4 ms·

Since the HN crowd is really pro-nuclear and in my bubble nobody is maybe somebody could explain how to handle nuclear waste and if modern reators are really as

by domano 5y ago

Since the HN crowd is really pro-nuclear and in my bubble nobody is maybe somebody could explain how to handle nuclear waste and if modern reators are really as safe as it is often portraied in the comments here. Even modern reactors would produce radioactive waste, right? In germany we don't have any place that is safe enough for long term storage. How can this be handled? Would really like to change my mind regarding nuclear power, since it would solve the transitional phase towards renewables. Also: Quite regurarily cracks are found in the reactors in germany and other countries. Other smaller things happen all the time too. Are modern reactors failsafe? I

whb07 5y ago
Many of the newer reactors don’t need the level of radioactive material as compared to the older ones. AFAIK, some newer ones could even run on spent rods. As to the feasibility of storage of old material, assume that Germany literally had no excess land to place it on, what about other countries? You couldn’t imagine a country with excess worthless land willing to lease it? Wouldn’t that be a net positive for Germany, for the poor country, and less emissions globally? Lastly on the failsafes, there are improvements and so called “passive” implementations, but outside of the failed communist state and the tsunami incidents, what critical failures are there? Not talking about 3 mile island etc that were more fear porn than anything.
credit_guy 5y ago
By chemistry and alchemy. Chemistry: also known as reprocessing [1]. A lot of the nuclear waste is uranium and plutonium, that can be separated and made into nuclear fuel, and put back to work. The side-effect is that the amount of waste is reduced. In principle, chemical separation can be further used to separate the more dangerous isotopes (the ones with half-lives of more than 5 years) from the short-lived isotopes, which will decay naturally in a reasonable amount of time (<100 years). Alchemy: nuclear transmutation. This can be achieved via bombardment with neutrons. The most efficient way to do that is with a breeder-reactor [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio...
yongjik 5y ago
Imagine the following hypothetical solution: We just mix nuclear waste with a lot of dirt. Let's say, millions and millions of tons of dirt. Now we have much lower concentration, but of course that's still a public health hazard. But! Since there is so much waste now, and since each individual kilogram is not that dangerous, let's just dump it somewhere - in a garbage dump, along the beach, or just dump it straight to the sea. The sea is big, after all. Horrified enough? Now realize this is exactly what we are doing with fossil fuels. By the way, Germany is still using as much fossil fuels as renewables, and is in talks with Russia to import even more. So, we can just throw radioactive waste somewhere deep underground. That's already miles better than fossil fuels. That's miles better than what Germany (and every other nations in the world) are doing right now.
- anoncake 5y ago
  The question was about nuclear, not fossils.
  - yongjik 5y ago
    "It's better than fossil fuels" is a valid answer for any country that's still using fossil fuels. When Germany achieves 0% fossil fuels and figure out how to undo the damage already done by fossil fuels, feel free to complain about nuclear waste.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      No, it really isn't. We are on the way to replacing fossils.
- bromuro 5y ago
  Throwing nuclear waste somewhere underground doesn’t sound cool either.
Meandering 5y ago
New reactors should reduce the waste produced per reactor and/or offer ways reduce it. In general, Gen IV reactors produce far less waste per kWh. There are some theoretical MSRs, molten salt reactors, that may even be used to reduce the radioactivity of existing waste. All active nuclear power plants use LWRs, light water reactors, which need to be refueled every two years. The "spent rods" still have a significant amount of energy. The best Gen IV reactors require one refuel every thirty years. I believe, with enough investment and research, we will see more opportunities to not only reduce but, reuse and recycle waste. The real question is would you rather deal with waste confined to containers or waste that has been spewed into the environment. There are a lot of structural issues with the current fleet of reactors. Partially because these reactors were built decades ago and have been used far past their designed lifespan. We shouldn't equivocate the capability and issues of old nuclear with new nuclear technology. Yes... solar, wind, hydro, and grid storage technology have the potential to support our power generation and distribution infrastructure. However, it isn't realistic to expect this within the next couple of decades. Although, we see how investment into these sectors have helped accelerate the technology. We should do the same for nuclear which is powerful, proven, and the only direct replacement for coal and oil(without upgrading the infrastructure). Give me 10 large Gen VI reactors and I can wipe a huge amount of carbon emission out of the mix. Instead of waiting for all these small pieces to be developed, organized, and synchronized into a fully functioning grid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bsder 5y ago
If the total amount of nuclear waste completely got loose into the environment, the damage done by fossil fuels and mining would still dwarf it by orders of magnitude. Take a a look at the strip mining damage done in Western Pennsylvania. Those mines continue to leach sulfur into the local rivers and have done so for decades. Centralia had to be evacuated because a coal seam is on fire and "it's too expensive" to put out. And how much junk do we breathe every day due to all the cars? And that's before we start talking about places like China and India (where the air pollution is hideous).

