6 ms·

And waste is far from a solved problem. "This is the €25bn deep geological storage facility for France’s high and medium-level radioactive waste... [France] pr

And waste is far from a solved problem. "This is the €25bn deep geological storage facility for France’s high and medium-level radioactive waste... [France] produces enough toxic radioactive waste every year to fill 120 double-decker buses (about 13,000 cubic metres worth, or 2kg a year for every French person)." [0] [0] 2016: "Nuclear waste: keep out for 100,000 years" https://www.ft.com/content/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c https://www.ft.com/content/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a670...

roenxi 7y ago
Which is much less waste than solar produces. We barely even try to keep the waste from solar panels segregated from the environment because it is impossible with volumes that high. It is impossible to try to keep it to the same standards as nuclear but the damage is probably about the same. https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-...
- Spooky23 7y ago
  I missed the part about solar panels and radioactive waste that require containment. End of life PV panels are one of a million waste products that end up in landfills.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    The EOL PV products are just as dangerous as radiation; lead and cadmium poisoning are nasty businesses. If they were held to the same safety standards as nuclear waste it would require containment; the risk of harm is greater (especially after accounting for volume). PV waste isn't held to that silly standard because then it would be impossible to produce solar panels. If nuclear waste were contained using the same standard of acceptable harm as solar panels the cost would be a rounding error.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    They've got large quantities of Cadmium Telluride and Cadmium Sulfide, the Cadmium portion of which is quite toxic. Not to mention that burning coal releases a ton of radiation into the air also. This isn't whataboutism, far from it, in an ideal world there'd be no waste. But in the real world we have to reduce harm and balance options against each other. Nuclear waste can be quite effectively dropped into long-term geological storage facilities.
    - marcosdumay 7y ago
      At least, recycling the solar cadmium byproducts is much easier than recycling spent nuclear fuel. Anyway, uranium extraction and refining creates its share of byproducts too.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        Easier, potentially, but the question is also of relative volumes. You need an awful lot of cadmium telluride to produce the same amount of power as a fingernail size pellet of uranium. Per TWh of generated electricity you end up with an order of magnitude more deaths from solar power. It’s always a balance.
        philipkglass 7y ago
        You might be surprised how little cadmium telluride is required. With a 2.5 micron CdTe cell thickness [1] and 17.6% beginning-of-life module efficiency, 25 years operation with linear power degradation [2], that's a lifetime average module efficiency of 16.45%. If it's illuminated to achieve 20% capacity factor -- which is realistic for utility scale solar projects [3] -- a square meter of panel generates 7205 kWh over its lifetime. A square meter of panel contains 16 grams of CdTe. That's 3150 kWh of electricity generated per 7 grams of cadmium telluride over the module's lifetime. If a 7 gram uranium fuel pellet releases as much thermal energy over its lifetime as a tonne of coal [4], that's 8141 kWh. Assuming a thermal efficiency of 33% for conversion to electricity [5], that's 2687 kWh of electricity from one 7 gram fuel pellet. A breeder reactor could extract many times as much energy from one fuel pellet's worth of uranium, but the world currently operates hundreds of power reactors and only one breeder power reactor, the Russian BN-800. [1] Table 1 in https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Timothy_Gessert/publication/255814928_Perspectives_on_the_Pathways_for_Cadmium_Telluride_Photovoltaic_Module_Manufacturers_to_Address_Expected_Increases_in_the_Price_for_Tellurium/links/5c7d3ca4458515831f829593/Perspectives-on-the-Pathways-for-Cadmium-Telluride-Photovoltaic-Module-Manufacturers-to-Address-Expected-Increases-in-the-Price-for-Tellurium.