3 ms·

I think the only concern is the US has no high-yield disposal plan like other nations. Since yucca mountain got NIMBY'ed we had had reactors pumping out waste o

I think the only concern is the US has no high-yield disposal plan like other nations. Since yucca mountain got NIMBY'ed we had had reactors pumping out waste only to be stockpiled on the surface in casks that were not designed for long term exposure. This is only something I know from watching docmentiries so if you know more on the lifecycle of waste in the US please let me know how much of this is true.

lucidguppy 6y ago
What is the disposal plan for all the radioactive waste that natural gas fracking causes?
f00_ 6y ago
I used to live in vegas, when did yucca mountain get NIMBY'ed? >The project was approved in 2002 by the 107th United States Congress, but federal funding for the site ended in 2011 under the Obama Administration via amendment to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, passed on April 14, 2011
danpalmer 6y ago
The mid term plan is that generation 5 reactors should be producing much less waste that is less radioactive for less time. They do this by closing the cycle and reusing waste again and again. The end result is expected to be waste with a half life of around 100 years. This means a feasible option is to just stick it in a warehouse for 300 years. The danger isn’t proximity to the waste, a concrete container is plenty, the danger is a 100,000 year half life meaning we need to solve for geological time scales. With modern reactors that will no longer be the case. We’re not quite there yet, but research was getting there until much investment stopped in the last 10 years due to public dislike of nuclear power. Renewables are doing really well in some countries now which is great, but I do think this would be a good, feasible, safe backup plan.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Why talk about future reactors that are not yet available? Why not talk about existing designs that could solve this problem? I always hear this hyper optimistic talk about how the next generation is going to solve all the problems and every time someone talks about a completely different design. If there is no consensus on which design to build then how is it possible to rely on a new generation of reactors to solve problems that need to be dealt with now? What if I don't want to wait that long? What if I want to start building 100-1000 reactors tomorrow? That is probably the only way to convince India and China to stop using coal in the short term. Investment stopped because giant monolith plants are difficult build and operate profitably. You need to find a way for private companies to be able to afford construction and operation themselves. It should also be economical to shut down reactors that have critical design flaws, botched maintenance or simply don't follow modern regulations. I personally can't believe that people still use "public dislike of nuclear power" as the main argument why nuclear power failed. If it were that simple then some "evil corporation" would find a way to keep operating nuclear plants the same way we are stuck with coal. What you really need to do is discover an existing nuclear technology that is safe, economical and so attractive that people want to get rid of their old nuclear reactors and replace them with the new model.
  - danpalmer 6y ago
    > Investment stopped because giant monolith plants are difficult build and operate profitably. They are highly profitable, they just require long-term investment to be profitable. They typically won't turn a profit for 10-20 years, but on a lifetime of 40-50 years that should be acceptable. > I personally can't believe that people still use "public dislike of nuclear power" as the main argument why nuclear power failed. I'm not trying to call it a conspiracy. It's well known that most early anti-nuclear-power activism was from anti-nuclear-weapons proponents. It's also clear that several big economies rolled back nuclear power investment directly due to the public perception of what happened at Fukushima. Germany was the best example of this.
- blackrock 6y ago
  Give Elon a contract to launch the nuclear waste into space, and hurl it into the heart of the sun.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    And what happens in the unlikely case of failure of the shuttle?
    - crmrc114 6y ago
      Nun Soup? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOUFdQmLVR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOUFdQmLVR8
  - 08-15 6y ago
    You, sir, need to learn something about orbital mechanics. And about the Dunning-Kruger effect, too.

lucidguppy 6y ago

What is the disposal plan for all the radioactive waste that natural gas fracking causes?

f00_ 6y ago

I used to live in vegas, when did yucca mountain get NIMBY'ed? >The project was approved in 2002 by the 107th United States Congress, but federal funding for the site ended in 2011 under the Obama Administration via amendment to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, passed on April 14, 2011

danpalmer 6y ago

The mid term plan is that generation 5 reactors should be producing much less waste that is less radioactive for less time. They do this by closing the cycle and reusing waste again and again. The end result is expected to be waste with a half life of around 100 years. This means a feasible option is to just stick it in a warehouse for 300 years. The danger isn’t proximity to the waste, a concrete container is plenty, the danger is a 100,000 year half life meaning we need to solve for geological time scales. With modern reactors that will no longer be the case. We’re not quite there yet, but research was getting there until much investment stopped in the last 10 years due to public dislike of nuclear power. Renewables are doing really well in some countries now which is great, but I do think this would be a good, feasible, safe backup plan.

imtringued 6y ago
Why talk about future reactors that are not yet available? Why not talk about existing designs that could solve this problem? I always hear this hyper optimistic talk about how the next generation is going to solve all the problems and every time someone talks about a completely different design. If there is no consensus on which design to build then how is it possible to rely on a new generation of reactors to solve problems that need to be dealt with now? What if I don't want to wait that long? What if I want to start building 100-1000 reactors tomorrow? That is probably the only way to convince India and China to stop using coal in the short term. Investment stopped because giant monolith plants are difficult build and operate profitably. You need to find a way for private companies to be able to afford construction and operation themselves. It should also be economical to shut down reactors that have critical design flaws, botched maintenance or simply don't follow modern regulations. I personally can't believe that people still use "public dislike of nuclear power" as the main argument why nuclear power failed. If it were that simple then some "evil corporation" would find a way to keep operating nuclear plants the same way we are stuck with coal. What you really need to do is discover an existing nuclear technology that is safe, economical and so attractive that people want to get rid of their old nuclear reactors and replace them with the new model.
- danpalmer 6y ago
  > Investment stopped because giant monolith plants are difficult build and operate profitably. They are highly profitable, they just require long-term investment to be profitable. They typically won't turn a profit for 10-20 years, but on a lifetime of 40-50 years that should be acceptable. > I personally can't believe that people still use "public dislike of nuclear power" as the main argument why nuclear power failed. I'm not trying to call it a conspiracy. It's well known that most early anti-nuclear-power activism was from anti-nuclear-weapons proponents. It's also clear that several big economies rolled back nuclear power investment directly due to the public perception of what happened at Fukushima. Germany was the best example of this.
blackrock 6y ago
Give Elon a contract to launch the nuclear waste into space, and hurl it into the heart of the sun.
- fsflover 6y ago
  And what happens in the unlikely case of failure of the shuttle?
  - crmrc114 6y ago
    Nun Soup? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOUFdQmLVR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOUFdQmLVR8
- 08-15 6y ago
  You, sir, need to learn something about orbital mechanics. And about the Dunning-Kruger effect, too.