7 ms·

I agree with some of your criticism of the article, but I disagree that nuclear waste is a problem. Yes, we have to store it somewhere. But all US plants combi

I agree with some of your criticism of the article, but I disagree that nuclear waste is a problem. Yes, we have to store it somewhere. But all US plants combined make ~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year. To put that in perspective, the strategic oil reserve is 100 million cubic meters. A single aircraft carrier is 2 million cubic meters. Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem like a massive problem.

arinlen 4y ago
> Yes, we have to store it somewhere. But all US plants combined make ~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year. And all those extra 5k cubic meters per year of nuclear waste needs to be stored for around a million years until they are again safe.
- kubami 4y ago
  If you read the article you'd see it's not "million years" but ~300.
  - jpgvm 4y ago
    Even if it was a million years it wouldn't matter. The US has the Nevada desert which is effectively a barren wasteland, just shove it in a bunch of containers and leave it there. They already do that for removed nuclear reactors from military vessels (which is actually so it can be seen in satellite imagery to fulfill international treaty requirements.
    - arinlen 4y ago
      > Even if it was a million years it wouldn't matter. This take is absurd. Humanity barely exists for a few thousand years and you somehow assume that it's feasible and economically justifiable to create a health and security hazard that will exist until the end of times. And all for what? Because you want to shave off a few cents from an energy bill?
    - tekknik 4y ago
      if we solve the clean energy problem, and energy becomes abundant, then that all becomes very usable land.
      - jpgvm 4y ago
        And if we don't we all die. Seems like an easy choice to me.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    Yes it's 300 years, because of magic which somehow makes recycling feasible and let's us ignore all the parts which have lifetimes longer than 300 years. That's not a valid argument. So far nobody has managed to come up with a economically and ecologically feasible way to recycle nuclear waste. The French Le Havre site is primarily run for military reasons and multiples the amount of waste. Admittedly lower grade waste, but it still needs to be kept away from people for thousands of years.
smartmic 4y ago
You just considered one axis of the waste properties. It must also be in the equation that the waste will remain radioactive and toxic for thousands of years, far beyond the time horizon of what a normal human brain is capable of processing. Also, the effects (spatial, biological) if the waste is released for whatever reason (which we may not even know now). So the debt we transfer to future generations goes far, too far, beyond just a question what space is required for the waste.
- funklute 4y ago
  > far beyond the time horizon of what a normal human brain is capable of processing This is just hyperbole though. All the other arguments aside, it's perfectly possible for humans to plan, and make risk estimates, beyond a human life span.
  - tralarpa 4y ago
    The Germans could not even properly manage one of their test locations (for weak and medium-level radioactive nuclear waste, not for waste from nuclear plants) longer than a few decades. One person who worked there said that after a few years they didn't know anymore what and how much exactly was stored there.
    - natmaka 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Some humans can plan well over such horizons, but the reason we even need to have this discussion now is that the people in charge 70 years ago didn't care to plan to mitigate against the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel plants, even though Svante Arrhenius calculated in 1896(!) that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would increase Earth's temperature 4-6 °C (depending in part on which Wikipedia reference I follow).
- raverbashing 4y ago
TedShiller 4y ago
> Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem like a massive problem. How about your backyard?
- Blammar 4y ago
  If I can access the fuel remaining in the rods, sure! I always wanted a 15kw thermal reactor in my back yard... just need a few cubic meters of Peltier pods...
- franga2000 4y ago
  I don't have a backyard, but if it turned out to be the most effective and safe solution to, let's say, dig a deep borehole under my hypothetical lawn, drop the waste down there and seal it back up, why not? From what I know of deep geological storage, I wouldn't mind living in a house on top of one of these sites. Since they're usually in the middle of nowhere, it would probably be even safer than living in a polluted city.
  - TedShiller 4y ago
    > I don't have a backyard How convenient
    - franga2000 4y ago
      wow, yes, so convenient that the prospect of having a house is nothing but an unrealistic dream for my generation... What's your point??
      - TedShiller 4y ago
        If I had billions I’d give it all away. I promise.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I'd love to have a backyard big enough for that. The only problems I would have with it being in my hypothetical back yard would be other people thinking it was dangerous, leading to an urban decay cycle (this also applies to property with unlucky numbers, like 13 in the anglosphere), and/or lots of protesters and/or would-be terrorists not realising how deep the stuff is buried nor now hard it is to shift a multi-ton concrete-filled steel barrel.

