3 ms·

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  And most of them were looted.
  - hedora 5y ago
    So what? If, 500 years from now, future generations want to use today's waste in advanced reactors, what's the problem?
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      The problems would be if someone in the future looted some ancient artefacts they didn’t understand.
  - goodpoint 5y 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 5y 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

endominus 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
And most of them were looted.
- hedora 5y ago
  So what? If, 500 years from now, future generations want to use today's waste in advanced reactors, what's the problem?
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    The problems would be if someone in the future looted some ancient artefacts they didn’t understand.
- goodpoint 5y 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 5y 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