by domano 5y ago

whb07 5y ago

Many of the newer reactors don’t need the level of radioactive material as compared to the older ones. AFAIK, some newer ones could even run on spent rods. As to the feasibility of storage of old material, assume that Germany literally had no excess land to place it on, what about other countries? You couldn’t imagine a country with excess worthless land willing to lease it? Wouldn’t that be a net positive for Germany, for the poor country, and less emissions globally? Lastly on the failsafes, there are improvements and so called “passive” implementations, but outside of the failed communist state and the tsunami incidents, what critical failures are there? Not talking about 3 mile island etc that were more fear porn than anything.

credit_guy 5y ago

By chemistry and alchemy. Chemistry: also known as reprocessing [1]. A lot of the nuclear waste is uranium and plutonium, that can be separated and made into nuclear fuel, and put back to work. The side-effect is that the amount of waste is reduced. In principle, chemical separation can be further used to separate the more dangerous isotopes (the ones with half-lives of more than 5 years) from the short-lived isotopes, which will decay naturally in a reasonable amount of time (<100 years). Alchemy: nuclear transmutation. This can be achieved via bombardment with neutrons. The most efficient way to do that is with a breeder-reactor [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio...

yongjik 5y ago

Imagine the following hypothetical solution: We just mix nuclear waste with a lot of dirt. Let's say, millions and millions of tons of dirt. Now we have much lower concentration, but of course that's still a public health hazard. But! Since there is so much waste now, and since each individual kilogram is not that dangerous, let's just dump it somewhere - in a garbage dump, along the beach, or just dump it straight to the sea. The sea is big, after all. Horrified enough? Now realize this is exactly what we are doing with fossil fuels. By the way, Germany is still using as much fossil fuels as renewables, and is in talks with Russia to import even more. So, we can just throw radioactive waste somewhere deep underground. That's already miles better than fossil fuels. That's miles better than what Germany (and every other nations in the world) are doing right now.

anoncake 5y ago
The question was about nuclear, not fossils.
- yongjik 5y ago
  "It's better than fossil fuels" is a valid answer for any country that's still using fossil fuels. When Germany achieves 0% fossil fuels and figure out how to undo the damage already done by fossil fuels, feel free to complain about nuclear waste.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    No, it really isn't. We are on the way to replacing fossils.
bromuro 5y ago
Throwing nuclear waste somewhere underground doesn’t sound cool either.

Meandering 5y ago

New reactors should reduce the waste produced per reactor and/or offer ways reduce it. In general, Gen IV reactors produce far less waste per kWh. There are some theoretical MSRs, molten salt reactors, that may even be used to reduce the radioactivity of existing waste. All active nuclear power plants use LWRs, light water reactors, which need to be refueled every two years. The "spent rods" still have a significant amount of energy. The best Gen IV reactors require one refuel every thirty years. I believe, with enough investment and research, we will see more opportunities to not only reduce but, reuse and recycle waste. The real question is would you rather deal with waste confined to containers or waste that has been spewed into the environment. There are a lot of structural issues with the current fleet of reactors. Partially because these reactors were built decades ago and have been used far past their designed lifespan. We shouldn't equivocate the capability and issues of old nuclear with new nuclear technology. Yes... solar, wind, hydro, and grid storage technology have the potential to support our power generation and distribution infrastructure. However, it isn't realistic to expect this within the next couple of decades. Although, we see how investment into these sectors have helped accelerate the technology. We should do the same for nuclear which is powerful, proven, and the only direct replacement for coal and oil(without upgrading the infrastructure). Give me 10 large Gen VI reactors and I can wipe a huge amount of carbon emission out of the mix. Instead of waiting for all these small pieces to be developed, organized, and synchronized into a fully functioning grid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bsder 5y ago

If the total amount of nuclear waste completely got loose into the environment, the damage done by fossil fuels and mining would still dwarf it by orders of magnitude. Take a a look at the strip mining damage done in Western Pennsylvania. Those mines continue to leach sulfur into the local rivers and have done so for decades. Centralia had to be evacuated because a coal seam is on fire and "it's too expensive" to put out. And how much junk do we breathe every day due to all the cars? And that's before we start talking about places like China and India (where the air pollution is hideous).