4 ms·

No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me.

by sveme 4y ago

No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. And please do not come up with future inventions that will magically remove that issue, that does not help. Btw, it wasn't really a rush, it was started more than 30 years ago by not building new nuclear power plants. Many of the power plants are actually at the end of their lifetime anyway.

Mo3 4y ago
I'm almost anxious to ask, I know very little about the topic, but I've been wondering if it wasn't a viable option to just shoot the waste into space? I know it's prohibitively expensive to do that as of now, but seeing what they're doing with Spinlaunch..
- Auracle 4y ago
  I’m sure someone here can do the math, but it takes a lot of energy to get things not just in space, but out of the Earth’s gravity. You don’t want that nuclear waste raining back down. It’s far easier, cheaper, and more fool proof to just bury it deep.
- kej 4y ago
  In addition to the raw costs of moving anything into space, there is the contingency cost of what happens if the launch goes wrong. A new satellite blowing up on the launchpad is bad, but a cargo of nuclear waste exploding a few seconds after liftoff is catastrophic.
  - Mo3 4y ago
    True, that sounds reasonable..
gizmo 4y ago
That's not true. Nuclear waste is so minimal in volume nuclear power plants can just sweep it under the carpet. Or more specifically, just store it on-site. Modern nuclear reactors can even use the waste of old reactors as fuel and reduce it by another 80% or so. Dealing with nuclear waste is really no big deal. At least for medium term storage. Storing waste so you don't have to look after it for thousands of years is admittedly more difficult. Then again, future generations are always impacted by the choices we make today and I'm pretty sure the kids 300 years from now would rather deal with the cleanup of our nuclear waste than with the consequence of global warming.
espadrine 4y ago
> No one knows where to put the trash They do, though. That is where the “trash” is. They have become so adept at it, they made a museum out of one facility[0]. Two misconceptions that benefit from being clarified: 1. There is very little waste for the amount of energy produced. If we only used nuclear, it would amount for 40 grams per person per year[1]. 2. The waste is not trash, it is extremely valuable. It was valuable in the ground, and it is still valuable out of the ground; just not for the particular reactor that it came from. [0]: https://www.covra.nl/en/radioactive-waste/the-art-of-preservation/ https://www.covra.nl/en/radioactive-waste/the-art-of-preserv... [1]: https://whatisnuclear.com/factoids.html https://whatisnuclear.com/factoids.html
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  You're talking about fuel, and we're talking about trash. From refinement to the reactor and spent fuel processing, the nuclear power industry generates a huge amount of trash that is low-grade radioactive and thus cannot be just dumped in a landfill. The nuclear industry has had over seventy years to get their act together regarding fuel recycling. They'd rather just dump it into pools on-site because it's cheapest and makes it Someone Else's Problem. It's the same attitude of the chemical industry from the 1950's: dump it in a hole and let someone else deal with it after you've long since left. Here's an idea: let's spend the money on wind turbine blade, battery, and solar panel repurposing and recycling instead.
  - espadrine 4y ago
    What is the kill count for this low-grade radioactive “trash” per TJ? What is the volume per TJ? The coal industry has convinced the ecologists to require titanic standards from literally every green energy source, especially the one with the most stable output. > Here's an idea: let's spend the money on wind turbine blade, battery, and solar panel repurposing and recycling instead. I am into doing that, AND the nuclear stuff. No need to tie an anchor to our ankle while we try to metaphorically swim back to the surface.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    > Here's an idea: let's spend the money on wind turbine blade, battery, and solar panel repurposing and recycling instead. The two is not exclusive. You do need stable base energy production and none of the renewables solve it well. Hydro could do it, but the locations where it is appropriate are few and it has quite a big ecological impact in and of itself.
MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
Burning coal on the other hand has a waste disposal mechanism built in! The carbon atoms are converted into CO2, a harmless gas that we can release into the atmosphere without any consequences.
tuetuopay 4y ago
> No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. We know so well how to handle it that we are wondering how to keep people out of the storage places in the event of a civilization collapse. That is, where current languages are forgotten and we forget what nuclear is. That's how advanced in storage we are.

by sveme 4y ago

Mo3 4y ago

I'm almost anxious to ask, I know very little about the topic, but I've been wondering if it wasn't a viable option to just shoot the waste into space? I know it's prohibitively expensive to do that as of now, but seeing what they're doing with Spinlaunch..

