12 ms·

The cost of storing waste is miniscule. Because there's so little of it. The entirety of the US's nuclear waste from electricity generation occupies a volume th

The cost of storing waste is miniscule. Because there's so little of it. The entirety of the US's nuclear waste from electricity generation occupies a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 meters high [1]. The government did build a waste storage facility, which was planned to have cost $150 million [2]. Which is tiny compared to the tens of billions that nuclear plants themselves actually cost. The notion that cost of storing nuclear waste would make nuclear power considerably more expensive is incorrect. 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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste...

VBprogrammer 6y ago
One way of thinking about it is that nuclear power is the only type of power we have at the moment where all of the negative externalities are baked into the process. I really want renewables to work but so far grid scale batteries just don't exist. The biggest lithium battery isn't even a blip, it's roughly equivalent to what the UK receives through French over production every 6 minutes.
roelschroeven 6y ago
> The cost of storing waste is miniscule. Then how come that not a single country has yet developed a method for storing their nuclear waste safely and permanently? From your first link: > The fuel is either enclosed in steel-lined concrete pools of water or in steel and concrete containers, known as dry storage casks. > For the foreseeable future, the fuel can safely stay at these facilities until a permanent disposal solution is determined by the federal government. But from Wikipedia's page on dry cask storage, linked from your second link: > In the 1990s, the NRC had to “take repeated actions to address defective welds on dry casks that led to cracks and quality assurance problems; helium had leaked into some casks, increasing temperatures and causing accelerated fuel corrosion”. > With the zeroing of the budget for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, more nuclear waste is being loaded into sealed metal casks filled with inert gas. Many of these casks will be stored in coastal or lakeside regions where a salt air environment exists, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is studying how such dry casks perform in salt environments. Some hope that the casks can be used for 100 years, but cracking related to corrosion could occur in 30 years or less. In other words the "safe" temporary storage is not really safe. From your second link: > In September 2007, it was discovered that the Bow Ridge fault line ran underneath the facility, hundreds of feet east of where it was originally thought to be located, beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels. The discovery required several structures to be moved several hundred feet further to the east, and drew criticism from Robert R. Loux, then head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, who argues that Yucca administrators should have known about the fault line's location years prior, and called the movement of the structures "just-in-time engineering."[80][81] In June 2008, a major nuclear equipment supplier, Holtec International, criticized the Department of Energy's safety plan for handling containers of radioactive waste before they are buried at the proposed Yucca Mountain dump. The concern is that, in an earthquake, the unanchored casks of nuclear waste material awaiting burial at Yucca Mountain could be sent into a "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts".[82] How sure can we be there are no other fault lines waiting to be found? How sure can we be earthquakes won't cause problems in 100 years, or 500 or 5000 years? The Yucca Mountain repository is supposed to last 10000 years. How do we know it will? Storing nuclear waste is a huge unsolved problem. What's going to happen is that we're going to put it somewhere out of sight and let future generations deal with it. As other posters said: the nuclear industry externalizes all its difficulties to government, society and even future generations.
- manfredo 6y ago
  > Then how come that not a single country has yet developed a method for storing their nuclear waste safely and permanently? They have. Finland has built a disposal site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re... The US built the Yucca Mountain, but then Congress blocked its usage. This was done due to political posturing not technical concerns. Burying it in an area with no groundwater is a foolproof method of disposal short of hyperbolic scenarios involving societal collapse followed by a future people digging in an area with no resources for an inexplicable reason. Yucca mountain is not in a geologically active area, so the concern about earthquakes is moot. > How sure can we be there are no other fault lines waiting to be found? How sure can we be earthquakes won't cause problems in 100 years, or 500 or 5000 years? The Yucca Mountain repository is supposed to last 10000 years. How do we know it will? After 10,000 years the uranium is no more radioactive than it was when it was dug out of the ground. And when Yucca mountain is filled the entrances are blocked by meters of concrete - even if canisters are somehow get compromised the uranium still needs to magically get through several meters of rock and concrete to get out into the environment. It is a solved problem, but politicians have decided not to use the solution. In the US that is, Europe has it's dig in Finland continuing as planned. This thread is being rate limited, reply in edit: Understand the the "controversies" section on Wikipedia includes concerns that are addressed. In fact you even quoted the explanation that tectonic deformation is not a concern. And if it does get into the groundwater it will be detected. Do you realize that Uranium is a naturally occurring element? It's a contamination concern even where there is no waste disposal: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716094840.ht https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716094840.h... We're acting like uranium is some magic kryptonite, when it's 40 times as common as gold. We know how to detect uranium in water, because naturally occurring uranium gets in it.
  - roelschroeven 6y ago
    > They have. Finland has built a disposal site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re.... > In 2012, a research group at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, published research that suggests that the copper capsules of KBS-3 are not as corrosion-proof as SKB and Posiva claim. The research group led by Peter Szakálos estimated that the copper capsules would last only about 1,000 years, instead of the 100,000 years claimed by the companies. According to the research results, corrosion in pure copper advances at about one micrometre a year, whereas KBS-3 depends on a rate of corrosion that is a thousand times slower. Independent research conducted in Finland has supported the results of Szakálos's group. I said "safely and permantently". > Yucca mountain is not in a geologically active area > Nevada ranks fourth in the nation for current seismic activity.[78] Earthquake databases (the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network) provide current and historical earthquake information. Analysis of the available data in 1996 indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile (80 km) radius of Yucca Mountain.[78] > DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. So there is tectonic deformation in the area, but everyone who has a stake in the projects believes it won't be a problem. To me that sounds like the believe that the Challenger's O-ring couldn't cause problems. > After 10,000 years the uranium is no more radioactive than it was when it was dug out of the ground. Which is why I only mentioned shorter timescales. > And when Yucca mountain is filled the entrances are blocked by meters of concrete - even if canisters are somehow get compromised the uranium still needs to magically get through several meters of rock and concrete to get out into the environment. > The volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain is appreciably fractured and movement of water through an aquifer below the waste repository is primarily through fractures.[73] While the fractures are usually confined to individual layers of tuff, the faults extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 600 to 1,500 ft (180 to 460 m) below the surface.[74] Future water transport from the surface to waste containers is likely to be dominated by fractures. There is evidence that surface water has been transported down through the 700 ft (210 m) of overburden to the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain in less than 50 years.[75][76] > The aquifer of Yucca Mountain drains to Amargosa Valley, home to over 1400 people and a number of endangered species.[2] > Some site opponents assert that, after the predicted containment failure of the waste containers, these cracks may provide a route for movement of radioactive waste that dissolves in the water flowing downward from the desert surface.[77] Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility. We already know the waste containers degrade much faster than originally thought. There is a significant chance of contamination of the groundwater.

