4 ms·

Q: Do those countries already have long term nuclear waste storage facilities? There are countries that have been spectacularly failing to provide their own su

Q: Do those countries already have long term nuclear waste storage facilities? There are countries that have been spectacularly failing to provide their own such facilities for decades.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Suppose they don't - so what is you proposed solution - they live in the dark ages?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  That is not the alternative.
Dylan16807 4y ago
How about they just prepay another country for ten thousand years of storage multiplied by 100 square meters? I don't see why it has to be local.
- logifail 4y ago
  > I don't see why it has to be local If we propose to allow countries to outsource their nuclear waste disposal, wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper and safer to just skip nuclear entirely and outsource the power generation? All those countries with apparently not enough access to sunlight or wind will save an awful lot of time and money messing about with nuclear and just buy in their renewable power. If it works, could the Xlinks Morocco-UK power project could be a template for this kind of solution?[0]: "A 10.5 gigawatt (GW) solar and wind farm will be built in Morocco’s Guelmim-Oued Noun region, and it will supply the UK with clean energy via subsea cables. The twin 1.8 GW high voltage direct current (HVDC) subsea cables will be the world’s longest." [0] https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cable-will-send-clean-energy-from-morocco-to-the-uk/ https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cab...
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I think whether it's cheaper is begging the question. And I couldn't tell you what's safer. But there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months.
    - logifail 4y ago
      > there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months I think trusting another country to look after your radioactive waste for a few thousand years might involve a fair amount of risk. It's hard enough trying to look after it yourself. At the simplest level, what if the storage facility has a design fault or some geological event happens and suddenly loads more work and/or money is required? Or, in the spirit of bad movie plots: What happens if the other country changes its mind, perhaps after a major change of government or referendum? "We instruct you to take all your nuclear waste back. Right Now!" What happens if the other country doesn't maintain the storage properly / fails to keep it safe? Who's to blame for any leak / accident / incident / attack?
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        This comes across silly. Have you ever seen how nuclear waste is stored? It is not like oil stored in a tanker that might spill out because rust has made a hole. It is a solid substance, vitriefied in a giant block of gas, sealed inside a copper container that never rusts. Then this container is placed hundreds of meters underground, into bedrock, and the tunnel is filled in. Noone walks around to check how it's doing today. If something goes terribly wrong, these containers can be stored in an ordinary warehouse for years and nothing happens. Then lets address the misattribution of incentives. In all your scenarios the coutry housing nuclear waste is the one that's interested in making sure its stored properly. You can't use it for extortion, any kind of returning of nuclear waste by force would likely amount to an act of war. On the other hand, if another nation is supplying you power, they can extort you by cutting power supply, and that is what Russia is doing to europe today. Europe is very fortunate that Russian leadership is completely retarded when it comes to running the economy, and Russia simply can't afford to cut the supply completely. However it does mean that Europe is sponsoring putin's war in Ukraine. The primary concerns with nuclear power are those of economic viability, lead times, practicality. The waste is not killing anyone, we can build containers thay last hundreds, even thousands of years and we have time to figure out this problem.
Paradigma11 4y ago
Nuclear produces very little waste. One or two sites world wide should be enough for the current or 100 times the amount. Since we already need these sites and they cost practically the same regardless how much waste is buried, any additional nuclear waste is stored for free.

Q: Do those countries already have long term nuclear waste storage facilities? There are countries that have been spectacularly failing to provide their own such facilities for decades.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

Suppose they don't - so what is you proposed solution - they live in the dark ages?

ncmncm 4y ago
That is not the alternative.

Dylan16807 4y ago

How about they just prepay another country for ten thousand years of storage multiplied by 100 square meters? I don't see why it has to be local.

logifail 4y ago
> I don't see why it has to be local If we propose to allow countries to outsource their nuclear waste disposal, wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper and safer to just skip nuclear entirely and outsource the power generation? All those countries with apparently not enough access to sunlight or wind will save an awful lot of time and money messing about with nuclear and just buy in their renewable power. If it works, could the Xlinks Morocco-UK power project could be a template for this kind of solution?[0]: "A 10.5 gigawatt (GW) solar and wind farm will be built in Morocco’s Guelmim-Oued Noun region, and it will supply the UK with clean energy via subsea cables. The twin 1.8 GW high voltage direct current (HVDC) subsea cables will be the world’s longest." [0] https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cable-will-send-clean-energy-from-morocco-to-the-uk/ https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cab...
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  I think whether it's cheaper is begging the question. And I couldn't tell you what's safer. But there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months I think trusting another country to look after your radioactive waste for a few thousand years might involve a fair amount of risk. It's hard enough trying to look after it yourself. At the simplest level, what if the storage facility has a design fault or some geological event happens and suddenly loads more work and/or money is required? Or, in the spirit of bad movie plots: What happens if the other country changes its mind, perhaps after a major change of government or referendum? "We instruct you to take all your nuclear waste back. Right Now!" What happens if the other country doesn't maintain the storage properly / fails to keep it safe? Who's to blame for any leak / accident / incident / attack?
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      This comes across silly. Have you ever seen how nuclear waste is stored? It is not like oil stored in a tanker that might spill out because rust has made a hole. It is a solid substance, vitriefied in a giant block of gas, sealed inside a copper container that never rusts. Then this container is placed hundreds of meters underground, into bedrock, and the tunnel is filled in. Noone walks around to check how it's doing today. If something goes terribly wrong, these containers can be stored in an ordinary warehouse for years and nothing happens. Then lets address the misattribution of incentives. In all your scenarios the coutry housing nuclear waste is the one that's interested in making sure its stored properly. You can't use it for extortion, any kind of returning of nuclear waste by force would likely amount to an act of war. On the other hand, if another nation is supplying you power, they can extort you by cutting power supply, and that is what Russia is doing to europe today. Europe is very fortunate that Russian leadership is completely retarded when it comes to running the economy, and Russia simply can't afford to cut the supply completely. However it does mean that Europe is sponsoring putin's war in Ukraine. The primary concerns with nuclear power are those of economic viability, lead times, practicality. The waste is not killing anyone, we can build containers thay last hundreds, even thousands of years and we have time to figure out this problem.

Paradigma11 4y ago

Nuclear produces very little waste. One or two sites world wide should be enough for the current or 100 times the amount. Since we already need these sites and they cost practically the same regardless how much waste is buried, any additional nuclear waste is stored for free.