3 ms·

There are good permanent disposal methods available. The deep geologic repository under construction in Finland is probably the best example. More info here: ht

There are good permanent disposal methods available. The deep geologic repository under construction in Finland is probably the best example. More info here: https://whataboutthewaste.com https://whataboutthewaste.com People use "what about the waste" as a reason to not use nuclear. Yet, fossil and renewable biofuel waste is (as mentioned) just dumped into the biosphere where it ends and estimated 8 million lives early per year, according to the WHO. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution

e12e 6y ago
Unfortunately that doesn't quite solve the problem of getting waste from reactor to storage site.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  It’s not really much of a problem. You leave the waste in a cooling pond at the plant for a couple of decades while you wait for all the really threatening stuff to decay, and then drive it where it needs to go in a truck. It’s a bunch of big metal rods in canisters. It can’t really “spill” and if it does you just pick it up and put it back in the truck. Uranium and plutonium are really not very threatening to human life.
- liability 6y ago
  Besides the obvious NIMBY problems, are there any problems with sealed casks transported by train?
  - cogman10 6y ago
    No. These things are tested to a VERY high standard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4
- manfredo 6y ago
  Getting the waste to a storage facility is very easy. You put it on a semi trailer and move it to the storage site: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images/f1big.jpg http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images... Nuclear waste is radioactive, but not so radioactive that it's unsafe to stand next to a container. Most waste is stored on site. It actually doesn't make sense to move nuclear waste to permanent storage because some reactor designs can use this waste as fuel.
marshray 6y ago
That option doesn't exist in the US. We have no permanent disposal facilities, not even in the planning stage. https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear...
- trothamel 6y ago
  https://www.wipp.energy.gov/ https://www.wipp.energy.gov/ is one, though that's for government rather than commercial waste. It's a matter of political will at this point.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    The 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future report [1] literally said that: "Ensuring access to dedicated funding – Current federal budget rules and laws make it impossible for the nuclear waste program to have assured access to the fees being collected from nuclear utilities and ratepayers to finance the commercial share of the waste program’s expenses. We have recommended a partial remedy that should be implemented promptly by the Administration, working with the relevant congressional committees and the Congressional Budget Office. A long-term remedy requires legislation to provide access to the Nuclear Waste Fund and fees independent of the annual appropriations process but subject to rigorous independent financial and managerial oversight." [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20120807061024/http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120807061024/http://brc.gov/si...
- manfredo 6y ago
  We do have a permanent disposal facility built, but congress chose to forbid its operation. This is a self inflicted problem: we don't have a permanent disposal facility because we refuse to use the permanent disposal facility we built. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste...
  - ethbr0 6y ago
godelski 6y ago
Not to mention the waste associated with semi-conductors. Long term waste is not just a problem associated with nuclear. It is also worth mentioning that the major waste issues are associated with DoE weapon sites and not as much power sites. I would also encourage other's to click on acidburnNSA's profile as this is where their expertise lies and they have written extensively (with plenty of links) on the subject.[0] [0] https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html

e12e 6y ago

Unfortunately that doesn't quite solve the problem of getting waste from reactor to storage site.

dodobirdlord 6y ago
It’s not really much of a problem. You leave the waste in a cooling pond at the plant for a couple of decades while you wait for all the really threatening stuff to decay, and then drive it where it needs to go in a truck. It’s a bunch of big metal rods in canisters. It can’t really “spill” and if it does you just pick it up and put it back in the truck. Uranium and plutonium are really not very threatening to human life.
liability 6y ago
Besides the obvious NIMBY problems, are there any problems with sealed casks transported by train?
- cogman10 6y ago
  No. These things are tested to a VERY high standard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4
manfredo 6y ago
Getting the waste to a storage facility is very easy. You put it on a semi trailer and move it to the storage site: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images/f1big.jpg http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images... Nuclear waste is radioactive, but not so radioactive that it's unsafe to stand next to a container. Most waste is stored on site. It actually doesn't make sense to move nuclear waste to permanent storage because some reactor designs can use this waste as fuel.

marshray 6y ago

That option doesn't exist in the US. We have no permanent disposal facilities, not even in the planning stage. https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear...

trothamel 6y ago
https://www.wipp.energy.gov/ https://www.wipp.energy.gov/ is one, though that's for government rather than commercial waste. It's a matter of political will at this point.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  The 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future report [1] literally said that: "Ensuring access to dedicated funding – Current federal budget rules and laws make it impossible for the nuclear waste program to have assured access to the fees being collected from nuclear utilities and ratepayers to finance the commercial share of the waste program’s expenses. We have recommended a partial remedy that should be implemented promptly by the Administration, working with the relevant congressional committees and the Congressional Budget Office. A long-term remedy requires legislation to provide access to the Nuclear Waste Fund and fees independent of the annual appropriations process but subject to rigorous independent financial and managerial oversight." [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20120807061024/http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120807061024/http://brc.gov/si...
manfredo 6y ago
We do have a permanent disposal facility built, but congress chose to forbid its operation. This is a self inflicted problem: we don't have a permanent disposal facility because we refuse to use the permanent disposal facility we built. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste...
- ethbr0 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

Not to mention the waste associated with semi-conductors. Long term waste is not just a problem associated with nuclear. It is also worth mentioning that the major waste issues are associated with DoE weapon sites and not as much power sites. I would also encourage other's to click on acidburnNSA's profile as this is where their expertise lies and they have written extensively (with plenty of links) on the subject.[0] [0] https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html