8 ms·

Do we have a long term solution for nuclear waste? Or are we just going from one bad output to another?

by ethereal-haze 4y ago

ThrustVectoring 4y ago
Nuclear waste is a tiny problem. You just stick it somewhere that people aren't, preferably underground.
- zik 4y ago
  Nuclear waste disposal is normally outsourced to specialist companies. It turns out that many of those companies have been illegally dumping it in the ocean near Africa. In the last decade or so it's been washing ashore and causing huge harm. https://www.expertsure.com/2011/03/27/more-illegally-dumped-radioactive-waste-found-on-somalias-coast/ https://www.expertsure.com/2011/03/27/more-illegally-dumped-... Any time you outsource disposal of such a dangerous substance you're pretty much guaranteeing that it'll all be dumped improperly. That's why it's not a tiny problem at all.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > Project Censored and Boing Boing have been reporting on this horrific situation that is unfolding in the African country: Uh, Project Censored and Boing Boing? I'm not finding any reporting on this purported nuclear waste dumping in Somalia. I'm seeing reports of toxic waste, but not nuclear waste. Furthermore, The USSR and United Kingdom both dumped massive amounts of nuclear waste into the Arctic and Atlantic oceans respectively [1]. There are no observed adverse effects of this. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...
  - Lazare 4y ago
    That's blogspam; it's quoting reporting it claims to be from Boing Boing, but actually came from a poorly sourced editorial in the Independent from back in 2009, which in turn is just retelling the allegations from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27... Allegedly, back in the 80s and 90s, organised crime in Italy was involved in the improper disposal of toxic and radioactive waste. Much of it was dumped around Italy, but some was said to have been dumped in Somalian waters. Attempts to verify this have proven difficult; the main informant hasn't proven reliable, and a UN mission to Somalia in 2005 wasn't able to find anything. Still, it does seem like some toxic waste was dumped in or around Somalia back in the 1980s or early 1990s, and that's certainly terrible. That being said, it seems to have happened thirty years ago, and although there was concern the 2005 tsunami could have stirred it up, that doesn't seem to be happening, and there's no evidence it's causing any harm at all. (And remember, most of the waste was in the Med off the coast of Italy, where it would be much easier to detect any impact than in Somalia.) > Any time you outsource disposal of such a dangerous substance you're pretty much guaranteeing that it'll all be dumped improperly. That seems to be the opposite of what your link is suggesting?
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Coal waste kills about 1 million people a year, thats like a genocide right there, how many people does nuclear waste kill?
- elevaet 4y ago
  And hope that in 1000 years it is still being managed properly, the water table hasn't changed and caused it to poison the groundwater, no one has used it to make a dirty bomb... etc. I don't think we can be so cavalier about nuclear waste, it's a heavy responsibility to push off to the future.
  - spupe 4y ago
    I take issue with this kind of argument, because it implies that because we don't know everything that can happen in the future, we should not use nuclear power. We already know the costs of producing energy with coal and oil: thousands of deaths every year, potentially billion of deaths in the medium-term. Like most things, this decision is about trade-offs. No, we have not figured out how to process nuclear waste in 1000 years. But if that's our major problem in 1000 years, we have succeeded in our most important challenge right now.
db48x 4y ago
There is no nuclear waste, just fuel for breeder reactors.
danielheath 4y ago
Not in practice. Many plausible options, but none have been applied at a relevant scale.
Lazare 4y ago
Sure. It's called "put it over there in the corner". That's really all the long term solution you need. I mean, okay, I guess pick a corner that's fairly geologically stable. But the volume is (compared to other energy sources) tiny, and it's just not that dangerous.
Manuel_D 4y ago
Bury it underground, in bedrock. But there's no sense in doing that until the waste has been reprocessed, since non-reprocessed nuclear waste is a valuable fuel source.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  But, waste is not reprocessed, because it is expensive. As is every single thing about nukes.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Israel, Pakistan, and France reprocess their nuclear waste [1]. And it's not particularly expensive, it's just less expensive than enriching new uranium. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      I.e., expensive. US got 15,000 tons of massively subsidized fuel processed from Soviet bombs.
JamisonM 4y ago
I don't think we have a long term solution for nuclear waste, but I have always held that we don't have a long term plan for the wastes from fossil fuels either and they seem much harder to manage so I think it is a win. I would much rather live downstream from a nuclear waste "temporary" storage area that has an indeterminate lifespan than downstream from an oilsands tailings retention pond!
puchatek 4y ago
The amount of differing opinions you got on this fundamental question is remarkable.
ls15 4y ago
Do we have a long term solution for all the toxic waste that coal power plants are blowing into the air and the radioactive ashes that remain? Nuclear waste seems like a tiny problem to me in comparison. Also, people seem to be more interested in nuclear waste than in coal waste, so I expect more sophisticated solutions.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Stop burning coal is the long term solution. Short term solution is similar to nuclear, just gather it in random places and hope you've gone bankrupt before anyone asks you to pay for dealing with it because if you pay up front then you are obviously economic self-harm and people would move straight to the long term solution.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Compared to the extinction of the human race? I think nuclear definitely has a place even with its problems.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  Wait, do you think climate change will cause the extinction of humanity? How so?