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Timothy_Gessert/publica... [2] http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Technical-Documents/Series-6-Datasheets/Series-6-Datasheet.ashx http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Technical-Docu... [3] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... [4] https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/nuclear-fission-can-help-solve-george-monbiot%E2%80%99s-environmentalist-dilemma https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/nuclear-fission-can-help-... [5] http://holbert.faculty.asu.edu/eee463/NuclearPowerPlants.pdf http://holbert.faculty.asu.edu/eee463/NuclearPowerPlants.pdf
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
This figure sounds excessive, and it's not clear what is counted: no break down between high-level/low-level waste, and does not state if this is before or after chemical reprocessing, if this is before or after vitrification. Going from first principles, France has 133 GWe of nuclear capacity, and each Gw reactor produces 27t of unprocessed waste a year. France reprocesses used fuel, of which > 95% is un-burnt uranium - this goes back into reactors. Conservative estimate suggest that they produce <200t of waste a year. That's 3g per person! Of that, only 1/5 is real long-lived waste. There is no industrial process that produces less waste. These volumes are easily manageable. Check out diagram for what nuclear waste is made up of: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TCWrO7OFt4I/AAAAAAAAIFI/Ll76hclkzGw/s1600/nuclearfuelchanges.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TCWrO7OFt4I/AAAAAAAAIF...
x220 7y ago
Just put it all in Nevada
- natmaka 7y ago
  Trying since '87, to no avail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
  - x220 7y ago
    Only because of political opposition. It's been consistently shown to be a very safe long term storage plan. Ironically, efforts to stop the Yucca proposal because of "safety" issues make it so that we must store much of our nuclear waste in metal barrels at the same nuclear power plants they were produced in. Anti-nuclear activists are right when they say that nuclear energy is politically impossible but only because they're the ones making it politically impossible.
    - natmaka 7y ago
      As usual experts do not judge it as simple as that. Rust and corrosion will attack the strongest container – all they need are the right conditions and enough time to work. Not only that, but metals behave differently (and chemical reactions proceed more quickly) at higher temperatures – such as those produced by the decay of fission products. So the thermal effects also have to be factored in when designing the things. So here’s the bad news about long-term disposal of spent reactor fuel – and the containers meant to hold it. Nobody knows how a container is going to hold up over even 100,000 years, let alone a million years (the time span required by EPA). Source: https://fas.org/category/yucca-mountain/ https://fas.org/category/yucca-mountain/
      - x220 7y ago
        Who cares if the waste leaks out of the metal barrels? It's still going to be in Nevada, hundreds of miles from any human settlement for thousands of years.

