5 ms·

I also thought we should've developed a nuclear waste industry here in South Australia. There was a 'citizen's jury' on the topic a while back but obviously pub

by prawn 5y ago

I also thought we should've developed a nuclear waste industry here in South Australia. There was a 'citizen's jury' on the topic a while back but obviously public opinion swayed political action to rule it out. We have a lot of "unused" and stable land well away from population centres. I imagine transport from afar is an issue though.

worik 5y ago
Storing waste is too expensive to contemplate. Wherever it is put the high level waste (not much in quantity but...) is deadly and a silent killer for over a hundred thousand years. This is geologically significant time period, and we can make bets, but have no guarantee of any place on Earth being stable on those time scales. So it must be monitored. For a hundred thousand years That would be us making future generations pay for the cost of our current consumptions. I do not think they will think kindly of us.
- Paradigma11 4y ago
  But you already have to take care of a nuclear waste depot, nevermind the nasty chemical stuff that never degrades and has to be stored forever. It does not really matter how big the caverns are where you store the waste so any additional nuclear material stored is basically free.
- clarionbell 5y ago
  On time scales of centuries or millennia there are only three outcomes for humanity: - Extinction - We don't need to care about it, because there are no descendants. - Advancement - We will be able to handle the problem better as our technology improves. - Stagnation/regression - We don't need to care about it. Our descendants will have to worry about dysentery, crop failures and regional warfare. Some magic rocks that kill people will end up as curios in warded laden boxes after first adventurous monk opens sarcophagus and succumbs to curse.
- Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure they'd rather deal with a bit of entombed nuclear waste buried deep in the ground instead of a dead, polluted and depleted planet.
  - worik 4y ago
    Another way of avoiding a "dead depleted planet" is to not kill and deplete the one we have Leaving piles of toxic waste - either nuclear or some other nefarious thing you are implying - is due to greed. Can we deal with our greed?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "is deadly and a silent killer for over a hundred thousand years... We no guarantee of any place on Earth being stable on those time scales." The geological pixel - smallest possible measurable period - is 50,000 years. Nuclear waste is 2 pixels. Everest is a 50 million years old. The chalk that makes up white cliffs of dover is 130 million years old. There are layers of bedrock over a billion years old. So yes, we are making a bet in the sence that when I go putside I make a bet that an asteroid won't fall on my head.
- DennisP 5y ago
  Or build fast reactors, which can use most of that waste for fuel. The long-term radioactivity comes from transuranics, which fast neutrons fission quite well. What's left is just fission products. Encase them in glass and bury them, and they'll be back to the radioactivity of the original ore in 300 years. Most of the radioactivity will be gone in the first few decades, since the decline is exponential. Russia has a couple fast reactors in operation right now, and various startups are attempting new designs.
- throwaway69123 4y ago
  Nuclear waste eventually will be used as fuel

by prawn 5y ago

worik 5y ago

Storing waste is too expensive to contemplate. Wherever it is put the high level waste (not much in quantity but...) is deadly and a silent killer for over a hundred thousand years. This is geologically significant time period, and we can make bets, but have no guarantee of any place on Earth being stable on those time scales. So it must be monitored. For a hundred thousand years That would be us making future generations pay for the cost of our current consumptions. I do not think they will think kindly of us.

Paradigma11 4y ago
But you already have to take care of a nuclear waste depot, nevermind the nasty chemical stuff that never degrades and has to be stored forever. It does not really matter how big the caverns are where you store the waste so any additional nuclear material stored is basically free.
clarionbell 5y ago
On time scales of centuries or millennia there are only three outcomes for humanity: - Extinction - We don't need to care about it, because there are no descendants. - Advancement - We will be able to handle the problem better as our technology improves. - Stagnation/regression - We don't need to care about it. Our descendants will have to worry about dysentery, crop failures and regional warfare. Some magic rocks that kill people will end up as curios in warded laden boxes after first adventurous monk opens sarcophagus and succumbs to curse.
Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
I'm pretty sure they'd rather deal with a bit of entombed nuclear waste buried deep in the ground instead of a dead, polluted and depleted planet.
- worik 4y ago
  Another way of avoiding a "dead depleted planet" is to not kill and deplete the one we have Leaving piles of toxic waste - either nuclear or some other nefarious thing you are implying - is due to greed. Can we deal with our greed?
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"is deadly and a silent killer for over a hundred thousand years... We no guarantee of any place on Earth being stable on those time scales." The geological pixel - smallest possible measurable period - is 50,000 years. Nuclear waste is 2 pixels. Everest is a 50 million years old. The chalk that makes up white cliffs of dover is 130 million years old. There are layers of bedrock over a billion years old. So yes, we are making a bet in the sence that when I go putside I make a bet that an asteroid won't fall on my head.
DennisP 5y ago
Or build fast reactors, which can use most of that waste for fuel. The long-term radioactivity comes from transuranics, which fast neutrons fission quite well. What's left is just fission products. Encase them in glass and bury them, and they'll be back to the radioactivity of the original ore in 300 years. Most of the radioactivity will be gone in the first few decades, since the decline is exponential. Russia has a couple fast reactors in operation right now, and various startups are attempting new designs.
throwaway69123 4y ago
Nuclear waste eventually will be used as fuel