5 ms·

This works until that nuclear station is decommissioned. 40 to 80 years is a typical design lifespan. Then what? The answer is “kick the can down the road and

This works until that nuclear station is decommissioned. 40 to 80 years is a typical design lifespan. Then what? The answer is “kick the can down the road and hope we find a better solution.” That’s not a bad plan, but we do need a better plan so that local governments are not stuck holding the bag for power companies that are long gone, having left their nuclear waste behind. I would like to avoid an “EPA nuclear super fund” To deal with messes after the fact like we have from industries in the last century. EDIT- it does sort of seem like treating nuclear waste the same as other industrial waste and sending it off to approved Class III landfills should be acceptable. So then, kicking the can down the road leads to the public being forced to accept nuclear waste at a Class III landfill.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Also sometimes local governments disappear or change their "nature" significantly. Or people start shooting big guns and missiles in the vicinity of reactors or storage facilities. ISIS in Mossul contemplated building dirty bombs, for example.
- MagnumOpus 4y ago
  And sometimes people shoot guns and missiles at hydro dams to make them fail and kill tens of thousands of people. For both of these there needs to be cautious assessment of the amount of risks that can be mitigated: - nuclear reactor containment domes, like hydro dams, are built to withstand a few bombs or the impact of a fighter jet, or maybe even a tsunami or once-a-millenium major quake - neither of the two are built to withstand nuclear weapons or continued bunker busters - that's the job of the military...
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Dams often aren't built for power generation, but to better control the river. Energy generation is only a side benefit. Also: A burst dam has predictable and limited consequences. There's still no final assessment for the cost of the Fukushima cleanup or when it will be finished or what they are even gonna do with all the radioactive earth and such. No, apparently not all reactors are built that sturdily. Certainly the proposed SMRs and micro reactors have no such ambitions. Fukushima was built to withstand Tsunamis and earth quakes. The topic of "impossible accidents" actually happening makes the public a little uneasy about predictions by pro-nuclear salespeople. The whole argument about dams vs nuclear plants is pointless.
mgfist 4y ago
What's wrong with that? There are many things that would go to shit without active maintenance. I'd also prefer to be around in 40-80 years, which is harder if we're burning fossil fuels than clean energy like nuclear.
- ethagknight 4y ago
  What’s wrong with not having a long term plan for a relatively dangerous and expensive-to-handle hot potato? I’m only arguing that while there are plenty of good plans out there that the public are not yet willing to accept, if we don’t begin to implement better long-term strategies, local governments will be the ones left dealing with radioactive materials abandoned by their operators Long after the revenue generator has been decommissioned.
  - espadrine 4y ago
    We dug hot rocks out of the ground, used them to heat water for a while, and now we’re storing them and asking where to put them next. It’s not like the rocks were not dangerous before we dug them out.
    - _ph_ 4y ago
      Nuclear waste is many magnitudes worse than natural uranium. It is not only way more concentrated, but contains a lot of radioactive isotopes, uranium doesn't contain, as a consequence of the nuclear reactions.
      - espadrine 4y ago
        The target should be the initial risk. One day, we can dilute it; for now, it seems fair to store it in case it comes in handy later.
        _ph_ 4y ago
        Well, lacking any reasonable technology to process it, we have to store the wast. The problem is: safe storage is difficult to realize and extremely expensive. It needs to be kept safe for many millenia.
mlyle 4y ago
> EDIT- it does sort of seem like treating nuclear waste the same as other industrial waste and sending it off to approved Class III landfills should be acceptable. So then, kicking the can down the road leads to the public being forced to accept nuclear waste at a Class III landfill. I think you mean a class I landfill/disposal wells, unless there's another scale I don't know. Something like a Yucca Mountain isn't perfect, but it's better than that. The nice thing about nuclear waste is the hazard disappears over time. The worst of it is spent fuel. Spent fuel does needs cooling for 40+ years. Then after 300-400 years, the vast majority of the hazard is gone. Yes, it does take tens of thousands of years to completely vanish to baseline. Compare to various kinds of nasty toxic-to-life things that more readily dissolve in groundwater and are equivalently nasty for tens of thousands of years.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  > The nice thing about nuclear waste is the hazard disappears over time. The radiation hazard disappears over time but how do you know this stuff isn't poisonous for example?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > The radiation hazard disappears over time but how do you know this stuff isn't poisonous for example? Oh, it is -- it's mostly heavy metals. But: - We're not going to stop using heavy metals. - We produce a lot less of it than other heavy metals-- so we're talking about a tiny portion of this hazard. - We can reasonably expect it'll be a lot better disposed than what we typically do with heavy metals.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  To me, nuclear fission has to be part of any serious plan to reduce carbon emissions. Yes, there is some low hanging fruit that solar/wind generation can address, and we should do that, but we need electricity at night, and when the wind isn't blowing, and when the seasonal position of the sun isn't advantageous. Battery storage technology is not anywhere close to the scale that would be needed. As transportation is shifting away from fossil fuels, and world population expands, demand for electricity will only increase. Fusion energy may be something that becomes practical in another hundred years time, but it's not close. Yes, nuclear waste is dangerous and needs careful, well planned management. OK. Are we serious about addressing carbon emissions, or not? If we are, it's something we have to figure out. It's not beyond our capability, and any risks need to be considered in light of the alternative of continuing to dump carbon into the atmosphere.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

Also sometimes local governments disappear or change their "nature" significantly. Or people start shooting big guns and missiles in the vicinity of reactors or storage facilities. ISIS in Mossul contemplated building dirty bombs, for example.

