3 ms·
> disposing of the spent fuel This keeps coming up, but far as I can tell spent fuel disposal is not, and has never been a substantial issue. It's above all an
by dmos62 5y ago
> disposing of the spent fuel
This keeps coming up, but far as I can tell spent fuel disposal is not, and has never been a substantial issue. It's above all an engineering and administrative challenge and is safe when done properly. Also, spent fuel can be reused, and as technology improves, we'll be able to reuse more and more of it.
Accidents have happened where disposal was improper, but that's rare and consequences are not dire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Accidents
Radioctivity accidents can at most make places uninhabitable, but they won't contribute to the greenhouse effect (which might ultimately lead to a major socioeconomic collapse), or cause petrol-oligarchies (which have led, and will lead to war, and might lead to a thermonuclear war too). In my eyes, burning mineral fuels is much, much worse than risking radioactivity accidents.
Trivia: in Italy there was a lot of illegal dumping going on during 1980s and 1990s, they even secretely transported nuclear waste to Somalia for illegal burying and have sunk a number of ships carrying nuclear waste (for the purpose of disposal). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27...
- jacksonkmarley 5y agoThere is currently still no licensed long term storage site for high-level waste in the world. That is amazing really. I consider that a major issue, even if the barriers are mostly political rather than technical.
- helsinkiandrew 5y agoIt's coming close though, Onkalo in Finland is still on track for 2023/2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... https://www.science.org/content/article/finland-built-tomb-store-nuclear-waste-can-it-survive-100000-years https://www.science.org/content/article/finland-built-tomb-s...
- EricE 5y agoThat we are still arguing about burying viable fuel, instead of burning it in more modern and safer designs is what really boggles my mind. "Here's a nice loaf of bread. Let's bury it in a mountain!" Utter madness.
- DrBazza 5y agoAlso there are only two outcomes - humanity survives, and remembers where we've deeply buried spent fuel, or humanity reverts to the stone age, and loses the technology to dig down to the deeply buried fuel (or goes extinct). Either way, it's not really a problem.
- p_l 5y agoI believe we're getting to the point where, if we regress below the level of viable industry capable of running any of our high-tech energy sources (whether it's oil, coal, nuclear or any of the renewables), then we aren't getting it back ever - nor will any future civilisation, because without huge geological shifts all the sources will be beyond reach of primitive tech...
- PaulHoule 5y agoI used to think that 15,000 years from now Scientologists would be fighting with Mormons to break into Yucca Mountain and extract plutonium for nuclear weapons. (The undesirable for weapons Pu240 isotope has a half life of about 6,000 years in contrast to the 24,000 year half life of the desirable Pu239 isotope.) Now I don’t think the Scientologists will be around that long.
- EricE 5y agoWhat we label as spend fuel (or even more maddening, waste!) is still viable fuel we should be burning in newer, better designs. NOT burying it in the desert. The problem with spent fuel isn't the need to bury it. The problem is politics and myopia (on rampant display in this thread!) are winning the day instead of logic and reason.