3 ms·

For FUCKS SAKE: Nuclear waste is a non issue. You dedicate once, EXACTLY ONE, swimming pool to store spent fuel for an entire country. The lie of nuclear wast

For FUCKS SAKE: Nuclear waste is a non issue. You dedicate once, EXACTLY ONE, swimming pool to store spent fuel for an entire country. The lie of nuclear waste has been repeated so many time by uneducated fossil fuel lovers we’ve missed hundreds of opportunities to provide clean sustainable power for generations. There are some logistic and construction problems that need optimization, but waste is the least of them.

loopback_device 4y ago
Not sure how regarding nuclear fission as reasonably dangerous automatically makes you a "fossil fuel lover", but okay. It's not like there aren't any other options out there. They just haven't received much investment in the past decades (except for a few places, i.e. geothermal in Iceland). I'd like to be educated about that radioactive waste lie – I've not seen it work (meaning no-maintenance, safe, long-term or permanent storage) yet anywhere. And yet, supposedly a solved problem. Waste processing & storage has a long history of irradiating, or even leaking into the environment – one that immediately comes to mind is Sellafield [1], which is a repeat offender. Gorleben [2], another more recent example of how the "solved problem" turned out to be mainly money in other people's pockets. In the US, they recently had an issue with waste stored on the surface [3]. The list is long, and growing – yet not a single storage facility exists that is deemed permanently safe? I also don't know of any such facility currently under construction. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome [3]: https://nypost.com/2021/04/03/leak-of-radioactive-wastewater-plant-in-florida-imminent-officials/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/03/leak-of-radioactive-wastewater...
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Finally someone with a realistic view on the waste problem. To me it just seems we're exchanging the results of not tackling one long-term problem (climate change) with another even longer term problem. Externalizing to the future. We don't seem to have any other ideas.
- exabrial 4y ago
  - loopback_device 4y ago
    Sellafield is what caused mainland Europe to stop importing Irish butter in the nineteen-somethings, among other things. Not buying Irish butter is a thing I still remember. And Gorleben - I've been there recently. It's been a candidate for long term storage in Germany, and is still a processing/holding facility today. You can also get a tour of the mine that was supposed to be used as storage. Not sure if you're aware, but Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons, so it's all commercial nuclear fuel and waste processing. (EDIT: This is relevant to Sellafield, as waste from there is or was also processed in Gorleben if I recall correctly) The phosphate mine waste incident - while not from a power plant - is still a radioactive waste issue. (EDIT 2: I mentioned this because it was the most recent incident in my memory)
  - loopback_device 4y ago
    If you need another example, read up on La Hague, where Germany also disposed of some of its waste.
  - loopback_device 4y ago
    > One of them has to do with weapons grade material which isn’t even the subject we’re talking about Btw, the Sellafield complex has a civilian nuclear power plant – the fact that there was a military facility there in the 50s does not make that disappear? > and this pretty much proves my original point about how incredibly uneducated people are. Ouch.
ceph_ 4y ago
You are vastly over simplifying this problem. If it was that simple why did yucca mountain fail? It's not. Realistically every nuclear facility is gonna be a waste storage site for thousands of years. That's not being factored into the cost. Having one nuclear waste dump site per country means transporting nuclear waste to that site by truck or train. Good luck when there's an accident.
- kennend3 4y ago
  Good thing the people designing the transport casks never thought of that.. you should join their team.. Oh wait.. they did in 1972, and tested the designs? 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? What sort of accident do you propose would deliver more energy vs a train strike at 84mph?
- EricE 4y ago
  Yucca mountain failed due to politics. Whats even more nuts is we should be burning what we erroneously call "waste", not burying it. Why is it dangerous? Because it's packed full of energy! Energy that could be put to use, instead of burying in the ground. It's beyond idiotic.
stefantalpalaru 4y ago

loopback_device 4y ago

Not sure how regarding nuclear fission as reasonably dangerous automatically makes you a "fossil fuel lover", but okay. It's not like there aren't any other options out there. They just haven't received much investment in the past decades (except for a few places, i.e. geothermal in Iceland). I'd like to be educated about that radioactive waste lie – I've not seen it work (meaning no-maintenance, safe, long-term or permanent storage) yet anywhere. And yet, supposedly a solved problem. Waste processing & storage has a long history of irradiating, or even leaking into the environment – one that immediately comes to mind is Sellafield [1], which is a repeat offender. Gorleben [2], another more recent example of how the "solved problem" turned out to be mainly money in other people's pockets. In the US, they recently had an issue with waste stored on the surface [3]. The list is long, and growing – yet not a single storage facility exists that is deemed permanently safe? I also don't know of any such facility currently under construction. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome [3]: https://nypost.com/2021/04/03/leak-of-radioactive-wastewater-plant-in-florida-imminent-officials/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/03/leak-of-radioactive-wastewater...

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Finally someone with a realistic view on the waste problem. To me it just seems we're exchanging the results of not tackling one long-term problem (climate change) with another even longer term problem. Externalizing to the future. We don't seem to have any other ideas.
exabrial 4y ago
- loopback_device 4y ago
  Sellafield is what caused mainland Europe to stop importing Irish butter in the nineteen-somethings, among other things. Not buying Irish butter is a thing I still remember. And Gorleben - I've been there recently. It's been a candidate for long term storage in Germany, and is still a processing/holding facility today. You can also get a tour of the mine that was supposed to be used as storage. Not sure if you're aware, but Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons, so it's all commercial nuclear fuel and waste processing. (EDIT: This is relevant to Sellafield, as waste from there is or was also processed in Gorleben if I recall correctly) The phosphate mine waste incident - while not from a power plant - is still a radioactive waste issue. (EDIT 2: I mentioned this because it was the most recent incident in my memory)
- loopback_device 4y ago
  If you need another example, read up on La Hague, where Germany also disposed of some of its waste.
- loopback_device 4y ago
  > One of them has to do with weapons grade material which isn’t even the subject we’re talking about Btw, the Sellafield complex has a civilian nuclear power plant – the fact that there was a military facility there in the 50s does not make that disappear? > and this pretty much proves my original point about how incredibly uneducated people are. Ouch.

ceph_ 4y ago

You are vastly over simplifying this problem. If it was that simple why did yucca mountain fail? It's not. Realistically every nuclear facility is gonna be a waste storage site for thousands of years. That's not being factored into the cost. Having one nuclear waste dump site per country means transporting nuclear waste to that site by truck or train. Good luck when there's an accident.

kennend3 4y ago
Good thing the people designing the transport casks never thought of that.. you should join their team.. Oh wait.. they did in 1972, and tested the designs? 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? What sort of accident do you propose would deliver more energy vs a train strike at 84mph?
EricE 4y ago
Yucca mountain failed due to politics. Whats even more nuts is we should be burning what we erroneously call "waste", not burying it. Why is it dangerous? Because it's packed full of energy! Energy that could be put to use, instead of burying in the ground. It's beyond idiotic.

stefantalpalaru 4y ago