6 ms·

This seems to be an unpopular opinion on HN but I just don't trust humans to manage fission power in the long term at scale. First, there are the issues of sto

by cletus 5y ago

This seems to be an unpopular opinion on HN but I just don't trust humans to manage fission power in the long term at scale. First, there are the issues of storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts, specifically depleted Uranium Hexaflouride ("DUJF" or UF6). Second, there's what to do with old fuel rods. Proponents argue this is a solved problem and it can be stored for the long term in geologically stable storage facilities. This is just one political change away from becoming a huge problem. Neither really scales up to 100x or even 10x current fission energy production. Third, there's long-term maintenance of a plant. Arguments about the relative safety of fission point to deaths caused by coal. Coal is really the worst fossil fuel. LNG is better. But regardless of the numbers, the failure modes are just much, much worse for nuclear. 35 years later, the Chernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone still stands at 1000 square miles. Parts of this zone will likely remain uninhabitable for centuries. I just don't trust governments or corporations for the long term inspection, maintenance and management of fission power plants in the long term. Lastly, the politics are against fission. This seems unlikely to change anytime soon.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
It may not be popular, because it is just not very logical or pragmatic. Setting aside the vagaries of politics, as those will eventually change the same way pendulum swings, the simple reality is that we simply won't be able to dig around for coal, gas and oil for that much longer. Something has got to give.
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  The op gives clear and sound reasons which you dismiss as illogical without any actual argument. Your answer also misses the obvious point of renewables. I fully agree with the op, no way nuclear is long-term safe and if we poured the trillions that have been poured into nuclear into renewables the world already would be a lot nicer. But renewables are much harder to monopolize so the big players never really wanted to support them.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    "But renewables are much harder to monopolize so the big players never really wanted to support them." Compared to nuclear power? Yeah. Almost by default getting nuclear power up and running requires government intervention and this is where it hurts. There is no privatization money to skim ( unlike renewables ). It is monopolized, but it is monopolized the way government monopolizes things ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly ). "if we poured the trillions that have been poured into nuclear into renewables the world already would be a lot nicer. " It is possible ( I was wrong before ), but I would like you to consider the following: Solar panels require rare earths. They are called rare not for shits and giggles. What do you think will happen when entire Earth starts looking for them. Consider scalability issues and all of a sudden, digging for oil looks better. We have an interesting view of the coming attractions with Tesla ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-25/musk-says-nickel-is-biggest-concern-for-electric-car-batteries https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-25/musk-says... ) and some of the tall tales of him supporting a coup to get the resources he needed. Similar list of issues run for other renewables with possible exception of geothermal, so I think 'a lot nicer' may be a bit of exaggeration. It is going to sound really cynical, but to me it sounds like pockets where the money reside will change. That is it. With nuclear -- some of that money will dry up. Hence, partially, the cry out against it.
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      Rare earths aren't rare. Nor are they earths. It's just an old name
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        I suppose we can play a semantic game, but it does not change the actual result does it? They could be called Albino Chickens for all I care. Rare earths are rare on the market right now, because China managed to monopolize the market. To make it more amusing, extraction of those materials is not exactly easy on the environment, which makes it less likely that Western countries will allow it in their backyard. With that out of the way what about my argument is wrong?
Apocryphon 5y ago
Doesn’t thorium address some of these issues?
- cletus 5y ago
  Thorium is complicated. I'd suggest [1] [2] as a good primer on this issue. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IqcRl849R0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IqcRl849R0 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQelfQAH54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQelfQAH54
- moonfern 5y ago
  The Gobi Molten salt reactor is finished and testing has begun. China thinks that in 2030 commercial thorium reactors will be available.
GrumpyNl 5y ago
"Second, there's what to do with old fuel rods. Proponents argue this is a solved problem and it can be stored for the long term in geologically stable storage facilities." With space travel becoming cheaper and cheaper, cant we deposit that on the moon for example?
- adt2bt 5y ago
  The general concern there is a rocket malfunction spewing spent fuel rods over a large terrestrial area before it gets the chance to reach the moon.
  - blaze33 5y ago
    Yes. Also, given the huge volume of radioactive waste (eg. like 10s of thousands cubic meters just in France) it would require thousands of rocket launches for such an endeavour. Launch failure rates at best nearing 1%, space don't look like our best option here.
    - orwin 5y ago
