5 ms·

There's nothing really to solve. Dry-cask storage can be used long term. The waste is secure, easily monitored, and if at some point in the future reprocessing

by dkbrk 4y ago

There's nothing really to solve. Dry-cask storage can be used long term. The waste is secure, easily monitored, and if at some point in the future reprocessing makes economic sense that can be done too.

cycomanic 4y ago
You say that with great confidence, can you give any examples where people have securely stored highly dangerous things for 100s or 1000s of years?
- endominus 4y ago
  The quantity of highly radioactive waste honestly isn't that large. It probably won't have to be stored that long; per [0] (turn on captions if you don't speak Dutch) that volume, given current energy usage in a first world country like the Netherlands, might amount to that of an apple per lifetime. That's tiny! Given advances in spaceflight in recent decades, we might be able to affordably send that amount of radioactive matter off the planet entirely. The sun seems like a fine place to safely put it for 100,000 years. [0]: https://youtu.be/YjFWiMJdotM?t=610 https://youtu.be/YjFWiMJdotM?t=610
  - grapeskin 4y ago
    I don't think anyone wants to send radioactive waste to the sun. The possibility of it exploding during launch and spreading over a wide area is way too high. Burying it deep down in the earth is far safer. Sure, someone might eventually dig it up someday, but that'd be limited exposure in a confined area.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    I don't get it. Just reprocess the waste and dilute the rest back to original levels of background radiation. Bury small amounts all over the country.
- hedora 4y ago
  The pyramids? (Granted, the contents were not highly dangerous, but they would have been adequate for nuclear waste storage until at least now.)
  - Ma8ee 4y ago
    And most of them were looted.
    - hedora 4y ago
      So what? If, 500 years from now, future generations want to use today's waste in advanced reactors, what's the problem?
      - Ma8ee 4y ago
        The problems would be if someone in the future looted some ancient artefacts they didn’t understand.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      Spot on. Even USSR-time RTGs have been looted, causing contamination and deaths, despite people being aware of nuclear power for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
- godelski 4y ago
  Most of the waste is inert after a decade. 58% is Very low level waste, 34% low level, 9% intermediate, and only 0.03% is high level[0]. Only the high level needs long term storage and deep geological repositories are well suited for this[1]. These big cask storage containers are mostly holding low and intermediate level waste. High level is often stored in the reactor or in another pool. Mind you, in comparison the waste of gas is CO2, which is creating an existential crisis. (There's also other wastes like lead and heavy metals, from anything electronic, that need to be stored _forever_. Lead and heavy metals don't decay. They are dangerous forever.) [0] https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-waste-is-there/ https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-wast... [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
a_bonobo 4y ago
>The waste is secure People don't remember the Hanau scandal of the 80s/90s. It was the 'Atomic village' of Germany, home to the two largest nuclear companies of Germany (one was, funnily, called Nukem). Their managers were accused of taking bribes, selling radioactive waste for weapons, and mislabeling atomic waste for cheaper disposal (including just chucking it into the sea!). It's one of the reasons why the early Green party was so anti-nuclear, there was no trust. Atomic waste can be securely stored, but there will always be corners to be cut to make a quick buck. There's a German language summary here: https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/hanau-der-anfang-vom-ende-des-atomdorfs-100.html https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/hanau-der-anfang-vom-en...
bayesian_horse 4y ago
We have a responsibility to future generations. Which is a really long time, considering the half-life involved. "Secure and easily monitored" doesn't account for: Natural disasters, human error or human depravity (sabotage, shooting, terrorism etc). And what if the government breaks down for some reason? If for any reason the "securely and safely monitoring" gets neglected...
- spupe 4y ago
  The way it is going, future generations will be left with much worse problems that a few tons of nuclear waste.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    To stop climate change with nuclear power, you wouldn't risk "a few tons of nuclear waste" (which we already can't store safely), but it would have to be scaled up by a factor of ten at least. The plants and waste storage sites would have to be everywhere. Including where there is no trustworthy government. Including where people can shoot at the sites, steal material for dirty bombs, start their own nuclear weapons program and whatever. So no, "a few tons of nuclear waste" really doesn't capture the problem...

