5 ms·

Solar panels have a relatively short lifespan, require and enormous amount of material compared to the energy they generate, and contain toxic elements that nev

by jchook 5y ago

Solar panels have a relatively short lifespan, require and enormous amount of material compared to the energy they generate, and contain toxic elements that never break down. In contrast, all the nuclear waste generated by the world since the invention of nuclear energy can fit into a single Highschool auditorium. For perspective, a giant freight ship that burns two tons of crude fuel per hour could run on 5g of plutonium per year.

lwhi 5y ago
I'm sorry, but comparing the nuclear waste to the waste provided by solar panels is absolute lunacy.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  Nuclear waste isn't really waste. That's part of the reason why projects like Yucca Mountain haven't been completed. Natural uranium is a mixture of U235 and U238, an LWR consumes U235 and a small amount of the U238. It gets maybe 2% of the energy out of the uranium and most of the long-lived radioactivity is Pu239 and related actinides that have value as fuel. (In a reprocessing cycle almost all of the waste decays in 500 years.) Reprocessing nuclear fuel to produce uranium and plutonium powder is a straightforward technology. What's not straightforward is fabricating fuel out of that powder. The most practical way to alloy oxides of U and Pu is to put them through a high-energy ball mill that fuses together nanoparticles of U and Pu. The HEBM can make something like Silica into a deadly poison, so just think what it can do with Plutonium! It seems impossible to run a Pu fuel fab that is a safe place to work without using a respirator full time. The French seem cool with it, but it violates the labor laws in every other country. To make it worse, fuel fabrication is a labor intensive process which involves somebody putting pellets into a fuel rod with gloved hands. There are alternatives (co-precipitation, liquid fuel reactors, robotics) but they have to be developed to close the fuel cycle.
  - lwhi 5y ago
    > Nuclear waste isn't really waste. In which case why are a number of other proponents in this thread suggesting the best solution is to bury it?
    - jabl 5y ago
      Because currently fresh uranium is cheaper than reprocessing spent fuel. Further, to really close the fuel cycle and get the full benefits of reprocessing you need breeder reactors, another technology that exists and is proven to work, but with current Uranium prices isn't yet competitive with thermal reactors and a once-through fuel cycle.
      - lwhi 5y ago
        So for now, it actually is waste.
        PaulHoule 5y ago
        Except for the fact that people refuse to bury it.
        lwhi 5y ago
        The inconvenient truth.
      - PaulHoule 5y ago
        None of the cost estimates on this subject really make sense because of the period of time involved. For instance "no nukes" think it is a scandal that we could spend $100 billion on Yucca mountain, but the average nuclear plant makes about $500 million per year in electricity so that is about 2 years of energy production. It's significant, but it's not crazy. A reprocessing cycle could easily take a century to fully burn U238 so "what it costs" is influenced by what you think interest rates will be (or should) be for next 100 years. Fuel cycle costs are nearly zero compared to the cost of the steam turbine at an LWR. If the price of uranium tripled, it would make little different in the basebar price of electricity.
fsh 5y ago
What "certain toxic elements than never break down" would that be? Typical lifespans are estimated to be 25-30 years. I doubt that any other power plant will run that long without requiring major maintenance.
pepperberg 5y ago
" all the nuclear waste generated by the world since the invention of nuclear energy can fit into a single Highschool auditorium" Source?
- jchook 5y ago
  It’s an inexact measurement to give you an idea of how little waste is actually produced. I used to feel very anti-nuclear, mostly out of fear and lack of information. Then I read more about it and learned that taking point. Other sources I find from a quick google use different comparisons, like this one[1]: > In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. > Used fuel can be recycled. > More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor. Or this measurement[2]: > a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 2. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear...
- NineStarPoint 5y ago
  Well, optimistically, there’s about 250,000 tons of high level nuclear waste worldwide, which represents about 13,000 cubic meters of waste. Auditoriums tend to max out at 5000 cubic meters, so, it’s fair to say it would take a few auditoriums. Best way to put it that can be understood visually is that it’s about 5-6 olympic sized swimming pools worth of waste. And generally the high level stuff is mixed in with other waste people don’t bother to separate, so could be considered a few times more than that.
Angostura 5y ago
> In contrast, all the nuclear waste generated by the world since the invention of nuclear energy can fit into a single Highschool auditorium. Even a cursory glance at the amount of storage in a singe UK site, Sellafield would tell you that you are wrong. Unless, this is a rether exceptional high school https://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-sellafield-nuclear-waste-decommissioning https://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-sellafield-nuclear-wa...
- falcolas 5y ago
  You're right and wrong. The waste amount is rather small, but the steel, concrete, and water required to contain that amount is several orders of magnitude larger. The parent is ignoring those containment requirements (or relying heavily on technologies that are still in the research phase).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
falcolas 5y ago
But that 5g requires years of storage in a reasonably large body of water to cool it down, and then several tons of steel and concrete to store it safely. https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by jchook 5y ago

lwhi 5y ago

I'm sorry, but comparing the nuclear waste to the waste provided by solar panels is absolute lunacy.

