5 ms·

I think the point of the OP was that pollution and long-term storage are not priced in. Try coming up with a price for safely storing nuclear waste for the nex

by andor 7y ago

I think the point of the OP was that pollution and long-term storage are not priced in. Try coming up with a price for safely storing nuclear waste for the next few thousand years.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Try coming up with a price for safely storing nuclear waste for the next few thousand years. Quoting the article: "Environmental group Greenpeace estimates that there’s a global stockpile of about 250,000 tons of toxic spent fuel spread across 14 countries, based on data from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Of that, 22,000 cubic meters—roughly equivalent to a three-meter tall building covering an area the size of a soccer pitch—is hazardous, according to the IAEA." That's really not a lot. Who says we need to store this for thousands of years? There's no physical limit to what we can do with it, just economic limits. Future technology may well reduce this waste to nothing at an affordable price.
- mimixco 7y ago
  It has to be stored and cooled because otherwise it kills people.
- godelski 7y ago
  > "Environmental group Greenpeace" Let's be honest here, Greenpeace is an environmental group the same way PETA is an animal rights group. One thing I think a lot of people forget is that many of the same problems that nuclear has are issues with other power sources. For example, coal also has radioactive waste. To put it into perspective, an average coal plant produces 5-10 tonnes of Uranium and Thorium ash per year.[0] Let alone the 400tonns of coal ash. I should also note that ash is more dangerous. I'm not trying to say here that these aren't concerns. But I'm trying to say that when people mention these things that it always feels either uninformed or disingenuous. There is an issue of scale, so if the concern is about radioactive contaminants then we should be prioritizing the one that is producing more. > That's really not a lot. Which shows an understanding of scale (which is difficult). For reference, total waste per person from most nuclear powered countries is about a liter bottle per year, which only ~3% is high level waste[1] (~30ml, < a 10th of a soda can). So taking into account the scale, even when including toxicity and radioactivity, it is still one of the cleanest forms of energy we have. But the reason for that is scale. More radioactive, more toxic, but magnitudes less waste. [0] https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... [1] Only shows UK, but it is relatively similar waste levels across most countries. https://nuclearpoweringvision2020.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/how-much-waste-is-produced-from-a-nuclear-power-plant/ https://nuclearpoweringvision2020.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/h...
petre 7y ago
More like 300 years. Most of what remains of the waste is americium and plutonium which can be reused as nuclear fuel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE Most of the issues with nuclear waste are proliferation related. That's why it's stored and not given away to let's say Iran.
graeme 7y ago
But nuclear is competing against carbon. The price of those externalities is also not priced in. We have not stored carbon safely, we dumped it into the atmosphere.

by andor 7y ago

I think the point of the OP was that pollution and long-term storage are not priced in. Try coming up with a price for safely storing nuclear waste for the next few thousand years.

gridlockd 7y ago

> Try coming up with a price for safely storing nuclear waste for the next few thousand years. Quoting the article: "Environmental group Greenpeace estimates that there’s a global stockpile of about 250,000 tons of toxic spent fuel spread across 14 countries, based on data from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Of that, 22,000 cubic meters—roughly equivalent to a three-meter tall building covering an area the size of a soccer pitch—is hazardous, according to the IAEA." That's really not a lot. Who says we need to store this for thousands of years? There's no physical limit to what we can do with it, just economic limits. Future technology may well reduce this waste to nothing at an affordable price.

mimixco 7y ago
It has to be stored and cooled because otherwise it kills people.
godelski 7y ago
> "Environmental group Greenpeace" Let's be honest here, Greenpeace is an environmental group the same way PETA is an animal rights group. One thing I think a lot of people forget is that many of the same problems that nuclear has are issues with other power sources. For example, coal also has radioactive waste. To put it into perspective, an average coal plant produces 5-10 tonnes of Uranium and Thorium ash per year.[0] Let alone the 400tonns of coal ash. I should also note that ash is more dangerous. I'm not trying to say here that these aren't concerns. But I'm trying to say that when people mention these things that it always feels either uninformed or disingenuous. There is an issue of scale, so if the concern is about radioactive contaminants then we should be prioritizing the one that is producing more. > That's really not a lot. Which shows an understanding of scale (which is difficult). For reference, total waste per person from most nuclear powered countries is about a liter bottle per year, which only ~3% is high level waste[1] (~30ml, < a 10th of a soda can). So taking into account the scale, even when including toxicity and radioactivity, it is still one of the cleanest forms of energy we have. But the reason for that is scale. More radioactive, more toxic, but magnitudes less waste. [0] https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... [1] Only shows UK, but it is relatively similar waste levels across most countries. https://nuclearpoweringvision2020.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/how-much-waste-is-produced-from-a-nuclear-power-plant/ https://nuclearpoweringvision2020.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/h...

petre 7y ago

More like 300 years. Most of what remains of the waste is americium and plutonium which can be reused as nuclear fuel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE Most of the issues with nuclear waste are proliferation related. That's why it's stored and not given away to let's say Iran.

graeme 7y ago

But nuclear is competing against carbon. The price of those externalities is also not priced in. We have not stored carbon safely, we dumped it into the atmosphere.