VBprogrammer 6y ago

One way of thinking about it is that nuclear power is the only type of power we have at the moment where all of the negative externalities are baked into the process. I really want renewables to work but so far grid scale batteries just don't exist. The biggest lithium battery isn't even a blip, it's roughly equivalent to what the UK receives through French over production every 6 minutes.

roelschroeven 6y ago

> The cost of storing waste is miniscule. Then how come that not a single country has yet developed a method for storing their nuclear waste safely and permanently? From your first link: > The fuel is either enclosed in steel-lined concrete pools of water or in steel and concrete containers, known as dry storage casks. > For the foreseeable future, the fuel can safely stay at these facilities until a permanent disposal solution is determined by the federal government. But from Wikipedia's page on dry cask storage, linked from your second link: > In the 1990s, the NRC had to “take repeated actions to address defective welds on dry casks that led to cracks and quality assurance problems; helium had leaked into some casks, increasing temperatures and causing accelerated fuel corrosion”. > With the zeroing of the budget for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, more nuclear waste is being loaded into sealed metal casks filled with inert gas. Many of these casks will be stored in coastal or lakeside regions where a salt air environment exists, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is studying how such dry casks perform in salt environments. Some hope that the casks can be used for 100 years, but cracking related to corrosion could occur in 30 years or less. In other words the "safe" temporary storage is not really safe. From your second link: > In September 2007, it was discovered that the Bow Ridge fault line ran underneath the facility, hundreds of feet east of where it was originally thought to be located, beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels. The discovery required several structures to be moved several hundred feet further to the east, and drew criticism from Robert R. Loux, then head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, who argues that Yucca administrators should have known about the fault line's location years prior, and called the movement of the structures "just-in-time engineering."[80][81] In June 2008, a major nuclear equipment supplier, Holtec International, criticized the Department of Energy's safety plan for handling containers of radioactive waste before they are buried at the proposed Yucca Mountain dump. The concern is that, in an earthquake, the unanchored casks of nuclear waste material awaiting burial at Yucca Mountain could be sent into a "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts".[82] How sure can we be there are no other fault lines waiting to be found? How sure can we be earthquakes won't cause problems in 100 years, or 500 or 5000 years? The Yucca Mountain repository is supposed to last 10000 years. How do we know it will? Storing nuclear waste is a huge unsolved problem. What's going to happen is that we're going to put it somewhere out of sight and let future generations deal with it. As other posters said: the nuclear industry externalizes all its difficulties to government, society and even future generations.