roenxi 7y ago

Which is much less waste than solar produces. We barely even try to keep the waste from solar panels segregated from the environment because it is impossible with volumes that high. It is impossible to try to keep it to the same standards as nuclear but the damage is probably about the same. https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-...

Spooky23 7y ago
I missed the part about solar panels and radioactive waste that require containment. End of life PV panels are one of a million waste products that end up in landfills.
- roenxi 7y ago
  The EOL PV products are just as dangerous as radiation; lead and cadmium poisoning are nasty businesses. If they were held to the same safety standards as nuclear waste it would require containment; the risk of harm is greater (especially after accounting for volume). PV waste isn't held to that silly standard because then it would be impossible to produce solar panels. If nuclear waste were contained using the same standard of acceptable harm as solar panels the cost would be a rounding error.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  They've got large quantities of Cadmium Telluride and Cadmium Sulfide, the Cadmium portion of which is quite toxic. Not to mention that burning coal releases a ton of radiation into the air also. This isn't whataboutism, far from it, in an ideal world there'd be no waste. But in the real world we have to reduce harm and balance options against each other. Nuclear waste can be quite effectively dropped into long-term geological storage facilities.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    At least, recycling the solar cadmium byproducts is much easier than recycling spent nuclear fuel. Anyway, uranium extraction and refining creates its share of byproducts too.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Easier, potentially, but the question is also of relative volumes. You need an awful lot of cadmium telluride to produce the same amount of power as a fingernail size pellet of uranium. Per TWh of generated electricity you end up with an order of magnitude more deaths from solar power. It’s always a balance.
      - philipkglass 7y ago
        You might be surprised how little cadmium telluride is required. With a 2.5 micron CdTe cell thickness [1] and 17.6% beginning-of-life module efficiency, 25 years operation with linear power degradation [2], that's a lifetime average module efficiency of 16.45%. If it's illuminated to achieve 20% capacity factor -- which is realistic for utility scale solar projects [3] -- a square meter of panel generates 7205 kWh over its lifetime. A square meter of panel contains 16 grams of CdTe. That's 3150 kWh of electricity generated per 7 grams of cadmium telluride over the module's lifetime. If a 7 gram uranium fuel pellet releases as much thermal energy over its lifetime as a tonne of coal [4], that's 8141 kWh. Assuming a thermal efficiency of 33% for conversion to electricity [5], that's 2687 kWh of electricity from one 7 gram fuel pellet. A breeder reactor could extract many times as much energy from one fuel pellet's worth of uranium, but the world currently operates hundreds of power reactors and only one breeder power reactor, the Russian BN-800. [1] Table 1 in https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Timothy_Gessert/publication/255814928_Perspectives_on_the_Pathways_for_Cadmium_Telluride_Photovoltaic_Module_Manufacturers_to_Address_Expected_Increases_in_the_Price_for_Tellurium/links/5c7d3ca4458515831f829593/Perspectives-on-the-Pathways-for-Cadmium-Telluride-Photovoltaic-Module-Manufacturers-to-Address-Expected-Increases-in-the-Price-for-Tellurium.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Timothy_Gessert/publica... [2] http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Technical-Documents/Series-6-Datasheets/Series-6-Datasheet.ashx http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Technical-Docu... [3] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... [4] https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/nuclear-fission-can-help-solve-george-monbiot%E2%80%99s-environmentalist-dilemma https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/nuclear-fission-can-help-... [5] http://holbert.faculty.asu.edu/eee463/NuclearPowerPlants.pdf http://holbert.faculty.asu.edu/eee463/NuclearPowerPlants.pdf

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

This figure sounds excessive, and it's not clear what is counted: no break down between high-level/low-level waste, and does not state if this is before or after chemical reprocessing, if this is before or after vitrification. Going from first principles, France has 133 GWe of nuclear capacity, and each Gw reactor produces 27t of unprocessed waste a year. France reprocesses used fuel, of which > 95% is un-burnt uranium - this goes back into reactors. Conservative estimate suggest that they produce <200t of waste a year. That's 3g per person! Of that, only 1/5 is real long-lived waste. There is no industrial process that produces less waste. These volumes are easily manageable. Check out diagram for what nuclear waste is made up of: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TCWrO7OFt4I/AAAAAAAAIFI/Ll76hclkzGw/s1600/nuclearfuelchanges.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TCWrO7OFt4I/AAAAAAAAIF...

x220 7y ago

Just put it all in Nevada

natmaka 7y ago
Trying since '87, to no avail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
- x220 7y ago
  Only because of political opposition. It's been consistently shown to be a very safe long term storage plan. Ironically, efforts to stop the Yucca proposal because of "safety" issues make it so that we must store much of our nuclear waste in metal barrels at the same nuclear power plants they were produced in. Anti-nuclear activists are right when they say that nuclear energy is politically impossible but only because they're the ones making it politically impossible.
  - natmaka 7y ago
    As usual experts do not judge it as simple as that. Rust and corrosion will attack the strongest container – all they need are the right conditions and enough time to work. Not only that, but metals behave differently (and chemical reactions proceed more quickly) at higher temperatures – such as those produced by the decay of fission products. So the thermal effects also have to be factored in when designing the things. So here’s the bad news about long-term disposal of spent reactor fuel – and the containers meant to hold it. Nobody knows how a container is going to hold up over even 100,000 years, let alone a million years (the time span required by EPA). Source: https://fas.org/category/yucca-mountain/ https://fas.org/category/yucca-mountain/
    - x220 7y ago
      Who cares if the waste leaks out of the metal barrels? It's still going to be in Nevada, hundreds of miles from any human settlement for thousands of years.