nuclear power has a sub graveyard: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-28157707 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-28157707
  - petre 9y ago
    Actually it's a lead-bismuth eutectic alloy and the sub pen required steam generators to melt it in case is was frozen solid. Otherwise it's quite safer than molten sodium.