4 ms·

Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear. Regarding the waste, I'd much rather have the very small amount of nuclear w

Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear. Regarding the waste, I'd much rather have the very small amount of nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power station kept somewhere nice and safe than the humongous amount of waste that coal and gas produce and spew out into our atmosphere. A coal power station releases more radioactive waste than a nuclear one. Even the renewables produce quite an impressive waste stream compared to nuclear

kennend3 4y ago
This! People like the person you responded to seem to think nuclear power plants are producing tons of high level waste per day. Fact is most of the used fuel for the operating reactors are safely stored ON SITE because there is actually very little "radioactive waste". If not for NIMBY disposing the waste would be fairly straightforward. were i live (canada) we have the "canadian shield" which contains rocks as old as 4 billion years. If we stored super-scary-plutonium there it would remain sealed long enough that all the plutonium would safely decay away. But the NIMBY state - "it isn't stable, it isn't safe, how do you now it will remain stable". Where exactly is all that rock going? why would it suddenly do this when it has remained in place for a few billion years so far?
- loopback_device 4y ago
  People like me don't think they produce massive amounts of waste. I am well aware how "little" waste material they produce. The issue is not the volume, but that you only need very little of it to completely deny a large area to living organisms like us for a very long time. Also, the on site storage facilities for spent fuel are only temporary holding pools until it goes off to a treatment facility, to then either be reprocessed for re-use or to be disposed of. Safety concerns with this stuff are not necessarily about the short term storage. Not that there aren't any risks associated with that – let's say, for example, a nuclear power plant being shot at with heavy artillery by a certain military? That'll certainly do. There's this mind-boggling hubris that these materials can be kept safe and controlled under all circumstances, for all of their decay time. Sure, burying it under that mountain or in a salt mine is going to help, until you find that the containers have corroded, and you've now got it in your ground- and drinking-water. [1] [1]: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-019-0579-x https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-019-0579-x EDIT: Missing link
  - kennend3 4y ago
    Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? How much energy was delivered to the cask when a rocket powered train hit it at 84 mph? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 How much radioactive material was released? Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? if you go back in time the amount of U235 increases. Go back far enough and you no longer need to "enrich" it to support a nuclear reactor. Care to guess how far the radioactive byproducts from this reactor travelled? Not sure about Ukraines designs, but here (Canada) our reactors can withstand the impact of a fully loaded jet slamming into them. Nothing is invincible, and i suppose if you it it enough you can open it up, but by then it would have been shutdown and had the fuel removed (a unique design of CANDU allows them to be refuled while operating, so you can remove the fuel this way too). you can come up with all sorts of event and wonder if a reactor can survive them, perhaps a meteor strikes it? Perhaps military? Perhaps like Pickering it runs for its entire lifetime and very little happens? There are also facts to consider, coal releases more radiation vs nuclear power plants. if you are concerned about radioactivity you should focus on that?
    - loopback_device 4y ago
      > Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools. Not sure how the minuscule amount of time the rods spend in there during transport is relevant here? > Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? Yes, also not sure how that's relevant here? It's not like we built them... Background radiation is a thing, and life has adapted to it. A nuclear accident that ends up high enough on the International Nuclear Event Scale however is something you're not going to adapt to. > Not sure about Ukraines designs, [...] I think we've all seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima that you don't need to breach the containment to have things go boom. The unshielded auxiliary buildings and systems are the cause of worry. You're always just one unexpected failure chain away from disaster – unless the reactors are fully shut down and without need for external cooling, there's a chance it's not going to go well. > There are also facts to consider, coal releases more radiation vs nuclear power plants. Sure, that doesn't somehow automatically make other things safe® though? Also, while I certainly do not like coal power plants either, that's not quite the topic.
- loopback_device 4y ago
  In case the theoretical point of containment corrosion doesn't quite deliver, consider the practical one [1] from Brunsbüttel in Germany. The solution? If one rusts through, just put it into a bigger one! I'm sure that's going to work just fine until the end of time. [1]: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/rost-nagt-an-atommuell-faessern-das-matroschka-prinzip-fuer-den-nuklearen-abfall/11703372.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/rost-nagt-an-atommuell-f...
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Indian Point power station in New York has >1500 tons of waste in holding pools, which need to be maintained for hundreds of years, or until another storage method is devised, or until a permanent facility is built.
imtringued 4y ago
>Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear. The vast majority of nuclear power plants are absolutely huge compared to their fossil fuel counterparts. Their thermal cooling needs exceed the ability of local rivers because they are so big. This has resulted in some countries building their nuclear power plants near the ocean even though the coast is tsunami prone. The standard coal plant generates 500 MW or around 6 NuScale reactors. The average nuclear power plant generates 1GW and that is equivalent to 12 NuScale reactors.