MagnumOpus 4y ago
And sometimes people shoot guns and missiles at hydro dams to make them fail and kill tens of thousands of people. For both of these there needs to be cautious assessment of the amount of risks that can be mitigated: - nuclear reactor containment domes, like hydro dams, are built to withstand a few bombs or the impact of a fighter jet, or maybe even a tsunami or once-a-millenium major quake - neither of the two are built to withstand nuclear weapons or continued bunker busters - that's the job of the military...
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Dams often aren't built for power generation, but to better control the river. Energy generation is only a side benefit. Also: A burst dam has predictable and limited consequences. There's still no final assessment for the cost of the Fukushima cleanup or when it will be finished or what they are even gonna do with all the radioactive earth and such. No, apparently not all reactors are built that sturdily. Certainly the proposed SMRs and micro reactors have no such ambitions. Fukushima was built to withstand Tsunamis and earth quakes. The topic of "impossible accidents" actually happening makes the public a little uneasy about predictions by pro-nuclear salespeople. The whole argument about dams vs nuclear plants is pointless.

mgfist 4y ago

What's wrong with that? There are many things that would go to shit without active maintenance. I'd also prefer to be around in 40-80 years, which is harder if we're burning fossil fuels than clean energy like nuclear.

ethagknight 4y ago
What’s wrong with not having a long term plan for a relatively dangerous and expensive-to-handle hot potato? I’m only arguing that while there are plenty of good plans out there that the public are not yet willing to accept, if we don’t begin to implement better long-term strategies, local governments will be the ones left dealing with radioactive materials abandoned by their operators Long after the revenue generator has been decommissioned.
- espadrine 4y ago
  We dug hot rocks out of the ground, used them to heat water for a while, and now we’re storing them and asking where to put them next. It’s not like the rocks were not dangerous before we dug them out.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    Nuclear waste is many magnitudes worse than natural uranium. It is not only way more concentrated, but contains a lot of radioactive isotopes, uranium doesn't contain, as a consequence of the nuclear reactions.
    - espadrine 4y ago
      The target should be the initial risk. One day, we can dilute it; for now, it seems fair to store it in case it comes in handy later.
      - _ph_ 4y ago
        Well, lacking any reasonable technology to process it, we have to store the wast. The problem is: safe storage is difficult to realize and extremely expensive. It needs to be kept safe for many millenia.

mlyle 4y ago

> EDIT- it does sort of seem like treating nuclear waste the same as other industrial waste and sending it off to approved Class III landfills should be acceptable. So then, kicking the can down the road leads to the public being forced to accept nuclear waste at a Class III landfill. I think you mean a class I landfill/disposal wells, unless there's another scale I don't know. Something like a Yucca Mountain isn't perfect, but it's better than that. The nice thing about nuclear waste is the hazard disappears over time. The worst of it is spent fuel. Spent fuel does needs cooling for 40+ years. Then after 300-400 years, the vast majority of the hazard is gone. Yes, it does take tens of thousands of years to completely vanish to baseline. Compare to various kinds of nasty toxic-to-life things that more readily dissolve in groundwater and are equivalently nasty for tens of thousands of years.

cinntaile 4y ago
> The nice thing about nuclear waste is the hazard disappears over time. The radiation hazard disappears over time but how do you know this stuff isn't poisonous for example?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > The radiation hazard disappears over time but how do you know this stuff isn't poisonous for example? Oh, it is -- it's mostly heavy metals. But: - We're not going to stop using heavy metals. - We produce a lot less of it than other heavy metals-- so we're talking about a tiny portion of this hazard. - We can reasonably expect it'll be a lot better disposed than what we typically do with heavy metals.
SoftTalker 4y ago
To me, nuclear fission has to be part of any serious plan to reduce carbon emissions. Yes, there is some low hanging fruit that solar/wind generation can address, and we should do that, but we need electricity at night, and when the wind isn't blowing, and when the seasonal position of the sun isn't advantageous. Battery storage technology is not anywhere close to the scale that would be needed. As transportation is shifting away from fossil fuels, and world population expands, demand for electricity will only increase. Fusion energy may be something that becomes practical in another hundred years time, but it's not close. Yes, nuclear waste is dangerous and needs careful, well planned management. OK. Are we serious about addressing carbon emissions, or not? If we are, it's something we have to figure out. It's not beyond our capability, and any risks need to be considered in light of the alternative of continuing to dump carbon into the atmosphere.