4 ms·

I didn't downvote and not an activist of any kind (even if there's a campaign, I am not a part of it). But I am very pro-nuclear, so would like to respond to th

by krasin 6y ago

I didn't downvote and not an activist of any kind (even if there's a campaign, I am not a part of it). But I am very pro-nuclear, so would like to respond to the second half of your message: the nuclear waste problem. This is a real problem. Three ways to address. 1. One I don't like, but that's widely deployed: create remote storage facilities and just store it there. This is what's done now, it works, but the costs are pretty high. What's worse, store a tonne once, pay for it forever. 2. One I like a lot and it's getting adoption in Russia: they built light-water reactors that work on nuclear waste ([1]). So, same fuel is used twice and the results are much less dangerous. What's good is that these reactors can run on anyones waste and Russia already imports nuclear waste from Europe. 3. The third option is funny: it might become viable in the next decade. Ship it to the Moon. The math is simple: 1 kg of fuel generates about $5000. If Starship makes the cost of shipping <$500, it would be a no-brainer to ship it all to the Moon. Theoretically, it can also be used as fuel there (see point 2) to generate power for moon bases. In the short term, option 2 looks pretty reasonable to me. 1. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-proposes-new-closed-fuel-cycle https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-proposes-new-...

andbberger 6y ago
It's not a real problem. There really isn't that much high-level nuclear waste and we have a problem with classifying too many things as high-level waste in the US. For the little actual high-level waste that is produced it's a pretty viable medium-term solution just to leave it onsite at the power plant. The long-term solution is obvious: you bury it in a deep unmarked hole, duh. This has been done [1]. Say it with me, there is no nuclear waste problem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Don't bury it. The biggest problem with that is the heat builds up. Just keep it near the surface, where the heat can be dissipated. In 300 years, the fission products are mostly gone (except for 7 "long lived fission products" with halflives in the 10^5 years or longer), so the waste is much easier to reprocess or otherwise dispose of. The problem then is that the radioactivity has dropped so much that amateur diversion of plutonium becomes a concern.
- f_allwein 6y ago
  Would you be fine if we store the nuclear waste in your community then? How will you mark it to warm future generations of its dangers?
  - andbberger 6y ago
    Absolutely! If there is suitable geology, be my guest. Or if there were a neighborhood nuclear power plant that was storing waste medium-term, that would also be welcome. I imagine my neighbors would be less welcoming, but they'll complain about anything (heart of NIMBYville here) Oh and you don't mark it. It's in a deep hole, no one's going own there.
    - drran 6y ago
      > Absolutely! If there is suitable geology, be my guest. I suspect, geology is not suitable.
  - gameman144 6y ago
    > How will you mark it to warm future generations of its dangers? This is a question that's been looked into, and with an interesting past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin...
el_nahual 6y ago
The reason storing nuclear waste is expensive is because you don't want people to be able to get to it and you don't want it to escape if something goes wrong (ie, a flood). Strapping it on a bomb to push it to the moon is obviously never going to happen, no matter how many successful launches SpaceX has.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  The real reason storing nuclear waste is expensive is... not something that is actually true. Storing nuclear waste isn't expensive. Nuclear waste could magically disappear and it would only have a very minor effect on the economics of nuclear power. Or, a country could splurge and reprocess spent fuel, at a higher cost than just storing it, and also not significantly change the economics (this is what France did.)
- adrianN 6y ago
  That seems like a "simple" matter of putting it in some container that survives a rocket crash intact.
godelski 6y ago
> create remote storage facilities and just store it there. What's wrong with this? This is literally what we do for every other type of waste. > One I like a lot and it's getting adoption in Russia You may be interested in what France has been doing for quite some time[0]. The reason America doesn't do it is because fuel is cheap. A small benefit of option 1 is that when fuel is no longer cheap you have an easy point of access. But at the end of the day you still have to put waste somewhere. > To the moon! This option likely won't happen as it is exceedingly dangerous. If a rocket blows up then radiation goes spraying everywhere. This also makes it a big target. Though see below for why this could be an option. Something you haven't mentioned is using waste for other things. This isn't uncommon actually. But given your comment I'm under the impression that you think waste refers to a byproduct from the fuel (forgive me if I am misinterpreting). This is actually an extremely small part of the of the waste. About 3% of nuclear waste is high level waste. People talk about the 60k tons of total waste for all of nuclear power being able to fit on a football field, well only 3% of that is high level waste (which also should change how you think about option 2 because you'll realize that it doesn't solve the waste problem because that's not what the waste is). Low level waste is 90% of the waste, accounts for 1% of the radiation, and is things like tools, clothing, etc[1]. Actually that last part is why the conversations about waste are often seen as quite silly by those who are more familiar with the subject. Because it appears one group is talking about spent uranium as waste and another is talking about bunny suits. Again, 90% of the waste contains 1% of the radiation. Let that sink in. [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... [1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuc...
- fuoqi 6y ago
  Well, France is a bit different in this regard, they indeed have a great expertise in fuel recycling, but the parent comment was talking about fast-neutron reactors such as BN [0] and BREST [1]. Reactors like this not only can "breed" fuel, but also can "burn" the waste as well, thus drastically reducing amount of waste which has to be buried and it makes the waste safer as well, since it will not contain those annoying minor actinides with half-lives in the range of 1k-100k years. France had the Superphenix project [2], but unfortunately it got shut down without a successor... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix
fuoqi 6y ago
>What's good is that these reactors can run on anyones waste and Russia already imports nuclear waste from Europe. You should not mix returning spent fuel rods back to Russia and Uranium tails which Russia processes since it has a more efficient enrichment technology. Often when you hear about "Russia imports radioactive waste" in news it's about the latter and it's a blatant fearmongering. As for the former it's good deal for Russia (since with a right technology such as fast-neutron reactors you can produce new fuel rods from them with a minuscule amount of long-term waste) and for the world (since it contribute to non-proliferation, you don't want storage facilities of highly radioactive stuff which can be easily used for production of "dirty" bombs in every country which has a nuclear reactor).
numpad0 6y ago
> they built light-water reactors that work on nuclear waste ([1]). So, same fuel is used twice You know what that mean? That means they enriched spent fuels. That means “high level waste” = “crude Uranium ore”. Why would you want means of unrecoverable storage for “high level waste” yet not actually carry out that plan? Because those are precious nuclear material. That also means Option 3 is politically improbable: means Russians and Chinese might refine it into nukes up there and away from the world to see.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  Russia already has more than enough nukes and has agreed to limit its stockpiles together with the US (this agreement includes mutual monitoring of warheads). None of those countries need the "burner" reactors or imported spent fuel rods to build more nukes (and usually those rods are simply returned to a country of production), there are far easier ways of doing it. Uranium ore can be easily bought on international market and even can be extracted from the ocean water at a reasonable (but economically unviable at the moment) cost.
fsflover 6y ago
No, nuclear waste is not a real problem: https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html.

