3 ms·

> Higher burnup, higher efficiency, and higher enrichment means less waste. Much less waste. No it doesn't. The really bad waste (because it outmasses the rest

> Higher burnup, higher efficiency, and higher enrichment means less waste. Much less waste. No it doesn't. The really bad waste (because it outmasses the rest by four orders of magnitude) is in a tailings pond that will be 'remediated' by pulling a plastic sheet over it in Namibia, or being pumped into the ground water in Kazakhstan, or spilled onto the farm land in Navajo. Higher enrichment means more of that. Reducing high grade waste by 20% at the cost of doubling that seems like a step backwards. Don't you keep saying the amount of high grade waste is completely insignificant? How would reducing something completely insignificant help? It'd be like touting a new solar panel using half the boron dopant reducing it to a microgram at the expense of using 10x as much silver as a nuclear plant rather than 5x. > Another advantage is the fact this is a Small Modular Reactor. China wants to build 18 by the end of the decade. That is iteration. That's how you drive the cost down. How much does fabricating the microspheres and then the pebbles cost? How much does de-fabricating them to achieve 'less waste' cost? I seem to have found the actual upside. It's designed to be a drop in replacement on a coal generator. This makes sense and reduces radioactive waste slightly (or rather puts it in the ground in Niger rather than the air in china).

credit_guy 4y ago
> The really bad waste (because it outmasses the rest by four orders of magnitude) is in a tailings pond that will be 'remediated' by pulling a plastic sheet over it in Namibia. If it outmasses the others by four orders of magnitude, it means on average from each 10000 tons of dirt we extract 1 ton of Uranium, right? And we are left with 9999 tons of the original dirt. Why is that dirt so bad? If anything it has less Urnanium in it, not more. It can't be more radioactive than the thing it initially was, can it?
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Because granite isn't water soluble. Because you've taken rocks that were safely underground with heavy metals safely locked in stable oxides, released all the accumulated radon, and poured 1000 tons of sulfuric acid on it to extract 10 tons of Uranium which you will use 1 ton of for fuel. The toxic slurry is then left in a poorly maintained pond which leaks into farm land where all the other poisonous elements (some of which are also radioactive) bioaccumulate into food. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spi... https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amaravati/uranium-tailings-pond-in-kadapa-not-fenced-panel/articleshow/71318886.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amaravati/uranium-t... In ISL they just let the toxic sulfuric acid slurry soak into the ground water and objections of hydrology engineers pointing out that most of the ISL mines don't meet the very specific conditions that keep it contained are met with 'it attenuates' with no further discussion or scientific evidence. This is in addition to the decomissioning and other low level or non-radioactive waste which is more than the solar panels even if they aren't recycled. Nuclear is not clean. It just puts the filth elsewhere. Similarly solar and wind aren't clean, but they are significantly better over all and are rapidly improving. This is why step one is reduction. A very cheap drop in replacement for a coal boiler would be a good thing, but it's not a panacea and it's not an alternative to renewable energy -- merely a step towards it. MSRs or LFTRs might be, but there's no indication they're achievable, and the mining involved for current liquid salt concepts is even worse (beryllium). Plus the odds the 7 or so nuclear countries would let anyone else have plutonium breeding capability are effectively nil, so it's not a global solution anyway.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > MSRs or LFTRs might be What I'm looking forward to is fast reactors. They can burn U238, and leave very little waste (transuranic elements). We would not need to mine any new uranium, because we have huge stocks of depleted Uranium. Wikipedia has a list [1], and the top 2 countries, the US and Russia, have about half a million tons each, and France has about 200k more. Two such reactors are in the R&D stage in the US, the Natrium one by Terrapower, and the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor, by Terrapower+Southern Company [2]. Edit: Terrapower is more or less owned by Bill Gates. He's using his own money to advance nuclear reactor design. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Production_and_availability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Production_an... [2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reactor-development https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reac...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Given how many billions of dollars that have been spent on similar ideas to no avail, and how filthy and expensive the french fuel reprocessing program is colour me sceptical. Additionally if the idea is good they should have no trouble finding a billionaire or three keen on grabbing a piece of the pie. I'm also sceptical that the existing countries with refinement capability will let anyone else have the ability to make high purity Pu239. On the other hand, they're only asking for a few tens of millions which is miniscule compared to the public funds going to much worse ideas. So why not? As long as they demonstrate the whole fuel cycle including waste separation and refuelling, and can get their own funding for construction of plants after POC then go for it. Ideally they'd be able to be financially solvent without Price-Anderson too (but with whatever REC or similar scheme that wind and solar get), but we can't have everything.

