4 ms·

I’m an interested layperson at best, but I gather that we know how to build safe fission reactors now, and that the safe storage of spent (or “slightly used” as

I’m an interested layperson at best, but I gather that we know how to build safe fission reactors now, and that the safe storage of spent (or “slightly used” as I’ve heard it called) fuel pellets is a much harder political problem than technical problem. Gorbachev once speculated that it was actually Chernobyl that brought down the USSR. I personally wonder if it’s also why we’re going to have a climate catastrophe.

Animats 5y ago
I gather that we know how to build safe fission reactors now. One can hope. "Gen III" fission reactor construction is coming along, mostly in China. Sanmen Nuclear Power Station has two Gen III reactors, designed by what's left of Westinghouse. Future versions are being entirely designed in China. Most of the "small cheap reactor" concepts are arguments for why they don't need a containment vessel. That's probably not going to sell. Chernobyl wasn't supposed to need a containment vessel, and didn't have one. Fukushima didn't have a big enough one. Three Mile Island did have a good containment, which is why that meltdown was expensive, but didn't cause much trouble outside the plant.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Animats 5y ago
What to do with spent fuel rods is more of a political problem than a technical one. Read up on Yucca Mountain. Current thinking is that the best approach to long term disposal is to find a cold hard-rock mountain where nothing has changed much in millions of years. Dig tunnels that are far above any possible flooding. Drill vertical holes in the tunnels. Package the nuclear waste in stainless steel thimbles, with the waste embedded in ceramic. Place thimbles in holes. After a few decades of nothing happening, fill in the tunnels. Sweden and Finland, which have lots of stable, isolated hard rock mountains, are working on this. So is China, which now has two vitrification plants for nuclear waste.
- bluecalm 5y ago
  First question I have about it: wouldn't it be an attractive target for bombing/terrorist attacks or would it be rock solid enough to withstand those?
  - The_Colonel 5y ago
    If you have weapons able to blow up tens/hundreds of meter thick rock, then you have much more attractive targets with more "spectacular" results.
  - throwuxiytayq 5y ago
    Terrorists are never a problem in the real world. Eh, Americans.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    The threat of terrorism is massively overblown across the board, not just with respect to nuclear waste. The means to make conventional explosives are widely available, yet outside of a handful of conflict zones it is rarely done. Americans can buy gunpowder at walmart, yet how many pipebomb attacks have you heard of? A handful, but not many. Not many considering the country has hundreds of millions of people with ready access to the means to make them. The incidence rate of people inclined to terrorism is vanishingly low. And when you start talking about plots that require numerous people to cooperate, rather than a single lonewolf nut, there is even less to worry about. The more people a plot requires, the less likely it is to actually happen. Coordinated attacks against nuclear power plants or waste disposal facilities are fantasy.
    - avastmick 5y ago
      This is true, particularly in developed nations. [0] [0] https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism
    - sbierwagen 5y ago
      >The threat of terrorism is massively overblown There's some temporal sampling bias, here. The threat of terrorism was huge and salient in 2002, and a lot of NRC regulations were updated at that time. It was less obvious in 2010. Here in 2021 it's hardly a threat at all. If we see another 9/11-scale attack this decade you can bet that will change.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Lftr, no stupid spent rods. Online reprocessing, thorium fuel, 99% fuel use. No meltdown risk. No huge containment domes. Scale in size. Lftr can use old waste for fuel or breed yo usable fuel. Transport of spent fuel rods is a legitimate problem.
BurningFrog 5y ago
I think Hiroshima also is a big factor. Chernobyl, too, sure, but if Hiroshima hadn't already shown the terrible risks of "nuclear", I think it would have mattered a lot less.

Animats 5y ago

I gather that we know how to build safe fission reactors now. One can hope. "Gen III" fission reactor construction is coming along, mostly in China. Sanmen Nuclear Power Station has two Gen III reactors, designed by what's left of Westinghouse. Future versions are being entirely designed in China. Most of the "small cheap reactor" concepts are arguments for why they don't need a containment vessel. That's probably not going to sell. Chernobyl wasn't supposed to need a containment vessel, and didn't have one. Fukushima didn't have a big enough one. Three Mile Island did have a good containment, which is why that meltdown was expensive, but didn't cause much trouble outside the plant.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Animats 5y ago

What to do with spent fuel rods is more of a political problem than a technical one. Read up on Yucca Mountain. Current thinking is that the best approach to long term disposal is to find a cold hard-rock mountain where nothing has changed much in millions of years. Dig tunnels that are far above any possible flooding. Drill vertical holes in the tunnels. Package the nuclear waste in stainless steel thimbles, with the waste embedded in ceramic. Place thimbles in holes. After a few decades of nothing happening, fill in the tunnels. Sweden and Finland, which have lots of stable, isolated hard rock mountains, are working on this. So is China, which now has two vitrification plants for nuclear waste.

bluecalm 5y ago
First question I have about it: wouldn't it be an attractive target for bombing/terrorist attacks or would it be rock solid enough to withstand those?
- The_Colonel 5y ago
  If you have weapons able to blow up tens/hundreds of meter thick rock, then you have much more attractive targets with more "spectacular" results.
- throwuxiytayq 5y ago
  Terrorists are never a problem in the real world. Eh, Americans.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  The threat of terrorism is massively overblown across the board, not just with respect to nuclear waste. The means to make conventional explosives are widely available, yet outside of a handful of conflict zones it is rarely done. Americans can buy gunpowder at walmart, yet how many pipebomb attacks have you heard of? A handful, but not many. Not many considering the country has hundreds of millions of people with ready access to the means to make them. The incidence rate of people inclined to terrorism is vanishingly low. And when you start talking about plots that require numerous people to cooperate, rather than a single lonewolf nut, there is even less to worry about. The more people a plot requires, the less likely it is to actually happen. Coordinated attacks against nuclear power plants or waste disposal facilities are fantasy.
  - avastmick 5y ago
    This is true, particularly in developed nations. [0] [0] https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism
  - sbierwagen 5y ago
    >The threat of terrorism is massively overblown There's some temporal sampling bias, here. The threat of terrorism was huge and salient in 2002, and a lot of NRC regulations were updated at that time. It was less obvious in 2010. Here in 2021 it's hardly a threat at all. If we see another 9/11-scale attack this decade you can bet that will change.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Lftr, no stupid spent rods. Online reprocessing, thorium fuel, 99% fuel use. No meltdown risk. No huge containment domes. Scale in size. Lftr can use old waste for fuel or breed yo usable fuel. Transport of spent fuel rods is a legitimate problem.

BurningFrog 5y ago

I think Hiroshima also is a big factor. Chernobyl, too, sure, but if Hiroshima hadn't already shown the terrible risks of "nuclear", I think it would have mattered a lot less.