      From edf: "Ces déchets sont constitués, principalement, des matières non valorisables récupérées après le traitement du combustible usé. Les matières sont incorporées dans du verre en fusion, lui-même coulé dans un conteneur en acier. Les conteneurs contiennent 400 kg de verre pour 11 kg de déchets. Les conteneurs, en raison de la chaleur qu’ils dégagent, doivent être entreposés pour être refroidis pendant au moins une cinquantaine d’années avant d’être définitivement stockés. Le volume total de ces déchets équivaudra à 6 700 m³ à l'issue de 40 années d’exploitation du parc nucléaire français. Les déchets à vie longue représentent 10 % du volume total des déchets et concentrent 99,9 % de la radioactivité."[0] So 6300 cubic meter over 40 years of operations. [edit] counting the glass to make them manipulable. [0] https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/producteur-industriel/notes-d-informations/note20dechets202013.pdf https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/pr...
    - t0m4 5y ago
      It seems that’s quiet the same proportion of nuclear core meltdown. But yes the fallouts could be way worse and it’s actually a bad idea but in 100 years, who knows ?
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Bill Gates new nuclear power plant design is being built in Wyoming. These things are small and cheap. “ The project features a 345 megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage that could boost the system's power output to 500 MW during peak power demand. TerraPower said last year that the plants would cost about $1 billion.” https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/utility-small-nuclear-reactor-firm-select-wyoming-next-us-site-2021-06-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/utility-small-nuclea...
- cletus 5y ago
  I, for one, welcome newer and better reactor designs. This doesn't solve the significant issues of fuel enrichment and waste storage and disposal however and we need a much better story for those before fission power has any kind of future (IMHO).
linuxhansl 5y ago
Fair points. (I hope nobody downvoted you) I somewhat disagree on your general point, though. Pellet reactor (mostly?) solve the spent fuel issue. Also, I believe that due to unreasonable negative opinion we're behind a few decades where we could be in terms of research. And as I said in my earlier comment, it is exactly this lack of public support that had (and has) us running old timer nuclear plants (like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and most of the currently operated plants in the US, the EU, and elsewhere). But I agree 100% that the problems you cite need to solved, and these solutions have to be communicated.
- q1w2 5y ago
  I don't think any of the GP's arguments hold up. > there are the issues of storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts Omega Tau did an in depth analysis of all the storage issues, including the byproducts and how they are managed. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/omegataupodcast/omegatau-368-nuclearWasteStorage.mp3 https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/omegataupodcast/omegatau-3... These are solved problems. > what to do with old fuel rods ...same as above. The quantity here is far far smaller than most people imagine and it's a very manageable amount - even if scaled 100x. We're talking about 1 barrel per reactor per year. > there's long-term maintenance of a plant Modern Gen III plants are build such that any failure in the control systems, causes the reactor to turn off via a, usually, gravity system - so no power needed to turn off the reaction. They are essentially constantly being told to stay on. Accidents as we've seen in the past are not possible with Gen III reactors. ...the failure modes are just much, much worse for nuclear More relevant though is that the success condition for LNG/Coal/Oil/etc plants is Global Climate Change. THAT is the critical issue. Also, the notion that nuclear storage facilities are somehow massive liabilities when the nations of the world currently already have literally tens of thousands of nuclear bombs/missiles, seems odd. There is a far far greater likelihood of Climate Change triggered nuclear war than nuclear waste misuse. The real problem with nuclear is public ignorance. What I find a remarkable contradiction is how anti-nuclear advocates claim we need to convince the public that Climate Change is real, but then throw up their hands as hopeless when there's a suggestion that nuclear misinformation should be combated.
  - deleted 5y ago
opwieurposiu 5y ago
Used fuel from thermal reactors can be processed into fuel for fast reactors. The fast reactor burns up all the transuranium elements so that the waste ends up with only the short lived fission products. These short lived products decay to background in 300 years or so, so the amount of time it needs to be stored is much more manageable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor#Advantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor#Advantag...
- cletus 5y ago
  So if we can process nuclear waste in fast reactors like this, why haven't we done so with existing nuclear waste? Scale? Cost? Something else?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Probably because all (usable) waste (the fuel rods) needs to be disassembled (reprocessed) to enable usage somewhere else. With new casings. Which then needs to be disassembled too, after the contents are 'sucked empty'.
  - opwieurposiu 5y ago
    The cost issue: Storing spent fuel is pretty cheap because it is not very voluminous. The USA has produced about 85k tons of spent fuel, which would fit into a single football stadium. This means the cheapest thing to do is just kick the can down the road. The proliferation issue: Waste burners require processing of spent fuel, which some states believe is a weapons proliferation risk. The sodium issue: Liquid sodium requires very careful construction of the steam generators and piping to keep it from contacting air or water. This is a sort-of solved problem in that all the sodium cooled reactors have experienced sodium leaks from time to time, but those leaks have been fixed without significant radioactive release. This is an issue that improves with operator experience. The russians do have one waste burning fast reactor running, the BN-800. If they can do it, so can we. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
    - 5y ago
LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
The stuff could be usable in a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fission_reactor#Energy_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fission_reactor#Energy... a.k.a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb

