6 ms·

Nuclear waste storage. I'd rather have brown outs until solar power and alternatives get better than have that stuffed stored within 100 miles of my family. P

Nuclear waste storage. I'd rather have brown outs until solar power and alternatives get better than have that stuffed stored within 100 miles of my family. People who claim it can be safely stored, don't understand it's the lowest bidder who gets the contract, and the lowest paid workers to guard (from theft, yes) and maintain (from leaks) the storage system. These systems are all ticking time bombs. We can't even maintain our bridges. Look up the stats on how many bridges are at the catastrophic failing points due to over due maintenance, and we can't even fix these. (last I looked it's over 50,000 bridges) No way in hell I want more toxic waste that last thousands of years endlessly piling up somewhere. Nuclear power is _not_ the answer. Maybe fusion is, but not uranium in it's current form. Edit: I have a relative in a state legislature discuss this topic with me. He inspected the storage sites in our state.

johnisgood 7y ago
From https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html: > If all the electricity use of the USA was distributed evenly among its population, and all of it came from nuclear power, then the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams. That’s the weight of seven U. S. quarters of waste, per year! A detailed description of this result can be found here[1]. If we got all our electricity from coal and natural gas, expect to have over 10,000 kilograms of CO2/yr attributed to each person, not to mention other poisonous emissions directly to the biosphere (based on EIA emissions data[2]). If you want raw numbers: in 2018, there were just over 80,000 metric tonnes of high-level waste in the USA. Between 1971 and 2018, nuclear reactors in the USA generated 17.3 GW-years of electricity to make this waste. For another perspective, each average US home using 10,000 kWh/year of nuclear electricity would generate 5 grams of waste per year. This is astoundingly low, again, thanks to the near magical energy density of the atom. > As mentioned previously, nuclear waste is over 90% uranium. Thus, the spent fuel (waste) still contains 90% usable fuel! It can be chemically processed and placed in advanced fast reactors (which have not been deployed on any major scale yet) to close the fuel cycle. A closed fuel cycle means much less nuclear waste and much more energy extracted from the raw ore. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/assets/waste_per_person.pdf https://whatisnuclear.com/assets/waste_per_person.pdf [2] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_carbon.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_car... --- Let us not forget about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Po... > There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller, eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage; "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium." The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off. > Thorium fuel cycle is a potential way to produce long term nuclear energy with low radio-toxicity waste. > Summarizing some of the potential benefits, Martin offers his general opinion: "Thorium could provide a clean and effectively limitless source of power while allaying all public concern—weapons proliferation, radioactive pollution, toxic waste, and fuel that is both costly and complicated to process. --- Worth reading as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor --- The technology definitely exists. Storage is not an issue. Building or sticking to older, shittier designs that are horrible even in theory or on paper is the issue.
- locopati 7y ago
  "then the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams" times 300 million people adds up to quite a bit, no?
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  The problem with your argument is that it is based on something that doesn't exist. There are no commercial nuclear plants even being planned to be built based on any of the newer technology. (that I could find) >...the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams That would be 13,850 TONS [0] of radioactive waste /every year/. Using "grams" is a manipulation tactic you seem to have fallen for. At least carbon turns back into trees and concrete. I challenge you to visit a nuclear storage facility. They are all maxing out as far as I have heard and read. There is almost not storage room left. The one place where they were making more storage was Nevada and that got shut down years ago. There's no more room in our state's current storage. And it's near sensitive water ways. It's just crazy. Storage it _the_ issue. Edit: The other source of info I have was from an uncle in-law that worked security at nuclear facility in the 90s. They were having storage issues back then even. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=39.5+grams+x+350+million https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=39.5+grams+x+350+milli...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnisgood 7y ago
    > That would be 13,850 TONS [0] of radioactive waste /every year/. Using "grams" is a manipulation tactic you seem to have fallen for. At least carbon turns back into trees and concrete. Now compare this to: if we got all our electricity from coal and natural gas, expect to have over 10,000 kilograms of CO2/yr attributed to each person, not to mention other poisonous emissions directly to the biosphere (based on EIA emissions data[2]). See the difference there? Huge! https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10000+kilograms+*+350+million https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10000+kilograms+*+350+... vs. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(39.5+grams+*+350+million)+to+kilograms https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(39.5+grams+*+350+mill... 3.5 x 10^12 vs 1.383 x 10^7. 10,000 kilograms vs 39.5 grams = 0.0395 kilograms (!). Plus it is not true that it is based on something that does not exist, it very much exists. Even if we assume that it does not, this does not invalidate anything I have said. We have the technology! We should stick to the better technology, not the older ones. I mentioned it as an issue, did I not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Thorium-based_nuclear_power_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Th... Also there is ITER: "Furthermore, a fusion reactor would produce virtually no CO2 or atmospheric pollutants, and its radioactive waste products would mostly be very short-lived compared to those produced by conventional nuclear reactors (fission reactors).". I did not mention it, but it probably is going to be the future. It is under construction. > The other source of info I have was from an uncle in-law that worked security at nuclear facility in the 90s. They were having storage issues back then even. I do not deny this. It probably uses a much older technology that is doomed to fail in theory as well. Keeping it is definitely a problem. We have much better alternatives today. Again: building and sticking to shittier reactors when we have a much better technology is part of the problem!

