4 ms·

Nuclear waste is a trivial problem. The amount of waste is incredibly miniscule. The entirety of the US waste generated from nuclear power generation fits into

Nuclear waste is a trivial problem. The amount of waste is incredibly miniscule. The entirety of the US waste generated from nuclear power generation fits into a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high.

Krasnol 6y ago
Next year when the last nuclear reactor goes down in Germany we'd have something around 15.000 tons. Since we're not the US of A with a hell lot of space and the fact that we've been looking for a spot for years now, it's not a trivial problem at all. But maybe you can convince your government to take our waste and fix this "trivial" problem? I'm sure we'd be able to pay for it a nice sum and your current president looks like he might be stupid enough to actually do it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- manfredo 6y ago
  17,000 tons of uranium is less than a 10x10x10 meter cube of uranium. The US already has a disposal site constructed in the desert, but we're not using it yet. Europe also has a dig in Finland. Most of it stays on site because there's so little of it to store.
  - Krasnol 6y ago
    No, it stays on side because it's either not transportable (see Asse) or, as I said: there is no space for it. FYI: Finland is not like an US state only because it's part of Europe. It's an independent country and they will not take foreign nuclear waste. PS. those 17.000 tons are just the highly radioactive material. All together it will be 280.000 cubic meters when we're finished decommissioning.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      What's hard about transporting it? The US manages to ship these just fine [1]. These casks can be transported via semi truck and shipping container [2]. Maybe Europe doesn't have as good waste container standardization. 1 https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 2. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images/f1big.jpg http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images... Replies in comment, since HN is limiting my work VPN or something like that. > Is this a straw man or did you really not understand what I wrote? From your comment: > No, it stays on side because it's either not transportable (see Asse) You explicitly brought up ease of transport. > I also put something in there. This word in the brackets. You might have googled it up where you'd come upon pictures like that: https://media1.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/1203828188/1.3595409/.. https://media1.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/1203828188/1.3595409/.... Instead, you chose to ignore the complete rest of the comment and all the comments I wrote before and only wrote a completely irrelevant answer to something you did not understand. Congratulations for this derailment. You claimed that transportation was a barrier to storing nuclear waste, by cherry picking one specific failure. And I refuted this claim by pointing out that plenty of the world's largest nuclear operators transport waste just fine. This isn't derailment, quite the opposite. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
      - Krasnol 6y ago
        Is this a straw man or did you really not understand what I wrote? Nobody want this shit. There is no place to transport it. None. We have to sit on it for millennia. Transport is not the issue here. @your edit: >You explicitly brought up ease of transport. I also put something in there. This word in the brackets. You might have googled it up where you'd come upon pictures like that: https://media1.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/1203828188/1.3595409/mmobject-still_full/drunter-und-drueber-geht-es-in.jpg https://media1.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/1203828188/1.3595409/... Instead, you chose to ignore the complete rest of the comment and all the comments I wrote before and only wrote a completely irrelevant answer to something you did not understand. Congratulations for this derailment. EOD.

Krasnol 6y ago

Next year when the last nuclear reactor goes down in Germany we'd have something around 15.000 tons. Since we're not the US of A with a hell lot of space and the fact that we've been looking for a spot for years now, it's not a trivial problem at all. But maybe you can convince your government to take our waste and fix this "trivial" problem? I'm sure we'd be able to pay for it a nice sum and your current president looks like he might be stupid enough to actually do it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
manfredo 6y ago
17,000 tons of uranium is less than a 10x10x10 meter cube of uranium. The US already has a disposal site constructed in the desert, but we're not using it yet. Europe also has a dig in Finland. Most of it stays on site because there's so little of it to store.
- Krasnol 6y ago
  No, it stays on side because it's either not transportable (see Asse) or, as I said: there is no space for it. FYI: Finland is not like an US state only because it's part of Europe. It's an independent country and they will not take foreign nuclear waste. PS. those 17.000 tons are just the highly radioactive material. All together it will be 280.000 cubic meters when we're finished decommissioning.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    What's hard about transporting it? The US manages to ship these just fine [1]. These casks can be transported via semi truck and shipping container [2]. Maybe Europe doesn't have as good waste container standardization. 1 https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 2. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images/f1big.jpg http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images... Replies in comment, since HN is limiting my work VPN or something like that. > Is this a straw man or did you really not understand what I wrote? From your comment: > No, it stays on side because it's either not transportable (see Asse) You explicitly brought up ease of transport. > I also put something in there. This word in the brackets. You might have googled it up where you'd come upon pictures like that: https://media1.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/1203828188/1.3595409/.. https://media1.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/1203828188/1.3595409/.... Instead, you chose to ignore the complete rest of the comment and all the comments I wrote before and only wrote a completely irrelevant answer to something you did not understand. Congratulations for this derailment. You claimed that transportation was a barrier to storing nuclear waste, by cherry picking one specific failure. And I refuted this claim by pointing out that plenty of the world's largest nuclear operators transport waste just fine. This isn't derailment, quite the opposite. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
    - Krasnol 6y ago
      Is this a straw man or did you really not understand what I wrote? Nobody want this shit. There is no place to transport it. None. We have to sit on it for millennia. Transport is not the issue here. @your edit: >You explicitly brought up ease of transport. I also put something in there. This word in the brackets. You might have googled it up where you'd come upon pictures like that: https://media1.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/1203828188/1.3595409/mmobject-still_full/drunter-und-drueber-geht-es-in.jpg https://media1.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/1203828188/1.3595409/... Instead, you chose to ignore the complete rest of the comment and all the comments I wrote before and only wrote a completely irrelevant answer to something you did not understand. Congratulations for this derailment. EOD.