manfredo 6y ago
> Then how come that not a single country has yet developed a method for storing their nuclear waste safely and permanently? They have. Finland has built a disposal site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re... The US built the Yucca Mountain, but then Congress blocked its usage. This was done due to political posturing not technical concerns. Burying it in an area with no groundwater is a foolproof method of disposal short of hyperbolic scenarios involving societal collapse followed by a future people digging in an area with no resources for an inexplicable reason. Yucca mountain is not in a geologically active area, so the concern about earthquakes is moot. > How sure can we be there are no other fault lines waiting to be found? How sure can we be earthquakes won't cause problems in 100 years, or 500 or 5000 years? The Yucca Mountain repository is supposed to last 10000 years. How do we know it will? After 10,000 years the uranium is no more radioactive than it was when it was dug out of the ground. And when Yucca mountain is filled the entrances are blocked by meters of concrete - even if canisters are somehow get compromised the uranium still needs to magically get through several meters of rock and concrete to get out into the environment. It is a solved problem, but politicians have decided not to use the solution. In the US that is, Europe has it's dig in Finland continuing as planned. This thread is being rate limited, reply in edit: Understand the the "controversies" section on Wikipedia includes concerns that are addressed. In fact you even quoted the explanation that tectonic deformation is not a concern. And if it does get into the groundwater it will be detected. Do you realize that Uranium is a naturally occurring element? It's a contamination concern even where there is no waste disposal: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716094840.ht https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716094840.h... We're acting like uranium is some magic kryptonite, when it's 40 times as common as gold. We know how to detect uranium in water, because naturally occurring uranium gets in it.
- roelschroeven 6y ago
  > They have. Finland has built a disposal site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re.... > In 2012, a research group at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, published research that suggests that the copper capsules of KBS-3 are not as corrosion-proof as SKB and Posiva claim. The research group led by Peter Szakálos estimated that the copper capsules would last only about 1,000 years, instead of the 100,000 years claimed by the companies. According to the research results, corrosion in pure copper advances at about one micrometre a year, whereas KBS-3 depends on a rate of corrosion that is a thousand times slower. Independent research conducted in Finland has supported the results of Szakálos's group. I said "safely and permantently". > Yucca mountain is not in a geologically active area > Nevada ranks fourth in the nation for current seismic activity.[78] Earthquake databases (the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network) provide current and historical earthquake information. Analysis of the available data in 1996 indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile (80 km) radius of Yucca Mountain.[78] > DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. So there is tectonic deformation in the area, but everyone who has a stake in the projects believes it won't be a problem. To me that sounds like the believe that the Challenger's O-ring couldn't cause problems. > After 10,000 years the uranium is no more radioactive than it was when it was dug out of the ground. Which is why I only mentioned shorter timescales. > And when Yucca mountain is filled the entrances are blocked by meters of concrete - even if canisters are somehow get compromised the uranium still needs to magically get through several meters of rock and concrete to get out into the environment. > The volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain is appreciably fractured and movement of water through an aquifer below the waste repository is primarily through fractures.[73] While the fractures are usually confined to individual layers of tuff, the faults extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 600 to 1,500 ft (180 to 460 m) below the surface.[74] Future water transport from the surface to waste containers is likely to be dominated by fractures. There is evidence that surface water has been transported down through the 700 ft (210 m) of overburden to the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain in less than 50 years.[75][76] > The aquifer of Yucca Mountain drains to Amargosa Valley, home to over 1400 people and a number of endangered species.[2] > Some site opponents assert that, after the predicted containment failure of the waste containers, these cracks may provide a route for movement of radioactive waste that dissolves in the water flowing downward from the desert surface.[77] Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility. We already know the waste containers degrade much faster than originally thought. There is a significant chance of contamination of the groundwater.