johnisgood 7y ago

From https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html: > If all the electricity use of the USA was distributed evenly among its population, and all of it came from nuclear power, then the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams. That’s the weight of seven U. S. quarters of waste, per year! A detailed description of this result can be found here[1]. If we got all our electricity from coal and natural gas, expect to have over 10,000 kilograms of CO2/yr attributed to each person, not to mention other poisonous emissions directly to the biosphere (based on EIA emissions data[2]). If you want raw numbers: in 2018, there were just over 80,000 metric tonnes of high-level waste in the USA. Between 1971 and 2018, nuclear reactors in the USA generated 17.3 GW-years of electricity to make this waste. For another perspective, each average US home using 10,000 kWh/year of nuclear electricity would generate 5 grams of waste per year. This is astoundingly low, again, thanks to the near magical energy density of the atom. > As mentioned previously, nuclear waste is over 90% uranium. Thus, the spent fuel (waste) still contains 90% usable fuel! It can be chemically processed and placed in advanced fast reactors (which have not been deployed on any major scale yet) to close the fuel cycle. A closed fuel cycle means much less nuclear waste and much more energy extracted from the raw ore. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/assets/waste_per_person.pdf https://whatisnuclear.com/assets/waste_per_person.pdf [2] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_carbon.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_car... --- Let us not forget about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Po... > There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller, eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage; "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium." The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off. > Thorium fuel cycle is a potential way to produce long term nuclear energy with low radio-toxicity waste. > Summarizing some of the potential benefits, Martin offers his general opinion: "Thorium could provide a clean and effectively limitless source of power while allaying all public concern—weapons proliferation, radioactive pollution, toxic waste, and fuel that is both costly and complicated to process. --- Worth reading as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor --- The technology definitely exists. Storage is not an issue. Building or sticking to older, shittier designs that are horrible even in theory or on paper is the issue.

locopati 7y ago
"then the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams" times 300 million people adds up to quite a bit, no?
RobertRoberts 7y ago
The problem with your argument is that it is based on something that doesn't exist. There are no commercial nuclear plants even being planned to be built based on any of the newer technology. (that I could find) >...the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams That would be 13,850 TONS [0] of radioactive waste /every year/. Using "grams" is a manipulation tactic you seem to have fallen for. At least carbon turns back into trees and concrete. I challenge you to visit a nuclear storage facility. They are all maxing out as far as I have heard and read. There is almost not storage room left. The one place where they were making more storage was Nevada and that got shut down years ago. There's no more room in our state's current storage. And it's near sensitive water ways. It's just crazy. Storage it _the_ issue. Edit: The other source of info I have was from an uncle in-law that worked security at nuclear facility in the 90s. They were having storage issues back then even. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=39.5+grams+x+350+million https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=39.5+grams+x+350+milli...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 7y ago
  > That would be 13,850 TONS [0] of radioactive waste /every year/. Using "grams" is a manipulation tactic you seem to have fallen for. At least carbon turns back into trees and concrete. Now compare this to: if we got all our electricity from coal and natural gas, expect to have over 10,000 kilograms of CO2/yr attributed to each person, not to mention other poisonous emissions directly to the biosphere (based on EIA emissions data[2]). See the difference there? Huge! https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10000+kilograms+*+350+million https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10000+kilograms+*+350+... vs. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(39.5+grams+*+350+million)+to+kilograms https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(39.5+grams+*+350+mill... 3.5 x 10^12 vs 1.383 x 10^7. 10,000 kilograms vs 39.5 grams = 0.0395 kilograms (!). Plus it is not true that it is based on something that does not exist, it very much exists. Even if we assume that it does not, this does not invalidate anything I have said. We have the technology! We should stick to the better technology, not the older ones. I mentioned it as an issue, did I not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Thorium-based_nuclear_power_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Th... Also there is ITER: "Furthermore, a fusion reactor would produce virtually no CO2 or atmospheric pollutants, and its radioactive waste products would mostly be very short-lived compared to those produced by conventional nuclear reactors (fission reactors).". I did not mention it, but it probably is going to be the future. It is under construction. > The other source of info I have was from an uncle in-law that worked security at nuclear facility in the 90s. They were having storage issues back then even. I do not deny this. It probably uses a much older technology that is doomed to fail in theory as well. Keeping it is definitely a problem. We have much better alternatives today. Again: building and sticking to shittier reactors when we have a much better technology is part of the problem!