8 ms·

Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap - both for energy and uncommon element feed

Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap - both for energy and uncommon element feedstock. Just like shale used to be "garbage" until the tech to make it useful was developed, spent fuel will be seen as waste until we can make it useful. Letting this very manageable amount of waste sit in repositories until we get our shit together is utterly reasonable. In the US, it would take just one facility to deal with all 99 reactor waste streams. I don't think we need to spend money and energy to transmute it by theses questionable laser schemes. Accelerator driven transmutation of waste was shown the dustbin a few decades ago, hopefully this will have the same fate. Please don't ruin our valuable trash.

carlosdp 7y ago
Don't even centralize it all in one facility, just store it on-site.
- caymanjim 7y ago
  That's how most of the power plant waste in the US is "handled" right now, because it's so far been politically impossible to agree on long-term storage and transportation. It's an inferior solution, though. There are security issues, and many points of failure for environmental damage. It's particularly problematic when plants are decommissioned and the waste is still stuck there requiring indefinite security and storage facilities for an otherwise-defunct plant. We'd be better off with all of it in one secure and safe facility, pending a better solution in the future.
  - mort96 7y ago
    How would one transport the waste across the country? I imagine there are some security issues with that too.
    - joering2 7y ago
      Very easily these days [1] Its been done since days of nuclear plants. And no - there are no security issues, since as the name indicates, its a “waste”; you can’t make a bomb out of it and spreading it would not be as efficient as some type of gas that you would have easier access to. I imagine actually officials would love just to give away that nuclear waste to ISIS, preferrably deliver it to them for further handling by their peers, without gloves of course ;) http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/technology/nuclear-waste http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/technology/nuclear-wa...
      - mort96 7y ago
        I wasn't afraid of terrorists or people making bombs, I'm not American. I was worried about a truck or train crashing and showering an area in nuclear waste. > The cask systems are designed to handle a wide range of severe environmental conditions, including earthquakes, flooding, extreme temperatures, and tornadoes. This includes objects that may impact the cask at high speed, such as during a tornado. I suppose that means they withstand a car crash too.
        cnorthwood 7y ago
        Yes, and even being crashed into by another train: https://youtu.be/ZY446h4pZdc https://youtu.be/ZY446h4pZdc
        vertex-four 7y ago
        In the U.K., a nuclear cask was tested in a train crash and came out fine. I’m sure a car crash would be alright too. :)
        NikkiA 7y ago
        The US also did some testing with their flasks: https://youtu.be/1mHtOW-OBO4?t=80 https://youtu.be/1mHtOW-OBO4?t=80 It's a pretty awful source (dubbed impact sounds), and very much in UK dialect, but it has some footage of the US testing I've not seen elsewhere.
      - 7y ago
    - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
      Probably the same way that the nuclear fuel is transported in the first place?
Tepix 7y ago
> Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap That's just hope. How convenient not having to deal with the mess! To me, it sounds like a religion. The same argument could be applied to rising CO2 levels. Just let future generations figure it out. What could go wrong?
- piokoch 7y ago
  I think there are important differences. We know that wastes has energy (otherwise they would not radiate), there are stored in a well specified area. Unfortunately nuclear energy had a very bad PR for past 50 years, as a result nobody wanted to do any searcher in areas related to it). It seems that it is slightly better now, environmental organizations at least are not trying to occupy nuclear reactors, unfortunately still they are pushing wind farms and solar farms, even though they cannot be usable on a massive scale without efficient way to store energy surplus.
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    > nuclear energy had a very bad PR for past 50 years There is not a positive way to tell people that will be forced to quit their homes, workplaces and properties when nuclear problems eventually arose but hide information or lie systematically about it does not help, neither does the "see no evil/ what could happen?/ but nobody died / your cancer is not my fault" permanent defensive stance deployed again and again. Nuclear energy sector worked hard to earn the current mistrust
    - roenxi 7y ago
      > There is not a positive way to tell people that will be forced to quit their homes, workplaces and properties when nuclear problems eventually arose ... That is an enormous problem, but the problem there is that governments aren't being held accountable for forcing people out of their homes. The Fukashima evacuation debatabley caused ~3 orders of magnitude more deaths than the Fukushima nuclear disaster ([0] see the sidebar for 2,000:1 figure and the opening paragraphs for the debatable part). When the cure is that much worse than the disease, we have to ask why we are forcing people to evacuate. Whenever the government enacts a policy there are the potential for statistical deaths. Approve a coal plant? Statistical deaths. Change safety standards? Statistical deaths. Drop speed limits? Statistical deaths. We can cope with some unidentifiable people being worse off. It happens all the time. The responses to nuclear risks are not only irrational, they are out of line with how we treat all other physical and chemical hazards. Statistical illness and deaths from nuclear are not worse than any other health issue. This is a fantastic time to use the science to make decisions, and it isn't at all obvious to what standard the exclusion zones are being managed. When the gap in damage done by the response and the crisis is that large there is a lot of room for questions to be asked (I wish I spoke Japanese so I could look up some primary reports on the subject). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
erentz 7y ago
And no one ever talks about how we’ll handle solar waste. Has it changed and is no longer a problem going forward? Last I looked into it a few years back it was shaping up to be a very serious and toxic problem. They were very difficult to recycle, and full of lead, cadmium, and other nasty things. Something needs to be done with them but everyone was pretending they’re completely clean and safe.
- Krasnol 7y ago
  I get 27.300 results for "solar waste" on google. 88.000.000 for "solar waste management". Literally "no one ever"...
  - mbostleman 7y ago
    I don't think the implication was that there is no data out there. I think it's more about the popular conversation. I have this same problem all the time when I discuss this topic with people. It's very common for people to respond quickly about nuclear with "but what about the waste". To which I typically respond "what about the solar waste". The problem is, the question is generally only applied to one side while the other side gets a pass.
    - Krasnol 7y ago
      We both know what was intended by that. Dramatization in an already emotion filled discussion.
- borkt 7y ago
  I mention this all the time to coworkers who blindly believe solar is a perfect technology. It is really, really bad - especially the old stuff with all these REE's and extremely low efficiency. I am pretty upset that California now REQUIRES solar for new construction. It really feels we should have waited for the efficiency/cleanliness/recycling to mature a lot before that.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
Blackthorn 7y ago
Spent fuel is only a part of it though. There is also tubes, piping, tools... Basically, components that are used for maintenance and are now effectively useless.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  And sand from sandblasting of painted metal to remove contaminants. There are tons and tons of very slightly radioactive sand that needs a place to live.
  - hairytrog 7y ago
    The beach would probably be fine. Safety by dilution.
    - DoctorOetker 7y ago
      cyclotron exhaust stacks already do this, they also have activity monitors
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
> Please don't ruin our valuable trash. How valuable could it possibly be? I challenge you to calculate the net present value on all of that nuclear waste.
- hairytrog 7y ago
  All modeling fails, because it's worthless until proven otherwise. It's future breakthroughs - JFK speech at Rice, just replace space with nuclear: " Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us."