kennend3 4y ago

This! People like the person you responded to seem to think nuclear power plants are producing tons of high level waste per day. Fact is most of the used fuel for the operating reactors are safely stored ON SITE because there is actually very little "radioactive waste". If not for NIMBY disposing the waste would be fairly straightforward. were i live (canada) we have the "canadian shield" which contains rocks as old as 4 billion years. If we stored super-scary-plutonium there it would remain sealed long enough that all the plutonium would safely decay away. But the NIMBY state - "it isn't stable, it isn't safe, how do you now it will remain stable". Where exactly is all that rock going? why would it suddenly do this when it has remained in place for a few billion years so far?

loopback_device 4y ago
People like me don't think they produce massive amounts of waste. I am well aware how "little" waste material they produce. The issue is not the volume, but that you only need very little of it to completely deny a large area to living organisms like us for a very long time. Also, the on site storage facilities for spent fuel are only temporary holding pools until it goes off to a treatment facility, to then either be reprocessed for re-use or to be disposed of. Safety concerns with this stuff are not necessarily about the short term storage. Not that there aren't any risks associated with that – let's say, for example, a nuclear power plant being shot at with heavy artillery by a certain military? That'll certainly do. There's this mind-boggling hubris that these materials can be kept safe and controlled under all circumstances, for all of their decay time. Sure, burying it under that mountain or in a salt mine is going to help, until you find that the containers have corroded, and you've now got it in your ground- and drinking-water. [1] [1]: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-019-0579-x https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-019-0579-x EDIT: Missing link
- kennend3 4y ago
  Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? How much energy was delivered to the cask when a rocket powered train hit it at 84 mph? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 How much radioactive material was released? Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? if you go back in time the amount of U235 increases. Go back far enough and you no longer need to "enrich" it to support a nuclear reactor. Care to guess how far the radioactive byproducts from this reactor travelled? Not sure about Ukraines designs, but here (Canada) our reactors can withstand the impact of a fully loaded jet slamming into them. Nothing is invincible, and i suppose if you it it enough you can open it up, but by then it would have been shutdown and had the fuel removed (a unique design of CANDU allows them to be refuled while operating, so you can remove the fuel this way too). you can come up with all sorts of event and wonder if a reactor can survive them, perhaps a meteor strikes it? Perhaps military? Perhaps like Pickering it runs for its entire lifetime and very little happens? There are also facts to consider, coal releases more radiation vs nuclear power plants. if you are concerned about radioactivity you should focus on that?
  - loopback_device 4y ago
    > Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools. Not sure how the minuscule amount of time the rods spend in there during transport is relevant here? > Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? Yes, also not sure how that's relevant here? It's not like we built them... Background radiation is a thing, and life has adapted to it. A nuclear accident that ends up high enough on the International Nuclear Event Scale however is something you're not going to adapt to. > Not sure about Ukraines designs, [...] I think we've all seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima that you don't need to breach the containment to have things go boom. The unshielded auxiliary buildings and systems are the cause of worry. You're always just one unexpected failure chain away from disaster – unless the reactors are fully shut down and without need for external cooling, there's a chance it's not going to go well. > There are also facts to consider, coal releases more radiation vs nuclear power plants. Sure, that doesn't somehow automatically make other things safe® though? Also, while I certainly do not like coal power plants either, that's not quite the topic.
loopback_device 4y ago
In case the theoretical point of containment corrosion doesn't quite deliver, consider the practical one [1] from Brunsbüttel in Germany. The solution? If one rusts through, just put it into a bigger one! I'm sure that's going to work just fine until the end of time. [1]: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/rost-nagt-an-atommuell-faessern-das-matroschka-prinzip-fuer-den-nuklearen-abfall/11703372.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/rost-nagt-an-atommuell-f...
Spooky23 4y ago
Indian Point power station in New York has >1500 tons of waste in holding pools, which need to be maintained for hundreds of years, or until another storage method is devised, or until a permanent facility is built.

imtringued 4y ago

>Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear. The vast majority of nuclear power plants are absolutely huge compared to their fossil fuel counterparts. Their thermal cooling needs exceed the ability of local rivers because they are so big. This has resulted in some countries building their nuclear power plants near the ocean even though the coast is tsunami prone. The standard coal plant generates 500 MW or around 6 NuScale reactors. The average nuclear power plant generates 1GW and that is equivalent to 12 NuScale reactors.