by cletus 5y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

It may not be popular, because it is just not very logical or pragmatic. Setting aside the vagaries of politics, as those will eventually change the same way pendulum swings, the simple reality is that we simply won't be able to dig around for coal, gas and oil for that much longer. Something has got to give.

estaseuropano 5y ago
The op gives clear and sound reasons which you dismiss as illogical without any actual argument. Your answer also misses the obvious point of renewables. I fully agree with the op, no way nuclear is long-term safe and if we poured the trillions that have been poured into nuclear into renewables the world already would be a lot nicer. But renewables are much harder to monopolize so the big players never really wanted to support them.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  "But renewables are much harder to monopolize so the big players never really wanted to support them." Compared to nuclear power? Yeah. Almost by default getting nuclear power up and running requires government intervention and this is where it hurts. There is no privatization money to skim ( unlike renewables ). It is monopolized, but it is monopolized the way government monopolizes things ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly ). "if we poured the trillions that have been poured into nuclear into renewables the world already would be a lot nicer. " It is possible ( I was wrong before ), but I would like you to consider the following: Solar panels require rare earths. They are called rare not for shits and giggles. What do you think will happen when entire Earth starts looking for them. Consider scalability issues and all of a sudden, digging for oil looks better. We have an interesting view of the coming attractions with Tesla ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-25/musk-says-nickel-is-biggest-concern-for-electric-car-batteries https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-25/musk-says... ) and some of the tall tales of him supporting a coup to get the resources he needed. Similar list of issues run for other renewables with possible exception of geothermal, so I think 'a lot nicer' may be a bit of exaggeration. It is going to sound really cynical, but to me it sounds like pockets where the money reside will change. That is it. With nuclear -- some of that money will dry up. Hence, partially, the cry out against it.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Rare earths aren't rare. Nor are they earths. It's just an old name
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      I suppose we can play a semantic game, but it does not change the actual result does it? They could be called Albino Chickens for all I care. Rare earths are rare on the market right now, because China managed to monopolize the market. To make it more amusing, extraction of those materials is not exactly easy on the environment, which makes it less likely that Western countries will allow it in their backyard. With that out of the way what about my argument is wrong?

Apocryphon 5y ago

Doesn’t thorium address some of these issues?

cletus 5y ago
Thorium is complicated. I'd suggest [1] [2] as a good primer on this issue. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IqcRl849R0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IqcRl849R0 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQelfQAH54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQelfQAH54
moonfern 5y ago
The Gobi Molten salt reactor is finished and testing has begun. China thinks that in 2030 commercial thorium reactors will be available.

GrumpyNl 5y ago

"Second, there's what to do with old fuel rods. Proponents argue this is a solved problem and it can be stored for the long term in geologically stable storage facilities." With space travel becoming cheaper and cheaper, cant we deposit that on the moon for example?

adt2bt 5y ago
The general concern there is a rocket malfunction spewing spent fuel rods over a large terrestrial area before it gets the chance to reach the moon.
- blaze33 5y ago
  Yes. Also, given the huge volume of radioactive waste (eg. like 10s of thousands cubic meters just in France) it would require thousands of rocket launches for such an endeavour. Launch failure rates at best nearing 1%, space don't look like our best option here.
  - orwin 5y ago
    From edf: "Ces déchets sont constitués, principalement, des matières non valorisables récupérées après le traitement du combustible usé. Les matières sont incorporées dans du verre en fusion, lui-même coulé dans un conteneur en acier. Les conteneurs contiennent 400 kg de verre pour 11 kg de déchets. Les conteneurs, en raison de la chaleur qu’ils dégagent, doivent être entreposés pour être refroidis pendant au moins une cinquantaine d’années avant d’être définitivement stockés. Le volume total de ces déchets équivaudra à 6 700 m³ à l'issue de 40 années d’exploitation du parc nucléaire français. Les déchets à vie longue représentent 10 % du volume total des déchets et concentrent 99,9 % de la radioactivité."[0] So 6300 cubic meter over 40 years of operations. [edit] counting the glass to make them manipulable. [0] https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/producteur-industriel/notes-d-informations/note20dechets202013.pdf https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/pr...
  - t0m4 5y ago
    It seems that’s quiet the same proportion of nuclear core meltdown. But yes the fallouts could be way worse and it’s actually a bad idea but in 100 years, who knows ?