by dkbrk 4y ago

cycomanic 4y ago

You say that with great confidence, can you give any examples where people have securely stored highly dangerous things for 100s or 1000s of years?

endominus 4y ago
The quantity of highly radioactive waste honestly isn't that large. It probably won't have to be stored that long; per [0] (turn on captions if you don't speak Dutch) that volume, given current energy usage in a first world country like the Netherlands, might amount to that of an apple per lifetime. That's tiny! Given advances in spaceflight in recent decades, we might be able to affordably send that amount of radioactive matter off the planet entirely. The sun seems like a fine place to safely put it for 100,000 years. [0]: https://youtu.be/YjFWiMJdotM?t=610 https://youtu.be/YjFWiMJdotM?t=610
- grapeskin 4y ago
  I don't think anyone wants to send radioactive waste to the sun. The possibility of it exploding during launch and spreading over a wide area is way too high. Burying it deep down in the earth is far safer. Sure, someone might eventually dig it up someday, but that'd be limited exposure in a confined area.
- imtringued 4y ago
  I don't get it. Just reprocess the waste and dilute the rest back to original levels of background radiation. Bury small amounts all over the country.
hedora 4y ago
The pyramids? (Granted, the contents were not highly dangerous, but they would have been adequate for nuclear waste storage until at least now.)
- Ma8ee 4y ago
  And most of them were looted.
  - hedora 4y ago
    So what? If, 500 years from now, future generations want to use today's waste in advanced reactors, what's the problem?
    - Ma8ee 4y ago
      The problems would be if someone in the future looted some ancient artefacts they didn’t understand.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    Spot on. Even USSR-time RTGs have been looted, causing contamination and deaths, despite people being aware of nuclear power for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
godelski 4y ago
Most of the waste is inert after a decade. 58% is Very low level waste, 34% low level, 9% intermediate, and only 0.03% is high level[0]. Only the high level needs long term storage and deep geological repositories are well suited for this[1]. These big cask storage containers are mostly holding low and intermediate level waste. High level is often stored in the reactor or in another pool. Mind you, in comparison the waste of gas is CO2, which is creating an existential crisis. (There's also other wastes like lead and heavy metals, from anything electronic, that need to be stored _forever_. Lead and heavy metals don't decay. They are dangerous forever.) [0] https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-waste-is-there/ https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-wast... [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html

a_bonobo 4y ago

>The waste is secure People don't remember the Hanau scandal of the 80s/90s. It was the 'Atomic village' of Germany, home to the two largest nuclear companies of Germany (one was, funnily, called Nukem). Their managers were accused of taking bribes, selling radioactive waste for weapons, and mislabeling atomic waste for cheaper disposal (including just chucking it into the sea!). It's one of the reasons why the early Green party was so anti-nuclear, there was no trust. Atomic waste can be securely stored, but there will always be corners to be cut to make a quick buck. There's a German language summary here: https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/hanau-der-anfang-vom-ende-des-atomdorfs-100.html https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/hanau-der-anfang-vom-en...

bayesian_horse 4y ago

We have a responsibility to future generations. Which is a really long time, considering the half-life involved. "Secure and easily monitored" doesn't account for: Natural disasters, human error or human depravity (sabotage, shooting, terrorism etc). And what if the government breaks down for some reason? If for any reason the "securely and safely monitoring" gets neglected...

spupe 4y ago
The way it is going, future generations will be left with much worse problems that a few tons of nuclear waste.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  To stop climate change with nuclear power, you wouldn't risk "a few tons of nuclear waste" (which we already can't store safely), but it would have to be scaled up by a factor of ten at least. The plants and waste storage sites would have to be everywhere. Including where there is no trustworthy government. Including where people can shoot at the sites, steal material for dirty bombs, start their own nuclear weapons program and whatever. So no, "a few tons of nuclear waste" really doesn't capture the problem...