4 ms·

>Only waste that no longer requires cooling can be moved underground. Thats the point though. It should be moved into long term storage after that and not stay

by cf498 8y ago

>Only waste that no longer requires cooling can be moved underground. Thats the point though. It should be moved into long term storage after that and not stay in the pool that needs to be cooled. Transporting is not the issue you make it out to be. Transport on trains has been a regular spectacle for decades in Europe, especially between La Hague and German nuclear power plants and the storage site in Gorleben. They are transported in nuclear flasks ("Castor" in German) under tight security measures in slow speed across extra checked railways lines. That takes a while, especially if every time ten thousands of protesters blockade the shipment and there is sabotage of the rail bed. All of that makes these transports extremely expensive. You of course cant simply put them in normal freight trains or simply dont put them in storage at all. In the best case you have to move them once the plant gets dismantled which simply makes the final costs higher. Nuclear power ignores most of those costs today and simply lets the public pay the bill in the end. To be a competitive power source the production price needs to also include the budget for waste management, which includes: * Transport of nuclear waste * Final storage of nuclear waste * Cleanup of the power plant This is not the case in most countries which makes nuclear power a highly subsidized energy source. The problem of final storage alone is an absolute nightmare, Germany realized their Morsleben and Asse II radioactive waste repositories were not suited for storage after all. Asse II has lost stability, became flooded and is at threat of collapse. It now has to be decommissioned, which includes a complete dig out.

mmt 8y ago
> Thats the point though. It should be moved into long term storage after that and not stay in the pool that needs to be cooled. Whose point? I'm genuinely curious if there's credible evidence that there's waste being needlessly cooled. This also smells like a false dichotomy to me, as there are other options besides the pool and moving to long-term storage. > Transporting is not the issue you make it out to be. Specifically, the only issue I'm alleging is that the overall risk of an environmental contamination/release incident increases with transport to central storage rather than storing the waste on site. That's my recollection of what I had read when I last looked into it. Do you have something (perhaps recent) to refute that? > Transport on trains has been a regular spectacle for decades in Europe I did specify the US, since I was responding to a comment complaining about Yucca Mountain. The spectacle may well inure people to the risk, but the actual risk remains. It may even be higher if it's an attractive nuisance for terrorists. > In the best case you have to move them once the plant gets dismantled which simply makes the final costs higher. I'm not sure I follow why this is, then, the best case, nor why the final costs would be any higher if transport is delayed until decomissioning. > To be a competitive power source the production price needs to also include the budget for waste management Here I agree with you, but I think it's a mistake, even naive, to dictate in advance how to handle that waste, especially since you yourself go on to point out the pitfalls of "final" storage. Today's waste could be tomorrow's fuel Still, I don't think waste management is the (cost) issue you make it out to be, especially compared to failures like Fukushima and Chernobyl. Rare, ultra-expensive catastrophes are much more difficult to price in and are, arguably, what have really been killing nuclear, politically, if not economically.
- cf498 8y ago
  > Rare, ultra-expensive catastrophes are much more difficult to price in and are, arguably, what have really been killing nuclear, politically, if not economically. I would argue after decades of usage and development state of the art nuclear power plants are relatively safe without major additional geographic risks like running them in places like Fukushima. The exception might be them becoming military targets. > This also smells like a false dichotomy to me, as there are other options besides the pool and moving to long-term storage. I understood your parents post that way and also your response. Might have been a misunderstanding on my part. The unnecessary long term storage in "common" storage pools after getting out of cooling pools sounds like an unnecessary risk to me, the normal solution should be to put them into dry cask storage in separate units. As long as they are not in dry storage containers a risk of water loss remains. After that they should be shipped to intermediate storage facilities, in such a way that they could be stored indefinitely in those containers under circumstances that can deal with a malfunction of the flasks. I am under the assumption, that most power plants are not designed to be intermediate storage facilities in the first place, but have them added on out of necessity. >That's my recollection of what I had read when I last looked into it. Do you have something (perhaps recent) to refute that? Which shortcomings of former dry cask storage flask do you recall? I was under the assumption they were relatively save for supervised transports. The only problem I recall was contamination of the outside of flasks in the 90s in Germany, but that was a scandal resulting from improper loading of the flasks. >I did specify the US, since I was responding to a comment complaining about Yucca Mountain. My point is that such transports are possible and are regularly executed in Europe, just not as normal cargo. There is nothing stops the US from doing the same. Its just involves a lot of effort and is expensive. >I'm not sure I follow why this is, then, the best case, nor why the final costs would be any higher if transport is delayed until decomissioning. That was from the position that they are not already in intermediate storage at side but still in cooling pools. The best case was concerning the risk of storing them this way. >Here I agree with you, but I think it's a mistake, even naive, to dictate in advance how to handle that waste, especially since you yourself go on to point out the pitfalls of "final" storage. Sure, but this includes at least the cost of storage in flasks in temporary sites for several decades with the option of relatively easy and save removal. Botched final storage "solutions" are a common problem we have to face today. And even when it simply comes to plant decommissioning, the risk mostly lies with the public when it comes to extra costs. Germany recently agreed to a final 24 billion cost to assume all liability for nuclear power plant decommission and final storage, where it is extremely doubtful this will be enough to cover even the best case for plant decomissioning. But it might even be the best solution available now, because otherwise the companies having run the power plants might simply declare bankruptcy for this segment and default on the costs entirely, leaving the long term costs yet again to the public. It is simply not prudent to allow the production of nuclear energy by private entities without a solid plan, how the long term costs associated with it are to be financed. Which again, doesnt mean nuclear power is not a viable option, they might still be cheaper looking at the problem at constant availability if we value the reduction of CO2 emission enough. But the way we currently use it is simply leaving the associated costs for future generations for the benefit of a few companies.