PaulHoule 5y ago
Nuclear waste isn't really waste. That's part of the reason why projects like Yucca Mountain haven't been completed. Natural uranium is a mixture of U235 and U238, an LWR consumes U235 and a small amount of the U238. It gets maybe 2% of the energy out of the uranium and most of the long-lived radioactivity is Pu239 and related actinides that have value as fuel. (In a reprocessing cycle almost all of the waste decays in 500 years.) Reprocessing nuclear fuel to produce uranium and plutonium powder is a straightforward technology. What's not straightforward is fabricating fuel out of that powder. The most practical way to alloy oxides of U and Pu is to put them through a high-energy ball mill that fuses together nanoparticles of U and Pu. The HEBM can make something like Silica into a deadly poison, so just think what it can do with Plutonium! It seems impossible to run a Pu fuel fab that is a safe place to work without using a respirator full time. The French seem cool with it, but it violates the labor laws in every other country. To make it worse, fuel fabrication is a labor intensive process which involves somebody putting pellets into a fuel rod with gloved hands. There are alternatives (co-precipitation, liquid fuel reactors, robotics) but they have to be developed to close the fuel cycle.
- lwhi 5y ago
  > Nuclear waste isn't really waste. In which case why are a number of other proponents in this thread suggesting the best solution is to bury it?
  - jabl 5y ago
    Because currently fresh uranium is cheaper than reprocessing spent fuel. Further, to really close the fuel cycle and get the full benefits of reprocessing you need breeder reactors, another technology that exists and is proven to work, but with current Uranium prices isn't yet competitive with thermal reactors and a once-through fuel cycle.
    - lwhi 5y ago
      So for now, it actually is waste.
      - PaulHoule 5y ago
        Except for the fact that people refuse to bury it.
        lwhi 5y ago
        The inconvenient truth.
    - PaulHoule 5y ago
      None of the cost estimates on this subject really make sense because of the period of time involved. For instance "no nukes" think it is a scandal that we could spend $100 billion on Yucca mountain, but the average nuclear plant makes about $500 million per year in electricity so that is about 2 years of energy production. It's significant, but it's not crazy. A reprocessing cycle could easily take a century to fully burn U238 so "what it costs" is influenced by what you think interest rates will be (or should) be for next 100 years. Fuel cycle costs are nearly zero compared to the cost of the steam turbine at an LWR. If the price of uranium tripled, it would make little different in the basebar price of electricity.

fsh 5y ago

What "certain toxic elements than never break down" would that be? Typical lifespans are estimated to be 25-30 years. I doubt that any other power plant will run that long without requiring major maintenance.

pepperberg 5y ago

" all the nuclear waste generated by the world since the invention of nuclear energy can fit into a single Highschool auditorium" Source?

jchook 5y ago
It’s an inexact measurement to give you an idea of how little waste is actually produced. I used to feel very anti-nuclear, mostly out of fear and lack of information. Then I read more about it and learned that taking point. Other sources I find from a quick google use different comparisons, like this one[1]: > In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. > Used fuel can be recycled. > More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor. Or this measurement[2]: > a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 2. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear...
NineStarPoint 5y ago
Well, optimistically, there’s about 250,000 tons of high level nuclear waste worldwide, which represents about 13,000 cubic meters of waste. Auditoriums tend to max out at 5000 cubic meters, so, it’s fair to say it would take a few auditoriums. Best way to put it that can be understood visually is that it’s about 5-6 olympic sized swimming pools worth of waste. And generally the high level stuff is mixed in with other waste people don’t bother to separate, so could be considered a few times more than that.

Angostura 5y ago

> In contrast, all the nuclear waste generated by the world since the invention of nuclear energy can fit into a single Highschool auditorium. Even a cursory glance at the amount of storage in a singe UK site, Sellafield would tell you that you are wrong. Unless, this is a rether exceptional high school https://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-sellafield-nuclear-waste-decommissioning https://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-sellafield-nuclear-wa...

falcolas 5y ago
You're right and wrong. The waste amount is rather small, but the steel, concrete, and water required to contain that amount is several orders of magnitude larger. The parent is ignoring those containment requirements (or relying heavily on technologies that are still in the research phase).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

falcolas 5y ago

But that 5g requires years of storage in a reasonably large body of water to cool it down, and then several tons of steel and concrete to store it safely. https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]