arinlen 4y ago

> Yes, we have to store it somewhere. But all US plants combined make ~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year. And all those extra 5k cubic meters per year of nuclear waste needs to be stored for around a million years until they are again safe.

kubami 4y ago
If you read the article you'd see it's not "million years" but ~300.
- jpgvm 4y ago
  Even if it was a million years it wouldn't matter. The US has the Nevada desert which is effectively a barren wasteland, just shove it in a bunch of containers and leave it there. They already do that for removed nuclear reactors from military vessels (which is actually so it can be seen in satellite imagery to fulfill international treaty requirements.
  - arinlen 4y ago
    > Even if it was a million years it wouldn't matter. This take is absurd. Humanity barely exists for a few thousand years and you somehow assume that it's feasible and economically justifiable to create a health and security hazard that will exist until the end of times. And all for what? Because you want to shave off a few cents from an energy bill?
  - tekknik 4y ago
    if we solve the clean energy problem, and energy becomes abundant, then that all becomes very usable land.
    - jpgvm 4y ago
      And if we don't we all die. Seems like an easy choice to me.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Yes it's 300 years, because of magic which somehow makes recycling feasible and let's us ignore all the parts which have lifetimes longer than 300 years. That's not a valid argument. So far nobody has managed to come up with a economically and ecologically feasible way to recycle nuclear waste. The French Le Havre site is primarily run for military reasons and multiples the amount of waste. Admittedly lower grade waste, but it still needs to be kept away from people for thousands of years.

smartmic 4y ago

You just considered one axis of the waste properties. It must also be in the equation that the waste will remain radioactive and toxic for thousands of years, far beyond the time horizon of what a normal human brain is capable of processing. Also, the effects (spatial, biological) if the waste is released for whatever reason (which we may not even know now). So the debt we transfer to future generations goes far, too far, beyond just a question what space is required for the waste.

funklute 4y ago
> far beyond the time horizon of what a normal human brain is capable of processing This is just hyperbole though. All the other arguments aside, it's perfectly possible for humans to plan, and make risk estimates, beyond a human life span.
- tralarpa 4y ago
  The Germans could not even properly manage one of their test locations (for weak and medium-level radioactive nuclear waste, not for waste from nuclear plants) longer than a few decades. One person who worked there said that after a few years they didn't know anymore what and how much exactly was stored there.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
- ben_w 4y ago
  Some humans can plan well over such horizons, but the reason we even need to have this discussion now is that the people in charge 70 years ago didn't care to plan to mitigate against the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel plants, even though Svante Arrhenius calculated in 1896(!) that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would increase Earth's temperature 4-6 °C (depending in part on which Wikipedia reference I follow).
raverbashing 4y ago

TedShiller 4y ago

> Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem like a massive problem. How about your backyard?

Blammar 4y ago
If I can access the fuel remaining in the rods, sure! I always wanted a 15kw thermal reactor in my back yard... just need a few cubic meters of Peltier pods...
franga2000 4y ago
I don't have a backyard, but if it turned out to be the most effective and safe solution to, let's say, dig a deep borehole under my hypothetical lawn, drop the waste down there and seal it back up, why not? From what I know of deep geological storage, I wouldn't mind living in a house on top of one of these sites. Since they're usually in the middle of nowhere, it would probably be even safer than living in a polluted city.
- TedShiller 4y ago
  > I don't have a backyard How convenient
  - franga2000 4y ago
    wow, yes, so convenient that the prospect of having a house is nothing but an unrealistic dream for my generation... What's your point??
    - TedShiller 4y ago
      If I had billions I’d give it all away. I promise.
ben_w 4y ago
I'd love to have a backyard big enough for that. The only problems I would have with it being in my hypothetical back yard would be other people thinking it was dangerous, leading to an urban decay cycle (this also applies to property with unlucky numbers, like 13 in the anglosphere), and/or lots of protesters and/or would-be terrorists not realising how deep the stuff is buried nor now hard it is to shift a multi-ton concrete-filled steel barrel.