6 ms·

Well there are breeder reactors that significantly transform waste to less harmful products, and the Russians have basically commercialized them. But they're s

Well there are breeder reactors that significantly transform waste to less harmful products, and the Russians have basically commercialized them. But they're still a bad idea. Nuclear waste implies a strong, competent, and stable state that is able to secure it for millennia. Fifteen years ago when I arrived to the US the Americans I spoke of couldn't conceive their hegemony collapsing or the US state becoming incompetent. This, I think, is the strongest argument against (current) nuclear power - in time it appears that all regimes collapse, geographic areas fall into anarchy and chaos. Human society simply doesn't have the proven long term stability to secure nuclear power.

helloworld11 5y ago
You're aware also that storage of all the nuclear waste produced since the beginning of nuclear power to today would require a remarkably small amount of space, which even in conditions of political turmoil (when are conditions not in some state of turmoil, often far worse than today?) is far from as hard to find as you're painting it with your fearful idea of all governments collapsing "eventually". Specifically, for the U.S at least, in 2018, there were just over 80,000 metric tonnes of high-level waste that have been generated since the 1950's to now, all capable of fitting inside a single football field to a depth of just under 10 meters, and no more than 400,000 tonnes globally. That's pretty much all of it so far (sources: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1799_web.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1799_web.pdf, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... ). Between 1971 and 2018, nuclear reactors in the USA generated 3000 GW-years of electricity to make their 80,000 tonnes. Also, given the average density of most spent nuclear fuel, 80,000 or even 400,000 tonnes is not a tremendous physical volume to find some safe place for in the largely stable countries where most of it has been produced for many decades. There are far more immediately dangerous substances and objects in much less stable storage conditions all over the world (small arms, conventional explosives, landmines, toxic chemicals we have no way of not producing etc) that should warrant far more concern for the deaths they could or even do already cause per ton of weight.... Also, to debunk a few general misconceptions about storing nuclear waste. Yes the source has a certain bias, but it delivers well-reasoned points and offers sources of its own: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
- sasfasaf 5y ago
  Ok, look, I'd rather not talk about "football fields 10 meters deep". But going by that number your 80 000 metric tonnes of spent fuel has an average density of 740kg/m^3. So does your football field include the empty space necessary to keep the rods far apart (to keep them cool and not critical)? But never-mind the technicalities, you cannot dismiss the geo-political implications. We have barely existed as a species in the time length nuclear waste decays. We have only 5000 years or so of statehood, the vast majority of them since collapsed. Unless you propose burying the waste in the Marianna trench (I think there is merit there), I really need to see the stability concerns addressed. EDIT: And yes, I am "aware". I stated my undergrad in a nuclear eng program, and switched to physics after a few courses. I still have friends in the industry and to say morale is low is an understatement.
  - MagnumOpus 5y ago
    > So does your football field include the empty space necessary to keep the rods far apart If you are "aware" you might know that 99% of nuclear waste is low-level (contaminated hospital waste, rags, paper) or intermediate-level (cladding, concrete or chemicals from decommissioned reactors that are irradiated). These will never go critical. Even high-level radioactive waste doesn't go critical because the hot parts are either (a) valuable and get reprocessed into new fuel or (b) have short half lives and decay within a few month in the spent fuel pool of the power plants before being shipped away.
    - sasfasaf 5y ago
      Yes, I am aware of the difference between high and low level fuel and the stew of different half lives of the constituents of higher level fuel. There's 47 k tones of high level waste in the US alone [1].So I think it's fair to assume that your 80 000 tonnes world wide was high level waste. Which has to be kept far apart from each other since they decay and at the very least generate heat. Therefore, apartness is an integral part of repository design. Yucca Mountain has a capacity for 70 000 tonnes. That is, its not big enough to store the world's waste despite nuclear power having a small fraction of the overall worldwide power production over the last 60 years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...

helloworld11 5y ago

You're aware also that storage of all the nuclear waste produced since the beginning of nuclear power to today would require a remarkably small amount of space, which even in conditions of political turmoil (when are conditions not in some state of turmoil, often far worse than today?) is far from as hard to find as you're painting it with your fearful idea of all governments collapsing "eventually". Specifically, for the U.S at least, in 2018, there were just over 80,000 metric tonnes of high-level waste that have been generated since the 1950's to now, all capable of fitting inside a single football field to a depth of just under 10 meters, and no more than 400,000 tonnes globally. That's pretty much all of it so far (sources: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1799_web.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1799_web.pdf, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... ). Between 1971 and 2018, nuclear reactors in the USA generated 3000 GW-years of electricity to make their 80,000 tonnes. Also, given the average density of most spent nuclear fuel, 80,000 or even 400,000 tonnes is not a tremendous physical volume to find some safe place for in the largely stable countries where most of it has been produced for many decades. There are far more immediately dangerous substances and objects in much less stable storage conditions all over the world (small arms, conventional explosives, landmines, toxic chemicals we have no way of not producing etc) that should warrant far more concern for the deaths they could or even do already cause per ton of weight.... Also, to debunk a few general misconceptions about storing nuclear waste. Yes the source has a certain bias, but it delivers well-reasoned points and offers sources of its own: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

sasfasaf 5y ago
Ok, look, I'd rather not talk about "football fields 10 meters deep". But going by that number your 80 000 metric tonnes of spent fuel has an average density of 740kg/m^3. So does your football field include the empty space necessary to keep the rods far apart (to keep them cool and not critical)? But never-mind the technicalities, you cannot dismiss the geo-political implications. We have barely existed as a species in the time length nuclear waste decays. We have only 5000 years or so of statehood, the vast majority of them since collapsed. Unless you propose burying the waste in the Marianna trench (I think there is merit there), I really need to see the stability concerns addressed. EDIT: And yes, I am "aware". I stated my undergrad in a nuclear eng program, and switched to physics after a few courses. I still have friends in the industry and to say morale is low is an understatement.
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  > So does your football field include the empty space necessary to keep the rods far apart If you are "aware" you might know that 99% of nuclear waste is low-level (contaminated hospital waste, rags, paper) or intermediate-level (cladding, concrete or chemicals from decommissioned reactors that are irradiated). These will never go critical. Even high-level radioactive waste doesn't go critical because the hot parts are either (a) valuable and get reprocessed into new fuel or (b) have short half lives and decay within a few month in the spent fuel pool of the power plants before being shipped away.
  - sasfasaf 5y ago
    Yes, I am aware of the difference between high and low level fuel and the stew of different half lives of the constituents of higher level fuel. There's 47 k tones of high level waste in the US alone [1].So I think it's fair to assume that your 80 000 tonnes world wide was high level waste. Which has to be kept far apart from each other since they decay and at the very least generate heat. Therefore, apartness is an integral part of repository design. Yucca Mountain has a capacity for 70 000 tonnes. That is, its not big enough to store the world's waste despite nuclear power having a small fraction of the overall worldwide power production over the last 60 years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...