3 ms·

...unless you count the risks of something bad happening. That’s always the unspoken actual debate when it comes to nuclear energy: what’s the probability of t

by irq11 7y ago

...unless you count the risks of something bad happening. That’s always the unspoken actual debate when it comes to nuclear energy: what’s the probability of the worst case, and how does it affect the amortized cost? We’re terrible at doing this calculation in other areas (e.g. terrorism vs. the cost of security theater), so it’s not especially informative to talk about the status quo. Clearly, we believe it’s cheaper to just store the stuff, or we wouldn’t be doing it. With nuclear energy, the exceptions matter a lot.

philipkglass 7y ago
Both present once-through fuel cycles and "burner" reactor concepts produce fission products in proportion to energy generated. The short and medium lived fission products are the most intensely radioactive and dangerous byproduct of nuclear fission for the first few centuries of waste storage. The advantage of a burner reactor from a waste perspective is that it can consume longer lived actinide waste products like neptunium, plutonium, and americium. A burner reactor converts these actinide wastes into more intensely radioactive but less-long-lived fission products. (Additionally, some much longer lived and less intensely radioactive fission products like technetium 99 are also formed in burners and conventional reactors.) This is to say that even if you place a high premium on avoiding environmental releases of radioactive materials, there is no appreciable benefit from burner reactors on a human time scale. The overall radiotoxicity inventory that needs ongoing management is nearly the same for both burners and once-through reactors for 200+ years after the fuel is done with. Further, fuel reprocessing facilities are themselves more likely to leak fission products into the environment than dry cask storage is.
- littlestymaar 7y ago
  > Further, fuel reprocessing facilities are themselves more likely to leak fission products into the environment than dry cask storage is. But these fuel reprocessing already exist and the waste are currently already reprocessed to make MOX fuel, at least in some countries (France, UK, India, Russia and Japan).
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    Yes, and those plants release more becquerels of radioactive material into the environment when they reprocess fuel than would be released if the fuel elements were left intact in dry storage. I'm not saying that reprocessing plants release a dangerous amount of radioactive material. I'm saying that reprocessing makes things worse if your top priority is to prevent releases of radioactive materials into the environment. It also makes things worse if your top priority is to make nuclear-generated electricity affordable.

by irq11 7y ago

philipkglass 7y ago

Both present once-through fuel cycles and "burner" reactor concepts produce fission products in proportion to energy generated. The short and medium lived fission products are the most intensely radioactive and dangerous byproduct of nuclear fission for the first few centuries of waste storage. The advantage of a burner reactor from a waste perspective is that it can consume longer lived actinide waste products like neptunium, plutonium, and americium. A burner reactor converts these actinide wastes into more intensely radioactive but less-long-lived fission products. (Additionally, some much longer lived and less intensely radioactive fission products like technetium 99 are also formed in burners and conventional reactors.) This is to say that even if you place a high premium on avoiding environmental releases of radioactive materials, there is no appreciable benefit from burner reactors on a human time scale. The overall radiotoxicity inventory that needs ongoing management is nearly the same for both burners and once-through reactors for 200+ years after the fuel is done with. Further, fuel reprocessing facilities are themselves more likely to leak fission products into the environment than dry cask storage is.

littlestymaar 7y ago
> Further, fuel reprocessing facilities are themselves more likely to leak fission products into the environment than dry cask storage is. But these fuel reprocessing already exist and the waste are currently already reprocessed to make MOX fuel, at least in some countries (France, UK, India, Russia and Japan).
- philipkglass 7y ago
  Yes, and those plants release more becquerels of radioactive material into the environment when they reprocess fuel than would be released if the fuel elements were left intact in dry storage. I'm not saying that reprocessing plants release a dangerous amount of radioactive material. I'm saying that reprocessing makes things worse if your top priority is to prevent releases of radioactive materials into the environment. It also makes things worse if your top priority is to make nuclear-generated electricity affordable.