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

Bill Gates new nuclear power plant design is being built in Wyoming. These things are small and cheap. “ The project features a 345 megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage that could boost the system's power output to 500 MW during peak power demand. TerraPower said last year that the plants would cost about $1 billion.” https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/utility-small-nuclear-reactor-firm-select-wyoming-next-us-site-2021-06-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/utility-small-nuclea...

cletus 5y ago
I, for one, welcome newer and better reactor designs. This doesn't solve the significant issues of fuel enrichment and waste storage and disposal however and we need a much better story for those before fission power has any kind of future (IMHO).

linuxhansl 5y ago

Fair points. (I hope nobody downvoted you) I somewhat disagree on your general point, though. Pellet reactor (mostly?) solve the spent fuel issue. Also, I believe that due to unreasonable negative opinion we're behind a few decades where we could be in terms of research. And as I said in my earlier comment, it is exactly this lack of public support that had (and has) us running old timer nuclear plants (like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and most of the currently operated plants in the US, the EU, and elsewhere). But I agree 100% that the problems you cite need to solved, and these solutions have to be communicated.

q1w2 5y ago
I don't think any of the GP's arguments hold up. > there are the issues of storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts Omega Tau did an in depth analysis of all the storage issues, including the byproducts and how they are managed. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/omegataupodcast/omegatau-368-nuclearWasteStorage.mp3 https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/omegataupodcast/omegatau-3... These are solved problems. > what to do with old fuel rods ...same as above. The quantity here is far far smaller than most people imagine and it's a very manageable amount - even if scaled 100x. We're talking about 1 barrel per reactor per year. > there's long-term maintenance of a plant Modern Gen III plants are build such that any failure in the control systems, causes the reactor to turn off via a, usually, gravity system - so no power needed to turn off the reaction. They are essentially constantly being told to stay on. Accidents as we've seen in the past are not possible with Gen III reactors. ...the failure modes are just much, much worse for nuclear More relevant though is that the success condition for LNG/Coal/Oil/etc plants is Global Climate Change. THAT is the critical issue. Also, the notion that nuclear storage facilities are somehow massive liabilities when the nations of the world currently already have literally tens of thousands of nuclear bombs/missiles, seems odd. There is a far far greater likelihood of Climate Change triggered nuclear war than nuclear waste misuse. The real problem with nuclear is public ignorance. What I find a remarkable contradiction is how anti-nuclear advocates claim we need to convince the public that Climate Change is real, but then throw up their hands as hopeless when there's a suggestion that nuclear misinformation should be combated.
- deleted 5y ago

opwieurposiu 5y ago

Used fuel from thermal reactors can be processed into fuel for fast reactors. The fast reactor burns up all the transuranium elements so that the waste ends up with only the short lived fission products. These short lived products decay to background in 300 years or so, so the amount of time it needs to be stored is much more manageable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor#Advantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor#Advantag...

cletus 5y ago
So if we can process nuclear waste in fast reactors like this, why haven't we done so with existing nuclear waste? Scale? Cost? Something else?
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Probably because all (usable) waste (the fuel rods) needs to be disassembled (reprocessed) to enable usage somewhere else. With new casings. Which then needs to be disassembled too, after the contents are 'sucked empty'.
- opwieurposiu 5y ago
  The cost issue: Storing spent fuel is pretty cheap because it is not very voluminous. The USA has produced about 85k tons of spent fuel, which would fit into a single football stadium. This means the cheapest thing to do is just kick the can down the road. The proliferation issue: Waste burners require processing of spent fuel, which some states believe is a weapons proliferation risk. The sodium issue: Liquid sodium requires very careful construction of the steam generators and piping to keep it from contacting air or water. This is a sort-of solved problem in that all the sodium cooled reactors have experienced sodium leaks from time to time, but those leaks have been fixed without significant radioactive release. This is an issue that improves with operator experience. The russians do have one waste burning fast reactor running, the BN-800. If they can do it, so can we. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
  - 5y ago

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago

The stuff could be usable in a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fission_reactor#Energy_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fission_reactor#Energy... a.k.a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb