4 ms·

You are right about the waste, it really sucks. But I still feel like abandoning nuclear energy now would be incredibly bad timing, given the urgence of reducin

You are right about the waste, it really sucks. But I still feel like abandoning nuclear energy now would be incredibly bad timing, given the urgence of reducing our carbon footprint. It's kind of ok not have a 100k years storage facility yet since it is a long term problem. Climate change is a problem we should have started tackling decades ago, and abandoning nuclear power might worsen it dramatically.

ethanwillis 6y ago
They're not right about the waste. High level radioactive waste will fit in a space about 7 meters high and the area of a football field. That's all nuclear waste since we started operating nuclear reactors... worldwide.
- semaj111 6y ago
  It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. At some point we will need super long term storage, and it's true that there is no viable solution out there yet. Even the most sophisticated facilities can not guarantee that no leakage will contaminate the surroundings at some point. But as I said, I think finding a solution for this should not be our main priority.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    The longer it’s radioactive lifespan, the less dangerous it is.
    - acidburnNSA 6y ago
      Exactly! In the extreme, things like mercury have an infinite half-life and are toxic forever. Yet nuclear waste always gets the bad reputation because it becomes less dangerous with time. Odd.
      - tuatoru 6y ago
        Not odd at all. Just very, very successful propaganda. The coal industry's astroturfed anti-nuclear campaign in the 1960s and 1970s has warped thinking on this for generations.
  - eco 6y ago
    That's what people say but we produce many orders of magnitude more toxic chemical waste which is dangerous forever. The fact that nuclear waste becomes safe over time almost seems like an advantage (over other forms of waste at least).
  - rrss 6y ago
    Long term storage of high-level nuclear waste is not a technical problem - there are a number of viable solutions. All of them boil down to "dig a deep hole and put the nuclear waste there." The only problem is the political problem of choosing the sites.
  - opo 6y ago
    >...It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amounts generated are manageable and in a relatively short amount of time we can use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem... You might change your mind on that after a bit of reflection; it doesn't make sense. We produce a bunch of things that are going to be hazardous forever - I always point to lead when nuclear comes up. The only reason anyone talks about nuclear waste is because 1 football field is small enough that we could contain it forever. Most industrial processes produce too much hazardous waste for that to be feasible.
    - sesuximo 6y ago
      Just look at the sludge that comes with aluminum mining. It’s definitely dangerous and should be handled... but doesn’t mean we should ban aluminum...
    - manfredo 6y ago
      > You might change your mind on that after a bit of reflection; it doesn't make sense. We produce a bunch of things that are going to be hazardous forever - I always point to lead when nuclear comes up. This is actually a particularly apt comparison, because Uranium is a toxic heavy metal that affects the body much like lead. Nuclear waste is toxic forever - but it was toxic before it was used as nuclear fuel, too. I portray it this way: buried in the ground there's toxic uranium in unknown locations. We're taking all this toxic material and putting it in a known location where we can monitor it. And in between we use it to generate carbon free energy.
  - BBergdahl 6y ago
    We do have a final long term storage solution for spent swedish waste. Location selected and approved, method tested and the cost has been covered by a nuclear waste fund fee on the produced power. In short it's copper clad steel capsules put in holes surrounded by bentonite clay down in deep shafts dug in stable bedrock. It's probably a waste of good breeder fuel. But it won't leak due to any natural occuring incident in a very, very long time. I think there is information in english here for the curious. https://www.skb.com/ https://www.skb.com/ (They have a nice guided tour down in the research mine the did dig to study water flow and chemistry, can recommend it.http://www.skb.com/research-and-technology/laboratories/the-aspo-hard-rock-laboratory/ http://www.skb.com/research-and-technology/laboratories/the-... ) There is probably other ways of doing it, but saying there is no method ready is wrong. I would prefer to burn it again in a breeder and get 500yr waste instead of 50k yr waste. But if we're going to bury it, this will keep the stuff safe for the time needed.

ethanwillis 6y ago

They're not right about the waste. High level radioactive waste will fit in a space about 7 meters high and the area of a football field. That's all nuclear waste since we started operating nuclear reactors... worldwide.

semaj111 6y ago
It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. At some point we will need super long term storage, and it's true that there is no viable solution out there yet. Even the most sophisticated facilities can not guarantee that no leakage will contaminate the surroundings at some point. But as I said, I think finding a solution for this should not be our main priority.
- sjwright 6y ago
  The longer it’s radioactive lifespan, the less dangerous it is.
  - acidburnNSA 6y ago
    Exactly! In the extreme, things like mercury have an infinite half-life and are toxic forever. Yet nuclear waste always gets the bad reputation because it becomes less dangerous with time. Odd.
    - tuatoru 6y ago
      Not odd at all. Just very, very successful propaganda. The coal industry's astroturfed anti-nuclear campaign in the 1960s and 1970s has warped thinking on this for generations.
- eco 6y ago
  That's what people say but we produce many orders of magnitude more toxic chemical waste which is dangerous forever. The fact that nuclear waste becomes safe over time almost seems like an advantage (over other forms of waste at least).
- rrss 6y ago
  Long term storage of high-level nuclear waste is not a technical problem - there are a number of viable solutions. All of them boil down to "dig a deep hole and put the nuclear waste there." The only problem is the political problem of choosing the sites.
- opo 6y ago
  >...It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amounts generated are manageable and in a relatively short amount of time we can use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem... You might change your mind on that after a bit of reflection; it doesn't make sense. We produce a bunch of things that are going to be hazardous forever - I always point to lead when nuclear comes up. The only reason anyone talks about nuclear waste is because 1 football field is small enough that we could contain it forever. Most industrial processes produce too much hazardous waste for that to be feasible.
  - sesuximo 6y ago
    Just look at the sludge that comes with aluminum mining. It’s definitely dangerous and should be handled... but doesn’t mean we should ban aluminum...
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > You might change your mind on that after a bit of reflection; it doesn't make sense. We produce a bunch of things that are going to be hazardous forever - I always point to lead when nuclear comes up. This is actually a particularly apt comparison, because Uranium is a toxic heavy metal that affects the body much like lead. Nuclear waste is toxic forever - but it was toxic before it was used as nuclear fuel, too. I portray it this way: buried in the ground there's toxic uranium in unknown locations. We're taking all this toxic material and putting it in a known location where we can monitor it. And in between we use it to generate carbon free energy.
- BBergdahl 6y ago
  We do have a final long term storage solution for spent swedish waste. Location selected and approved, method tested and the cost has been covered by a nuclear waste fund fee on the produced power. In short it's copper clad steel capsules put in holes surrounded by bentonite clay down in deep shafts dug in stable bedrock. It's probably a waste of good breeder fuel. But it won't leak due to any natural occuring incident in a very, very long time. I think there is information in english here for the curious. https://www.skb.com/ https://www.skb.com/ (They have a nice guided tour down in the research mine the did dig to study water flow and chemistry, can recommend it.http://www.skb.com/research-and-technology/laboratories/the-aspo-hard-rock-laboratory/ http://www.skb.com/research-and-technology/laboratories/the-... ) There is probably other ways of doing it, but saying there is no method ready is wrong. I would prefer to burn it again in a breeder and get 500yr waste instead of 50k yr waste. But if we're going to bury it, this will keep the stuff safe for the time needed.