6 ms·
>If no solution is found, we're already stuck with some 22,000 cubic meters of long-lasting hazardous waste. Not trying to be glib, but 20,000 cubic meters isn
by Mountain_Skies 5y ago
>If no solution is found, we're already stuck with some 22,000 cubic meters of long-lasting hazardous waste.
Not trying to be glib, but 20,000 cubic meters isn't a significant amount of space. Obviously this isn't the same as storing paper plates or pillows, but the physical size of it all is something that would fit in a small grocery store. 2,000 m^3 or 2,000,000 m^3, the size of it really isn't the attribute that's the problem.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoYes, especially by comparison with the amount of space the ash from coal plants is taking up.
- Filligree 5y agoEh. Most of it’s in the air, where you can’t see it. Or in your lungs. Either way we clearly don’t need to deal with it.
- theonemind 5y ago[removed serious response to sarcasm]
- infogulch 5y agoGP's post is clearly sarcasm.
- theonemind 5y agoI agree now that you've pointed it out. Too close to how people apparently think to immediately click for me.
- infogulch 5y agoTrying to step close enough to the line to make it questionable is part of the fun. Poe's law etc. I suppose on a large forum there will always be someone that misses it, purely stochastically. Happened to me recently too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30614766#30618068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30614766#30618068
- mistrial9 5y ago> 20,000 cubic meters isn't a significant amount of space 20,000 m3 of water is not the same as 20,000 m3 material that is seriously toxic to the cellular bonds that form life in one teaspoon of material.. each teaspoon of material can be further subdivided into .. the air in your lungs, the fresh water that frogs depend on, or the bio-accumulating food chain of vegetable-deer-predator factual responses welcome and encouraged
- bell-cot 5y agoConsider the vastly larger quantities of naturally-occurring arsenic, lead, mercury, etc. in the world, and how - in spite of our seeming efforts to expose billions of people to them in their most dangerous forms - they aren't exactly wiping out humanity.
- mistrial9 5y ago"Although heavy metals are naturally occurring elements that are found throughout the earth’s crust, most environmental contamination and human exposure result from anthropogenic activities such as mining and smelting operations, industrial production and use, and domestic and agricultural use of metals and metal-containing compounds" why? because previous to life as we know it today, the Earth's geologic evolution included phases that were literally toxic heavy metals-filled oceans, air and land surface. It was only after millennia of "encasement" that basic modern life forms could start to evolve. Modern humans have famously reversed that encasement process, first and foremost with fossil fuel activity. Ever-more powerful sources of energy are readily found in ever-more powerfully toxic compounds occurring within that encasement, with enriched Uranium as a crown-royalty member of that club. Why do few care? because few have experienced real poisoning, or prolonged poisoning through the reproduction cycle that they know of.
- twofornone 5y agoThe amount of "powerfully toxic substances" necessary to power the world off of uranium fission is many orders of magnitude lower than whatever we're producing now off of fossil fuels alone. Few should care because in the grand scheme of things mining, refining, and storing spent nuclear fuel is really not a big deal.
- moogly 5y agoCan spent nuclear fuel not spontaneously reach criticality (uncontrolled fission) given dense enough storage? Not highly enriched enough? I know weapons-grade uranyl nitrate can.
- srvmshr 5y agoIt is not only the density, but also the purity of Uranium which makes a difference. Weapons grade uranium is 99.3% pure U235 or more by mass. Reactor grade uranium could be between 90-94% at most (the last I had read). It isn't worth economically to enrich further. If the purpose is to reach sustained criticality, this purity is enough to heat the fuel-rods. Although it may not seem a lot, the 6% impurity is enough to act as a neutron damper (for runaway chain reactions). Consequently, you need an order or two higher density with reactor grade Uranium to make it go supercritical & have uncontrolled fission - something that does not happen in normal circumstances.
- fsh 5y agoThese numbers are way off. Power reactors run with a few percent enrichment at most. 90% enrichment is deep in weapons territory. Reactors use slow neutrons that have thermalized in moderators. Due to the much higher fission cross section at low neutron velocities, they reach criticality at much lower 235U densities compared to nuclear weapons. In fact, this is a serious danger in nuclear fuel production. In 1999 there was a criticality accident in a nuclear fuel production facility in Japan that killed two workers [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents#1999_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents#19...
- tgflynn 5y agoYour numbers appear to be way off. Commercial reactor grade Uranium is enriched to less than 20% (typically about 5%) while weapons grade Uranium is closer to 90% (the first U-235 bomb was enriched to 80%). Some specialized reactors do use highly enriched Uranium however. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium
- srvmshr 5y ago