4 ms·

I have met with quite unreasonable (to my mind) fears about nuclear waste's supposed deleterious effects on people and nature, even if stored in a remote underg

I have met with quite unreasonable (to my mind) fears about nuclear waste's supposed deleterious effects on people and nature, even if stored in a remote underground facility. Whenever people have gut reactions without evidence, the conversation quickly becomes non-productive.

Jill_the_Pill 7y ago
Someone's "remote" is always someone else's backyard.
- lstodd 7y ago
  Just dump it on the South Pole. It'll get frozen under hundreds of meters of ice (very good radiation absorber, plus a natural heat sink) and begin a hundred million year voyage to the sea. At which point it won't be radioactive any more and will get transported and dumped into deep ocean by the icebergs.
  - petschge 7y ago
    Water is a very good neutron reflector and moderator so it is exactly what you do NOT want around your nuclear waste. Also metal containers tend to rust when there is water around. The low temperature in the ice will slow that down a bit, but will not prevent it. Remember: while there are problems that are solve after smart people have stared at the problem for decades, there are many more occasions where all you can come up with is ideas that have been considered and found impracticable all long time ago and you just don't know enough about the problem to see why your idea wont work.
    - SubiculumCode 7y ago
      From my understanding, clay containers are preferred for nuclear waste.
    - lstodd 7y ago
      You sound like it's now forbidden to joke on the internets. Besides, when one buries some mildly radioactive materials in 20 meters of ice with a median temperature of 230K or something like that, it just doesn't matter what neutron flux they release. And if they heat up, they would just sink deeper. What matters is that that the neutron flux is adequately dissipated. Which it would be.
- all2 7y ago
  There have been a few [0][1] proposed storage facilities in the United States that have been stalled because of local NIMBY votes. [0] https://strangesounds.org/2014/06/us-nuclear-waste-storage-map-this-map-shows-current-plants-storing-nuclear-waste-in-the-united-states-and-there-are-many-around.html https://strangesounds.org/2014/06/us-nuclear-waste-storage-m... [1] https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/storing-nuclear-waste-would-only-net-wyoming-million-annually-/article_f38dee4e-9c16-5fae-bcbf-4c261250e406.html https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/s...
  - all2 7y ago
    To be clear, I'm not attempting to pass judgement on people who vote this way. I would also vote "no" if someone wanted to store nuclear waste near my home. I'm only pointing out that storage is hard.
Spooky23 7y ago
When these conversations take place in the policy space, everyone agrees to do nothing, and you end up with situations where power plants with <100 year lifetimes are de facto storage facilities for the foreseeable future. Living in New York, all of the nuclear facilities will be decommissioned in my lifetime, and the ratepayers or taxpayers will be paying for upkeep of the storage components for decades or centuries. We already have to provide direct subsidy just to keep them operating as they aren’t financially viable. That’s why nuclear doesn’t get built today.

Jill_the_Pill 7y ago

Someone's "remote" is always someone else's backyard.

lstodd 7y ago
Just dump it on the South Pole. It'll get frozen under hundreds of meters of ice (very good radiation absorber, plus a natural heat sink) and begin a hundred million year voyage to the sea. At which point it won't be radioactive any more and will get transported and dumped into deep ocean by the icebergs.
- petschge 7y ago
  Water is a very good neutron reflector and moderator so it is exactly what you do NOT want around your nuclear waste. Also metal containers tend to rust when there is water around. The low temperature in the ice will slow that down a bit, but will not prevent it. Remember: while there are problems that are solve after smart people have stared at the problem for decades, there are many more occasions where all you can come up with is ideas that have been considered and found impracticable all long time ago and you just don't know enough about the problem to see why your idea wont work.
  - SubiculumCode 7y ago
    From my understanding, clay containers are preferred for nuclear waste.
  - lstodd 7y ago
    You sound like it's now forbidden to joke on the internets. Besides, when one buries some mildly radioactive materials in 20 meters of ice with a median temperature of 230K or something like that, it just doesn't matter what neutron flux they release. And if they heat up, they would just sink deeper. What matters is that that the neutron flux is adequately dissipated. Which it would be.
all2 7y ago
There have been a few [0][1] proposed storage facilities in the United States that have been stalled because of local NIMBY votes. [0] https://strangesounds.org/2014/06/us-nuclear-waste-storage-map-this-map-shows-current-plants-storing-nuclear-waste-in-the-united-states-and-there-are-many-around.html https://strangesounds.org/2014/06/us-nuclear-waste-storage-m... [1] https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/storing-nuclear-waste-would-only-net-wyoming-million-annually-/article_f38dee4e-9c16-5fae-bcbf-4c261250e406.html https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/s...
- all2 7y ago
  To be clear, I'm not attempting to pass judgement on people who vote this way. I would also vote "no" if someone wanted to store nuclear waste near my home. I'm only pointing out that storage is hard.

Spooky23 7y ago

When these conversations take place in the policy space, everyone agrees to do nothing, and you end up with situations where power plants with <100 year lifetimes are de facto storage facilities for the foreseeable future. Living in New York, all of the nuclear facilities will be decommissioned in my lifetime, and the ratepayers or taxpayers will be paying for upkeep of the storage components for decades or centuries. We already have to provide direct subsidy just to keep them operating as they aren’t financially viable. That’s why nuclear doesn’t get built today.