carlosdp 7y ago

Don't even centralize it all in one facility, just store it on-site.

caymanjim 7y ago
That's how most of the power plant waste in the US is "handled" right now, because it's so far been politically impossible to agree on long-term storage and transportation. It's an inferior solution, though. There are security issues, and many points of failure for environmental damage. It's particularly problematic when plants are decommissioned and the waste is still stuck there requiring indefinite security and storage facilities for an otherwise-defunct plant. We'd be better off with all of it in one secure and safe facility, pending a better solution in the future.
- mort96 7y ago
  How would one transport the waste across the country? I imagine there are some security issues with that too.
  - joering2 7y ago
    Very easily these days [1] Its been done since days of nuclear plants. And no - there are no security issues, since as the name indicates, its a “waste”; you can’t make a bomb out of it and spreading it would not be as efficient as some type of gas that you would have easier access to. I imagine actually officials would love just to give away that nuclear waste to ISIS, preferrably deliver it to them for further handling by their peers, without gloves of course ;) http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/technology/nuclear-waste http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/technology/nuclear-wa...
    - mort96 7y ago
      I wasn't afraid of terrorists or people making bombs, I'm not American. I was worried about a truck or train crashing and showering an area in nuclear waste. > The cask systems are designed to handle a wide range of severe environmental conditions, including earthquakes, flooding, extreme temperatures, and tornadoes. This includes objects that may impact the cask at high speed, such as during a tornado. I suppose that means they withstand a car crash too.
      - cnorthwood 7y ago
        Yes, and even being crashed into by another train: https://youtu.be/ZY446h4pZdc https://youtu.be/ZY446h4pZdc
      - vertex-four 7y ago
        In the U.K., a nuclear cask was tested in a train crash and came out fine. I’m sure a car crash would be alright too. :)
        NikkiA 7y ago
        The US also did some testing with their flasks: https://youtu.be/1mHtOW-OBO4?t=80 https://youtu.be/1mHtOW-OBO4?t=80 It's a pretty awful source (dubbed impact sounds), and very much in UK dialect, but it has some footage of the US testing I've not seen elsewhere.
    - 7y ago
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    Probably the same way that the nuclear fuel is transported in the first place?

