4 ms·

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

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...

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...