3 ms·

In order to be pro-nuclear power on a large scale, you pretty much have to not care about nuclear waste storage, as we don't have any good long term solutions f

In order to be pro-nuclear power on a large scale, you pretty much have to not care about nuclear waste storage, as we don't have any good long term solutions for it. The favored argument nowadays seems to be that it's not that dangerous and what danger there is is easily outweighed by the climate benefits.

acidburnNSA 6y ago
The current argument is that we know exactly what to do with nuclear waste. Put it deep geologic repositories like onkalo. https://www.posiva.fi/en/ https://www.posiva.fi/en/ If we do end up building a few thousand large reactors, we will want to switch to waste recycling. The whole 'no idea what to do with it' is what the antinuclear movement chose to say after stonewalling the permanent disposal work in the USA for years. Very cynical in my opinion especially if you consider existing waste to be imminently hazardous to the biosphere.
- blabitty 6y ago
  I think it's fair to characterize the antinuclear movement as cynical and disingenuous in general,they are a political movement that has never argued in good faith scientifically. In fairness the original governmental nuclear program withheld from the public that the designs behind power generation were actually being driven by weapons needs and the long term storage issues largely result from that dual use design.
  - acidburnNSA 6y ago
    > In fairness the original governmental nuclear program withheld from the public that the designs behind power generation were actually being driven by weapons needs I have to challenge you on this statement. Certainly the 1940s Hanford reactor designs were for weapons production, and yes dual use (weapons & commercial power) was briefly considered in the early 1950s, but as early as 1953 it was rejected as an option by the US government, who had enough weapons material production coming from Hanford and projections from Savannah River that there was no justification for more. Further, the Atomic Energy Commission actually worried that if nuclear power plants became very popular, they didn't want to be stuck with a fixed price contract requirement to buy any excess plutonium. The Power Demonstration Reactor Program of 1958-1965 was run to find the best reactor for making economical power. It was very open and public. By 1965, light water reactors were offered at cost parity with coal plants and the fleets of today were kicked off. So, brief mention of dual use was ended in the early 1950s, whereas the designs of today were commercialized in the 1960s.
    - philipkglass 6y ago
      The US built one dual use reactor at Hanford. The N Reactor generated weapons plutonium starting in 1963 and it also generated 800 MW of electricity from 1966 on. It shut down in 1987. https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/NReactor https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/NReactor But as you say it was not the norm in the US.
    - blabitty 6y ago
      I stand corrected. I think I am thinking of the Soviet program with regards to heavyweight dual use.
pfdietz 6y ago
You also have to be in favor of breeder reactors, as the uranium runs out otherwise.

acidburnNSA 6y ago

The current argument is that we know exactly what to do with nuclear waste. Put it deep geologic repositories like onkalo. https://www.posiva.fi/en/ https://www.posiva.fi/en/ If we do end up building a few thousand large reactors, we will want to switch to waste recycling. The whole 'no idea what to do with it' is what the antinuclear movement chose to say after stonewalling the permanent disposal work in the USA for years. Very cynical in my opinion especially if you consider existing waste to be imminently hazardous to the biosphere.

blabitty 6y ago
I think it's fair to characterize the antinuclear movement as cynical and disingenuous in general,they are a political movement that has never argued in good faith scientifically. In fairness the original governmental nuclear program withheld from the public that the designs behind power generation were actually being driven by weapons needs and the long term storage issues largely result from that dual use design.
- acidburnNSA 6y ago
  > In fairness the original governmental nuclear program withheld from the public that the designs behind power generation were actually being driven by weapons needs I have to challenge you on this statement. Certainly the 1940s Hanford reactor designs were for weapons production, and yes dual use (weapons & commercial power) was briefly considered in the early 1950s, but as early as 1953 it was rejected as an option by the US government, who had enough weapons material production coming from Hanford and projections from Savannah River that there was no justification for more. Further, the Atomic Energy Commission actually worried that if nuclear power plants became very popular, they didn't want to be stuck with a fixed price contract requirement to buy any excess plutonium. The Power Demonstration Reactor Program of 1958-1965 was run to find the best reactor for making economical power. It was very open and public. By 1965, light water reactors were offered at cost parity with coal plants and the fleets of today were kicked off. So, brief mention of dual use was ended in the early 1950s, whereas the designs of today were commercialized in the 1960s.
  - philipkglass 6y ago
    The US built one dual use reactor at Hanford. The N Reactor generated weapons plutonium starting in 1963 and it also generated 800 MW of electricity from 1966 on. It shut down in 1987. https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/NReactor https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/NReactor But as you say it was not the norm in the US.
  - blabitty 6y ago
    I stand corrected. I think I am thinking of the Soviet program with regards to heavyweight dual use.

pfdietz 6y ago

You also have to be in favor of breeder reactors, as the uranium runs out otherwise.