Auracle 4y ago
I’m sure someone here can do the math, but it takes a lot of energy to get things not just in space, but out of the Earth’s gravity. You don’t want that nuclear waste raining back down. It’s far easier, cheaper, and more fool proof to just bury it deep.
kej 4y ago
In addition to the raw costs of moving anything into space, there is the contingency cost of what happens if the launch goes wrong. A new satellite blowing up on the launchpad is bad, but a cargo of nuclear waste exploding a few seconds after liftoff is catastrophic.
- Mo3 4y ago
  True, that sounds reasonable..

gizmo 4y ago

That's not true. Nuclear waste is so minimal in volume nuclear power plants can just sweep it under the carpet. Or more specifically, just store it on-site. Modern nuclear reactors can even use the waste of old reactors as fuel and reduce it by another 80% or so. Dealing with nuclear waste is really no big deal. At least for medium term storage. Storing waste so you don't have to look after it for thousands of years is admittedly more difficult. Then again, future generations are always impacted by the choices we make today and I'm pretty sure the kids 300 years from now would rather deal with the cleanup of our nuclear waste than with the consequence of global warming.

espadrine 4y ago

> No one knows where to put the trash They do, though. That is where the “trash” is. They have become so adept at it, they made a museum out of one facility[0]. Two misconceptions that benefit from being clarified: 1. There is very little waste for the amount of energy produced. If we only used nuclear, it would amount for 40 grams per person per year[1]. 2. The waste is not trash, it is extremely valuable. It was valuable in the ground, and it is still valuable out of the ground; just not for the particular reactor that it came from. [0]: https://www.covra.nl/en/radioactive-waste/the-art-of-preservation/ https://www.covra.nl/en/radioactive-waste/the-art-of-preserv... [1]: https://whatisnuclear.com/factoids.html https://whatisnuclear.com/factoids.html

KennyBlanken 4y ago
You're talking about fuel, and we're talking about trash. From refinement to the reactor and spent fuel processing, the nuclear power industry generates a huge amount of trash that is low-grade radioactive and thus cannot be just dumped in a landfill. The nuclear industry has had over seventy years to get their act together regarding fuel recycling. They'd rather just dump it into pools on-site because it's cheapest and makes it Someone Else's Problem. It's the same attitude of the chemical industry from the 1950's: dump it in a hole and let someone else deal with it after you've long since left. Here's an idea: let's spend the money on wind turbine blade, battery, and solar panel repurposing and recycling instead.
- espadrine 4y ago
  What is the kill count for this low-grade radioactive “trash” per TJ? What is the volume per TJ? The coal industry has convinced the ecologists to require titanic standards from literally every green energy source, especially the one with the most stable output. > Here's an idea: let's spend the money on wind turbine blade, battery, and solar panel repurposing and recycling instead. I am into doing that, AND the nuclear stuff. No need to tie an anchor to our ankle while we try to metaphorically swim back to the surface.
- kaba0 4y ago
  > Here's an idea: let's spend the money on wind turbine blade, battery, and solar panel repurposing and recycling instead. The two is not exclusive. You do need stable base energy production and none of the renewables solve it well. Hydro could do it, but the locations where it is appropriate are few and it has quite a big ecological impact in and of itself.

MatthiasPortzel 4y ago

Burning coal on the other hand has a waste disposal mechanism built in! The carbon atoms are converted into CO2, a harmless gas that we can release into the atmosphere without any consequences.

tuetuopay 4y ago

> No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. We know so well how to handle it that we are wondering how to keep people out of the storage places in the event of a civilization collapse. That is, where current languages are forgotten and we forget what nuclear is. That's how advanced in storage we are.