Do we have a long term solution for nuclear waste? Or are we just going from one bad output to another?

ThrustVectoring 4y ago

Nuclear waste is a tiny problem. You just stick it somewhere that people aren't, preferably underground.

zik 4y ago
Nuclear waste disposal is normally outsourced to specialist companies. It turns out that many of those companies have been illegally dumping it in the ocean near Africa. In the last decade or so it's been washing ashore and causing huge harm. https://www.expertsure.com/2011/03/27/more-illegally-dumped-radioactive-waste-found-on-somalias-coast/ https://www.expertsure.com/2011/03/27/more-illegally-dumped-... Any time you outsource disposal of such a dangerous substance you're pretty much guaranteeing that it'll all be dumped improperly. That's why it's not a tiny problem at all.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > Project Censored and Boing Boing have been reporting on this horrific situation that is unfolding in the African country: Uh, Project Censored and Boing Boing? I'm not finding any reporting on this purported nuclear waste dumping in Somalia. I'm seeing reports of toxic waste, but not nuclear waste. Furthermore, The USSR and United Kingdom both dumped massive amounts of nuclear waste into the Arctic and Atlantic oceans respectively [1]. There are no observed adverse effects of this. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...
- Lazare 4y ago
  That's blogspam; it's quoting reporting it claims to be from Boing Boing, but actually came from a poorly sourced editorial in the Independent from back in 2009, which in turn is just retelling the allegations from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27... Allegedly, back in the 80s and 90s, organised crime in Italy was involved in the improper disposal of toxic and radioactive waste. Much of it was dumped around Italy, but some was said to have been dumped in Somalian waters. Attempts to verify this have proven difficult; the main informant hasn't proven reliable, and a UN mission to Somalia in 2005 wasn't able to find anything. Still, it does seem like some toxic waste was dumped in or around Somalia back in the 1980s or early 1990s, and that's certainly terrible. That being said, it seems to have happened thirty years ago, and although there was concern the 2005 tsunami could have stirred it up, that doesn't seem to be happening, and there's no evidence it's causing any harm at all. (And remember, most of the waste was in the Med off the coast of Italy, where it would be much easier to detect any impact than in Somalia.) > Any time you outsource disposal of such a dangerous substance you're pretty much guaranteeing that it'll all be dumped improperly. That seems to be the opposite of what your link is suggesting?
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Coal waste kills about 1 million people a year, thats like a genocide right there, how many people does nuclear waste kill?
elevaet 4y ago
And hope that in 1000 years it is still being managed properly, the water table hasn't changed and caused it to poison the groundwater, no one has used it to make a dirty bomb... etc. I don't think we can be so cavalier about nuclear waste, it's a heavy responsibility to push off to the future.
- spupe 4y ago
  I take issue with this kind of argument, because it implies that because we don't know everything that can happen in the future, we should not use nuclear power. We already know the costs of producing energy with coal and oil: thousands of deaths every year, potentially billion of deaths in the medium-term. Like most things, this decision is about trade-offs. No, we have not figured out how to process nuclear waste in 1000 years. But if that's our major problem in 1000 years, we have succeeded in our most important challenge right now.

db48x 4y ago

There is no nuclear waste, just fuel for breeder reactors.

danielheath 4y ago

Not in practice. Many plausible options, but none have been applied at a relevant scale.

Lazare 4y ago

Sure. It's called "put it over there in the corner". That's really all the long term solution you need. I mean, okay, I guess pick a corner that's fairly geologically stable. But the volume is (compared to other energy sources) tiny, and it's just not that dangerous.

Manuel_D 4y ago

Bury it underground, in bedrock. But there's no sense in doing that until the waste has been reprocessed, since non-reprocessed nuclear waste is a valuable fuel source.

ncmncm 4y ago
But, waste is not reprocessed, because it is expensive. As is every single thing about nukes.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Israel, Pakistan, and France reprocess their nuclear waste [1]. And it's not particularly expensive, it's just less expensive than enriching new uranium. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    I.e., expensive. US got 15,000 tons of massively subsidized fuel processed from Soviet bombs.

JamisonM 4y ago

I don't think we have a long term solution for nuclear waste, but I have always held that we don't have a long term plan for the wastes from fossil fuels either and they seem much harder to manage so I think it is a win. I would much rather live downstream from a nuclear waste "temporary" storage area that has an indeterminate lifespan than downstream from an oilsands tailings retention pond!

puchatek 4y ago

The amount of differing opinions you got on this fundamental question is remarkable.

ls15 4y ago

Do we have a long term solution for all the toxic waste that coal power plants are blowing into the air and the radioactive ashes that remain? Nuclear waste seems like a tiny problem to me in comparison. Also, people seem to be more interested in nuclear waste than in coal waste, so I expect more sophisticated solutions.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Stop burning coal is the long term solution. Short term solution is similar to nuclear, just gather it in random places and hope you've gone bankrupt before anyone asks you to pay for dealing with it because if you pay up front then you are obviously economic self-harm and people would move straight to the long term solution.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Compared to the extinction of the human race? I think nuclear definitely has a place even with its problems.

thehappypm 4y ago
Wait, do you think climate change will cause the extinction of humanity? How so?