4 ms·

Can you explain how the total cost of ownership is economic, when you include the cost of managing nuclear wastes for thousands of years? There is such a woefu

Can you explain how the total cost of ownership is economic, when you include the cost of managing nuclear wastes for thousands of years? There is such a woeful global record of adequate safety measures not being included in any total cost budgeting for nuclear power. Real safety seems to always be an off-budget item. Not to mention the weapons proliferation risk. No thanks.

mabbo 6y ago
Let's break down the problem you've stated. > managing nuclear wastes for thousands of years There's a fun way to think about this: the more dangerous the isotopes in terms of radiation, the faster it becomes safer. That radiation is the isotope breaking down into something else, something more stable. For the most dangerous waste, the stuff that has proliferation risks, in a few decades it's not nearly as dangerous. So "thousands of years" is a popular misunderstanding, in my view. > There is such a woeful global record of adequate safety measures There have been a small number of incidents- Chernobyl and Fukishima primarily- but that mostly boils down to poor initial designs or choices for locations. No CANDU[0]-based reactor design has ever had a dangerous safety incident. I know I'm trying to convince you of something you don't agree with, but give this link[1] a chance. It has a lot of answers to some of your oppositions- maybe you agree with them, maybe you don't, but I think it's well written at least. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor [1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > So "thousands of years" is a popular misunderstanding, in my view. "Thousands of years" comes from the half life of Plutonium-239, which is 24,000 years. Pu-239 isn't unusually dangerous for an isotope. It's chemically toxic and somewhat radioactive but so is tons of stuff. The biggest problem with it is that you can make nuclear weapons from it. Most commercial reactors make both Pu-239 and Pu-240. They're infeasible to separate (harder than separating U-235 from natural uranium) and enough Pu-240 makes the plutonium unsuitable for weapons. But Pu-240 has a shorter half life than Pu-239. So if you take the plutonium out of a legacy reactor and bury it in the ground for a long time, it turns into weapons-grade plutonium. Burying it in the ground is very stupid because then you have to guard it for tens of thousands of years to keep anyone from going in and taking it to make nuclear weapons from. But that ship has sailed. We have a half century of the stuff already. Half again as much or not makes no difference, we need a solution for what do with what we already have regardless of whether we make any more. The solution is that newer reactors can use plutonium as fuel, which permanently eliminates it. So far from nuclear waste being a reason not to build newer reactors, it's the reason we should, so we can get rid of what we already have before it becomes suitable for weapons.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    239Pu's radiotoxicity vastly exceeds its chemical toxicity.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      As an alpha emitter with a long half life?
tarboreus 6y ago
Note that we also don't price in the gloabal warming of the planet, the medical costs of asthma, and the deaths from cancer that fossil fuels bring about. Or the ecological costs of the large land masses needed for renewables, which increase as low-hanging fruit is picked and you try to scale renewables up to a whole society. I think proponents of nuclear welcome the cost comparisons. Nuclear stacks up really well when you start factoring in externalities. I'd recommend looking into long term storage. The story there is a lot better than you'd think. It's kind of funny that this is even brought up at this point. These arguments from the '60s are why we have a warmed planet.
kevincox 6y ago
For Canada most of the country is basically unpopulated. We have enough land that we can store nuclear waste for basically forever with very minor costs.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  The areas using nuclear are some of the most densely populated areas in North America, hugging the US border, and adjacent to the great lakes (in fact the generating stations are right on the lakes). Transporting the waste out is a constant risk, and there's been some rather disturbing proposals to do things like store the waste in an underground dump near Lake Huron, upstream from the water supply for the 3rd/4th biggest city in North America. So, no, I don't think your analysis applies here.

mabbo 6y ago

Let's break down the problem you've stated. > managing nuclear wastes for thousands of years There's a fun way to think about this: the more dangerous the isotopes in terms of radiation, the faster it becomes safer. That radiation is the isotope breaking down into something else, something more stable. For the most dangerous waste, the stuff that has proliferation risks, in a few decades it's not nearly as dangerous. So "thousands of years" is a popular misunderstanding, in my view. > There is such a woeful global record of adequate safety measures There have been a small number of incidents- Chernobyl and Fukishima primarily- but that mostly boils down to poor initial designs or choices for locations. No CANDU[0]-based reactor design has ever had a dangerous safety incident. I know I'm trying to convince you of something you don't agree with, but give this link[1] a chance. It has a lot of answers to some of your oppositions- maybe you agree with them, maybe you don't, but I think it's well written at least. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor [1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> So "thousands of years" is a popular misunderstanding, in my view. "Thousands of years" comes from the half life of Plutonium-239, which is 24,000 years. Pu-239 isn't unusually dangerous for an isotope. It's chemically toxic and somewhat radioactive but so is tons of stuff. The biggest problem with it is that you can make nuclear weapons from it. Most commercial reactors make both Pu-239 and Pu-240. They're infeasible to separate (harder than separating U-235 from natural uranium) and enough Pu-240 makes the plutonium unsuitable for weapons. But Pu-240 has a shorter half life than Pu-239. So if you take the plutonium out of a legacy reactor and bury it in the ground for a long time, it turns into weapons-grade plutonium. Burying it in the ground is very stupid because then you have to guard it for tens of thousands of years to keep anyone from going in and taking it to make nuclear weapons from. But that ship has sailed. We have a half century of the stuff already. Half again as much or not makes no difference, we need a solution for what do with what we already have regardless of whether we make any more. The solution is that newer reactors can use plutonium as fuel, which permanently eliminates it. So far from nuclear waste being a reason not to build newer reactors, it's the reason we should, so we can get rid of what we already have before it becomes suitable for weapons.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  239Pu's radiotoxicity vastly exceeds its chemical toxicity.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    As an alpha emitter with a long half life?

tarboreus 6y ago

Note that we also don't price in the gloabal warming of the planet, the medical costs of asthma, and the deaths from cancer that fossil fuels bring about. Or the ecological costs of the large land masses needed for renewables, which increase as low-hanging fruit is picked and you try to scale renewables up to a whole society. I think proponents of nuclear welcome the cost comparisons. Nuclear stacks up really well when you start factoring in externalities. I'd recommend looking into long term storage. The story there is a lot better than you'd think. It's kind of funny that this is even brought up at this point. These arguments from the '60s are why we have a warmed planet.

kevincox 6y ago

For Canada most of the country is basically unpopulated. We have enough land that we can store nuclear waste for basically forever with very minor costs.

cmrdporcupine 6y ago
The areas using nuclear are some of the most densely populated areas in North America, hugging the US border, and adjacent to the great lakes (in fact the generating stations are right on the lakes). Transporting the waste out is a constant risk, and there's been some rather disturbing proposals to do things like store the waste in an underground dump near Lake Huron, upstream from the water supply for the 3rd/4th biggest city in North America. So, no, I don't think your analysis applies here.