Tepix 7y ago

> Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap That's just hope. How convenient not having to deal with the mess! To me, it sounds like a religion. The same argument could be applied to rising CO2 levels. Just let future generations figure it out. What could go wrong?

piokoch 7y ago
I think there are important differences. We know that wastes has energy (otherwise they would not radiate), there are stored in a well specified area. Unfortunately nuclear energy had a very bad PR for past 50 years, as a result nobody wanted to do any searcher in areas related to it). It seems that it is slightly better now, environmental organizations at least are not trying to occupy nuclear reactors, unfortunately still they are pushing wind farms and solar farms, even though they cannot be usable on a massive scale without efficient way to store energy surplus.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  > nuclear energy had a very bad PR for past 50 years There is not a positive way to tell people that will be forced to quit their homes, workplaces and properties when nuclear problems eventually arose but hide information or lie systematically about it does not help, neither does the "see no evil/ what could happen?/ but nobody died / your cancer is not my fault" permanent defensive stance deployed again and again. Nuclear energy sector worked hard to earn the current mistrust
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > There is not a positive way to tell people that will be forced to quit their homes, workplaces and properties when nuclear problems eventually arose ... That is an enormous problem, but the problem there is that governments aren't being held accountable for forcing people out of their homes. The Fukashima evacuation debatabley caused ~3 orders of magnitude more deaths than the Fukushima nuclear disaster ([0] see the sidebar for 2,000:1 figure and the opening paragraphs for the debatable part). When the cure is that much worse than the disease, we have to ask why we are forcing people to evacuate. Whenever the government enacts a policy there are the potential for statistical deaths. Approve a coal plant? Statistical deaths. Change safety standards? Statistical deaths. Drop speed limits? Statistical deaths. We can cope with some unidentifiable people being worse off. It happens all the time. The responses to nuclear risks are not only irrational, they are out of line with how we treat all other physical and chemical hazards. Statistical illness and deaths from nuclear are not worse than any other health issue. This is a fantastic time to use the science to make decisions, and it isn't at all obvious to what standard the exclusion zones are being managed. When the gap in damage done by the response and the crisis is that large there is a lot of room for questions to be asked (I wish I spoke Japanese so I could look up some primary reports on the subject). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

erentz 7y ago

And no one ever talks about how we’ll handle solar waste. Has it changed and is no longer a problem going forward? Last I looked into it a few years back it was shaping up to be a very serious and toxic problem. They were very difficult to recycle, and full of lead, cadmium, and other nasty things. Something needs to be done with them but everyone was pretending they’re completely clean and safe.

Krasnol 7y ago
I get 27.300 results for "solar waste" on google. 88.000.000 for "solar waste management". Literally "no one ever"...
- mbostleman 7y ago
  I don't think the implication was that there is no data out there. I think it's more about the popular conversation. I have this same problem all the time when I discuss this topic with people. It's very common for people to respond quickly about nuclear with "but what about the waste". To which I typically respond "what about the solar waste". The problem is, the question is generally only applied to one side while the other side gets a pass.
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    We both know what was intended by that. Dramatization in an already emotion filled discussion.
borkt 7y ago
I mention this all the time to coworkers who blindly believe solar is a perfect technology. It is really, really bad - especially the old stuff with all these REE's and extremely low efficiency. I am pretty upset that California now REQUIRES solar for new construction. It really feels we should have waited for the efficiency/cleanliness/recycling to mature a lot before that.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago

Blackthorn 7y ago

Spent fuel is only a part of it though. There is also tubes, piping, tools... Basically, components that are used for maintenance and are now effectively useless.

sandworm101 7y ago
And sand from sandblasting of painted metal to remove contaminants. There are tons and tons of very slightly radioactive sand that needs a place to live.
- hairytrog 7y ago
  The beach would probably be fine. Safety by dilution.
  - DoctorOetker 7y ago
    cyclotron exhaust stacks already do this, they also have activity monitors

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

> Please don't ruin our valuable trash. How valuable could it possibly be? I challenge you to calculate the net present value on all of that nuclear waste.

hairytrog 7y ago
All modeling fails, because it's worthless until proven otherwise. It's future breakthroughs - JFK speech at Rice, just replace space with nuclear: " Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us."