by cf498 8y ago

mmt 8y ago

> Thats the point though. It should be moved into long term storage after that and not stay in the pool that needs to be cooled. Whose point? I'm genuinely curious if there's credible evidence that there's waste being needlessly cooled. This also smells like a false dichotomy to me, as there are other options besides the pool and moving to long-term storage. > Transporting is not the issue you make it out to be. Specifically, the only issue I'm alleging is that the overall risk of an environmental contamination/release incident increases with transport to central storage rather than storing the waste on site. That's my recollection of what I had read when I last looked into it. Do you have something (perhaps recent) to refute that? > Transport on trains has been a regular spectacle for decades in Europe I did specify the US, since I was responding to a comment complaining about Yucca Mountain. The spectacle may well inure people to the risk, but the actual risk remains. It may even be higher if it's an attractive nuisance for terrorists. > In the best case you have to move them once the plant gets dismantled which simply makes the final costs higher. I'm not sure I follow why this is, then, the best case, nor why the final costs would be any higher if transport is delayed until decomissioning. > To be a competitive power source the production price needs to also include the budget for waste management Here I agree with you, but I think it's a mistake, even naive, to dictate in advance how to handle that waste, especially since you yourself go on to point out the pitfalls of "final" storage. Today's waste could be tomorrow's fuel Still, I don't think waste management is the (cost) issue you make it out to be, especially compared to failures like Fukushima and Chernobyl. Rare, ultra-expensive catastrophes are much more difficult to price in and are, arguably, what have really been killing nuclear, politically, if not economically.

cf498 8y ago
> Rare, ultra-expensive catastrophes are much more difficult to price in and are, arguably, what have really been killing nuclear, politically, if not economically. I would argue after decades of usage and development state of the art nuclear power plants are relatively safe without major additional geographic risks like running them in places like Fukushima. The exception might be them becoming military targets. > This also smells like a false dichotomy to me, as there are other options besides the pool and moving to long-term storage. I understood your parents post that way and also your response. Might have been a misunderstanding on my part. The unnecessary long term storage in "common" storage pools after getting out of cooling pools sounds like an unnecessary risk to me, the normal solution should be to put them into dry cask storage in separate units. As long as they are not in dry storage containers a risk of water loss remains. After that they should be shipped to intermediate storage facilities, in such a way that they could be stored indefinitely in those containers under circumstances that can deal with a malfunction of the flasks. I am under the assumption, that most power plants are not designed to be intermediate storage facilities in the first place, but have them added on out of necessity. >That's my recollection of what I had read when I last looked into it. Do you have something (perhaps recent) to refute that? Which shortcomings of former dry cask storage flask do you recall? I was under the assumption they were relatively save for supervised transports. The only problem I recall was contamination of the outside of flasks in the 90s in Germany, but that was a scandal resulting from improper loading of the flasks. >I did specify the US, since I was responding to a comment complaining about Yucca Mountain. My point is that such transports are possible and are regularly executed in Europe, just not as normal cargo. There is nothing stops the US from doing the same. Its just involves a lot of effort and is expensive. >I'm not sure I follow why this is, then, the best case, nor why the final costs would be any higher if transport is delayed until decomissioning. That was from the position that they are not already in intermediate storage at side but still in cooling pools. The best case was concerning the risk of storing them this way. >Here I agree with you, but I think it's a mistake, even naive, to dictate in advance how to handle that waste, especially since you yourself go on to point out the pitfalls of "final" storage. Sure, but this includes at least the cost of storage in flasks in temporary sites for several decades with the option of relatively easy and save removal. Botched final storage "solutions" are a common problem we have to face today. And even when it simply comes to plant decommissioning, the risk mostly lies with the public when it comes to extra costs. Germany recently agreed to a final 24 billion cost to assume all liability for nuclear power plant decommission and final storage, where it is extremely doubtful this will be enough to cover even the best case for plant decomissioning. But it might even be the best solution available now, because otherwise the companies having run the power plants might simply declare bankruptcy for this segment and default on the costs entirely, leaving the long term costs yet again to the public. It is simply not prudent to allow the production of nuclear energy by private entities without a solid plan, how the long term costs associated with it are to be financed. Which again, doesnt mean nuclear power is not a viable option, they might still be cheaper looking at the problem at constant availability if we value the reduction of CO2 emission enough. But the way we currently use it is simply leaving the associated costs for future generations for the benefit of a few companies.