credit_guy 4y ago

> The really bad waste (because it outmasses the rest by four orders of magnitude) is in a tailings pond that will be 'remediated' by pulling a plastic sheet over it in Namibia. If it outmasses the others by four orders of magnitude, it means on average from each 10000 tons of dirt we extract 1 ton of Uranium, right? And we are left with 9999 tons of the original dirt. Why is that dirt so bad? If anything it has less Urnanium in it, not more. It can't be more radioactive than the thing it initially was, can it?

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Because granite isn't water soluble. Because you've taken rocks that were safely underground with heavy metals safely locked in stable oxides, released all the accumulated radon, and poured 1000 tons of sulfuric acid on it to extract 10 tons of Uranium which you will use 1 ton of for fuel. The toxic slurry is then left in a poorly maintained pond which leaks into farm land where all the other poisonous elements (some of which are also radioactive) bioaccumulate into food. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spi... https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amaravati/uranium-tailings-pond-in-kadapa-not-fenced-panel/articleshow/71318886.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amaravati/uranium-t... In ISL they just let the toxic sulfuric acid slurry soak into the ground water and objections of hydrology engineers pointing out that most of the ISL mines don't meet the very specific conditions that keep it contained are met with 'it attenuates' with no further discussion or scientific evidence. This is in addition to the decomissioning and other low level or non-radioactive waste which is more than the solar panels even if they aren't recycled. Nuclear is not clean. It just puts the filth elsewhere. Similarly solar and wind aren't clean, but they are significantly better over all and are rapidly improving. This is why step one is reduction. A very cheap drop in replacement for a coal boiler would be a good thing, but it's not a panacea and it's not an alternative to renewable energy -- merely a step towards it. MSRs or LFTRs might be, but there's no indication they're achievable, and the mining involved for current liquid salt concepts is even worse (beryllium). Plus the odds the 7 or so nuclear countries would let anyone else have plutonium breeding capability are effectively nil, so it's not a global solution anyway.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > MSRs or LFTRs might be What I'm looking forward to is fast reactors. They can burn U238, and leave very little waste (transuranic elements). We would not need to mine any new uranium, because we have huge stocks of depleted Uranium. Wikipedia has a list [1], and the top 2 countries, the US and Russia, have about half a million tons each, and France has about 200k more. Two such reactors are in the R&D stage in the US, the Natrium one by Terrapower, and the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor, by Terrapower+Southern Company [2]. Edit: Terrapower is more or less owned by Bill Gates. He's using his own money to advance nuclear reactor design. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Production_and_availability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Production_an... [2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reactor-development https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reac...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Given how many billions of dollars that have been spent on similar ideas to no avail, and how filthy and expensive the french fuel reprocessing program is colour me sceptical. Additionally if the idea is good they should have no trouble finding a billionaire or three keen on grabbing a piece of the pie. I'm also sceptical that the existing countries with refinement capability will let anyone else have the ability to make high purity Pu239. On the other hand, they're only asking for a few tens of millions which is miniscule compared to the public funds going to much worse ideas. So why not? As long as they demonstrate the whole fuel cycle including waste separation and refuelling, and can get their own funding for construction of plants after POC then go for it. Ideally they'd be able to be financially solvent without Price-Anderson too (but with whatever REC or similar scheme that wind and solar get), but we can't have everything.