by krasin 6y ago

andbberger 6y ago

It's not a real problem. There really isn't that much high-level nuclear waste and we have a problem with classifying too many things as high-level waste in the US. For the little actual high-level waste that is produced it's a pretty viable medium-term solution just to leave it onsite at the power plant. The long-term solution is obvious: you bury it in a deep unmarked hole, duh. This has been done [1]. Say it with me, there is no nuclear waste problem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

pfdietz 6y ago
Don't bury it. The biggest problem with that is the heat builds up. Just keep it near the surface, where the heat can be dissipated. In 300 years, the fission products are mostly gone (except for 7 "long lived fission products" with halflives in the 10^5 years or longer), so the waste is much easier to reprocess or otherwise dispose of. The problem then is that the radioactivity has dropped so much that amateur diversion of plutonium becomes a concern.
f_allwein 6y ago
Would you be fine if we store the nuclear waste in your community then? How will you mark it to warm future generations of its dangers?
- andbberger 6y ago
  Absolutely! If there is suitable geology, be my guest. Or if there were a neighborhood nuclear power plant that was storing waste medium-term, that would also be welcome. I imagine my neighbors would be less welcoming, but they'll complain about anything (heart of NIMBYville here) Oh and you don't mark it. It's in a deep hole, no one's going own there.
  - drran 6y ago
    > Absolutely! If there is suitable geology, be my guest. I suspect, geology is not suitable.
- gameman144 6y ago
  > How will you mark it to warm future generations of its dangers? This is a question that's been looked into, and with an interesting past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin...

