4 ms·

Yes, we also need "only one", except in my country it's basically impossible to go a few kilometers from any spot without hitting a settlement (and if you can d

by jhgb 5y ago

Yes, we also need "only one", except in my country it's basically impossible to go a few kilometers from any spot without hitting a settlement (and if you can do that, your point of origin was probably inside a protected national park). That's probably why we still don't have a storage place despite even having reasonable (even if not perfect) geology for it.

ben_w 5y ago
We’d only need one place worldwide if people didn’t object to it crossing borders. Everything nasty from all of them put together is something like one large modern soccer stadium.
- exdsq 5y ago
  But the logistics of transporting this is crazy even without objections
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Really? Why?
    - exdsq 5y ago
      I had this discussion on HN a while ago and looked into it - the costs of transportation are high because of various logistical regulations, there is a high cost upfront cost to set up a disposal site, there is a fairly significant cost for staffing such sites, and these sites will need to be managed for millennia. Here's a good paper on the costs https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/12/2437/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/12/2437/pdf
      - blitzar 5y ago
        https://www.jnfl.co.jp/en/business/hlw/ https://www.jnfl.co.jp/en/business/hlw/ It has being done for 20+ years now.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
slaymaker1907 5y ago
Nuclear waste is a mostly artificial problem considering we've known how to recycle/reuse nuclear waste to the point where it is no longer dangerous. The actual hurdle to nuclear adoption is really more about concerns with nuclear proliferation since a lot of the recycle tech can also be adapted to create weapons grade nuclear fuel. Additionally, even with no nuclear reactors whatsoever, we'll still have to deal with nuclear waste as it is used in various other areas like medicine. The Goiânia accident incident in Brazil killed many people _immediately_ (unlike Fukushima) and originated from a defunct hospital, not a nuclear power plant. We need to find ways to deal with this stuff regardless if you use nuclear power or not.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > Nuclear waste is a mostly artificial problem considering we've known how to recycle/reuse nuclear waste to the point where it is no longer dangerous. These repositories are meant specifically for the separated waste from the recycling/reusing process. So the process you're suggesting is the one that creates this "artificial problem".
- tim333 5y ago
  >known how to recycle/reuse nuclear waste to the point where it is no longer dangerous The experience of that has been a bit mixed in the real world at Windscale/Sellafield "Europe's largest nuclear site" in the UK. The incidents section on Wikipedia goes on for pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents and "The site is due to be fully decommissioned by 2120 at a cost of £121bn." which doesn't sound ideal for future reprocessing.

by jhgb 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago

We’d only need one place worldwide if people didn’t object to it crossing borders. Everything nasty from all of them put together is something like one large modern soccer stadium.

exdsq 5y ago
But the logistics of transporting this is crazy even without objections
- ben_w 5y ago
  Really? Why?
  - exdsq 5y ago
    I had this discussion on HN a while ago and looked into it - the costs of transportation are high because of various logistical regulations, there is a high cost upfront cost to set up a disposal site, there is a fairly significant cost for staffing such sites, and these sites will need to be managed for millennia. Here's a good paper on the costs https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/12/2437/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/12/2437/pdf
    - blitzar 5y ago
      https://www.jnfl.co.jp/en/business/hlw/ https://www.jnfl.co.jp/en/business/hlw/ It has being done for 20+ years now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

slaymaker1907 5y ago

Nuclear waste is a mostly artificial problem considering we've known how to recycle/reuse nuclear waste to the point where it is no longer dangerous. The actual hurdle to nuclear adoption is really more about concerns with nuclear proliferation since a lot of the recycle tech can also be adapted to create weapons grade nuclear fuel. Additionally, even with no nuclear reactors whatsoever, we'll still have to deal with nuclear waste as it is used in various other areas like medicine. The Goiânia accident incident in Brazil killed many people _immediately_ (unlike Fukushima) and originated from a defunct hospital, not a nuclear power plant. We need to find ways to deal with this stuff regardless if you use nuclear power or not.

jhgb 5y ago
> Nuclear waste is a mostly artificial problem considering we've known how to recycle/reuse nuclear waste to the point where it is no longer dangerous. These repositories are meant specifically for the separated waste from the recycling/reusing process. So the process you're suggesting is the one that creates this "artificial problem".
tim333 5y ago
>known how to recycle/reuse nuclear waste to the point where it is no longer dangerous The experience of that has been a bit mixed in the real world at Windscale/Sellafield "Europe's largest nuclear site" in the UK. The incidents section on Wikipedia goes on for pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents and "The site is due to be fully decommissioned by 2120 at a cost of £121bn." which doesn't sound ideal for future reprocessing.