el_nahual 6y ago

The reason storing nuclear waste is expensive is because you don't want people to be able to get to it and you don't want it to escape if something goes wrong (ie, a flood). Strapping it on a bomb to push it to the moon is obviously never going to happen, no matter how many successful launches SpaceX has.

pfdietz 6y ago
The real reason storing nuclear waste is expensive is... not something that is actually true. Storing nuclear waste isn't expensive. Nuclear waste could magically disappear and it would only have a very minor effect on the economics of nuclear power. Or, a country could splurge and reprocess spent fuel, at a higher cost than just storing it, and also not significantly change the economics (this is what France did.)
adrianN 6y ago
That seems like a "simple" matter of putting it in some container that survives a rocket crash intact.

godelski 6y ago

> create remote storage facilities and just store it there. What's wrong with this? This is literally what we do for every other type of waste. > One I like a lot and it's getting adoption in Russia You may be interested in what France has been doing for quite some time[0]. The reason America doesn't do it is because fuel is cheap. A small benefit of option 1 is that when fuel is no longer cheap you have an easy point of access. But at the end of the day you still have to put waste somewhere. > To the moon! This option likely won't happen as it is exceedingly dangerous. If a rocket blows up then radiation goes spraying everywhere. This also makes it a big target. Though see below for why this could be an option. Something you haven't mentioned is using waste for other things. This isn't uncommon actually. But given your comment I'm under the impression that you think waste refers to a byproduct from the fuel (forgive me if I am misinterpreting). This is actually an extremely small part of the of the waste. About 3% of nuclear waste is high level waste. People talk about the 60k tons of total waste for all of nuclear power being able to fit on a football field, well only 3% of that is high level waste (which also should change how you think about option 2 because you'll realize that it doesn't solve the waste problem because that's not what the waste is). Low level waste is 90% of the waste, accounts for 1% of the radiation, and is things like tools, clothing, etc[1]. Actually that last part is why the conversations about waste are often seen as quite silly by those who are more familiar with the subject. Because it appears one group is talking about spent uranium as waste and another is talking about bunny suits. Again, 90% of the waste contains 1% of the radiation. Let that sink in. [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... [1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuc...

fuoqi 6y ago
Well, France is a bit different in this regard, they indeed have a great expertise in fuel recycling, but the parent comment was talking about fast-neutron reactors such as BN [0] and BREST [1]. Reactors like this not only can "breed" fuel, but also can "burn" the waste as well, thus drastically reducing amount of waste which has to be buried and it makes the waste safer as well, since it will not contain those annoying minor actinides with half-lives in the range of 1k-100k years. France had the Superphenix project [2], but unfortunately it got shut down without a successor... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

fuoqi 6y ago

>What's good is that these reactors can run on anyones waste and Russia already imports nuclear waste from Europe. You should not mix returning spent fuel rods back to Russia and Uranium tails which Russia processes since it has a more efficient enrichment technology. Often when you hear about "Russia imports radioactive waste" in news it's about the latter and it's a blatant fearmongering. As for the former it's good deal for Russia (since with a right technology such as fast-neutron reactors you can produce new fuel rods from them with a minuscule amount of long-term waste) and for the world (since it contribute to non-proliferation, you don't want storage facilities of highly radioactive stuff which can be easily used for production of "dirty" bombs in every country which has a nuclear reactor).

numpad0 6y ago

> they built light-water reactors that work on nuclear waste ([1]). So, same fuel is used twice You know what that mean? That means they enriched spent fuels. That means “high level waste” = “crude Uranium ore”. Why would you want means of unrecoverable storage for “high level waste” yet not actually carry out that plan? Because those are precious nuclear material. That also means Option 3 is politically improbable: means Russians and Chinese might refine it into nukes up there and away from the world to see.

fuoqi 6y ago
Russia already has more than enough nukes and has agreed to limit its stockpiles together with the US (this agreement includes mutual monitoring of warheads). None of those countries need the "burner" reactors or imported spent fuel rods to build more nukes (and usually those rods are simply returned to a country of production), there are far easier ways of doing it. Uranium ore can be easily bought on international market and even can be extracted from the ocean water at a reasonable (but economically unviable at the moment) cost.

fsflover 6y ago

No, nuclear waste is not a real problem: https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html.