6 ms·

Waste storage. If zealous supporters of nuclear asked for nuclear waste to be stored in their neighborhoods, I'd be on board for more nuclear power right now.

adamsb6 4y ago
Your terms are agreeable.
jbverschoor 4y ago
So instead we just pump energy waste / byproducts in the air?
goodpoint 4y ago
There are a lot of problem related to nuclear, including its cost, the centralization of political power and the centralization of the energy grid.
- S201 4y ago
  > the centralization of political power and the centralization of the energy grid. Sounds a lot better to me than relying on the middle east and Russia for fossil fuels.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    That's called false dichotomy.
colechristensen 4y ago
Waste is stored on site until it’s quite a bit less radioactive, this can and has been done for decades. The fear of shipping this cooled down waste and burying it in a mountain is entirely unfounded and the only reason it hasn’t happened is people spreading unnecessary fear.
S201 4y ago
Waste isn't a problem, or at least not a problem that can't be solved with a bit of effort. Let's stop repeating the scary propaganda line that there's mountains of highly radioactive waste pouring out of nuclear power plants that is just waiting to irradiate our neighborhoods because we don't have anywhere to put it. > If all the electricity use of the USA was distributed evenly among its population, and all of it came from nuclear power, then the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams. That’s the weight of seven U. S. quarters of waste, per year! And that's not even assuming that the "waste" was recycled into usable fuel again creating a mostly closed loop fuel cycle: > Nuclear waste generally is over 90% uranium. Thus, the spent fuel (waste) still contains 90% usable fuel! It can be chemically processed and placed in other reactors to close the fuel cycle. A closed fuel cycle means much less nuclear waste and much more energy extracted from the raw ore. Additionally, this process allows you to convert your waste into chemical forms that are totally immobilized. Source: https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
- delecti 4y ago
  I agree that nuclear waste is an overblown problem, but that link entirely ignores the structural components that become radioactive. There's lots of things like concrete and steel that need to be contained as well.
  - S201 4y ago
    Is that not only an issue when a plant is permanently decommissioned? That seems like a fairly easy problem to solve as well: Bury it like you would any other nuclear waste that can't be reprocessed; or melt the steel down and use it in a new reactor.
    - mjevans 4y ago
      Not an expert; but offhand I recall that irradiated materials, in addition to being harmful to biological entities like humans, are also changed by the absorbed radiation. Effectively they gain impurities from it. The best course of action would be to let the halflifes decay and then return it to the raw material stream.
amluto 4y ago
I would love a nuclear plant in my neighborhood, especially if I could buy power from it without going through PG&E. I have trouble imagining waste storage being cost effective here. Large nuclear wants to be somewhere that the (physically enormous) electric station and connection to the grid makes sense. Small nuclear could go near where power is used. Waste should be somewhere with inexpensive land and in a convenient location for putting the waste there. If there were container-sized reactors that produced a few tens of MW, they could go all over the place. Fancy neighborhoods could pay a premium to put them in fake houses. But the waste would probably be much more economical to handle by moving the entire container to a service facility, refueling at the facility, and handling the waste at or near the facility. This would be in an industrial area, just like other large warehouses or factories.
- Lammy 4y ago
  > Large nuclear wants to be somewhere that the (physically enormous) electric station and connection to the grid makes sense. Like Bodega Head where you can actually visit the never-finished reactor pit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - amluto 4y ago
    To be fair, if it was going to be a Fukushima-style boiling water reactor that can fail dangerously if it loses power, sticking it that close to a major fault line in an isolated area may not be the best idea.
    - Lammy 4y ago
      I honestly don't believe that :) At Fukushima, the reactor SCRAMed successfully and it was the seawater that took out the generators powering the decay-heat cooling system. If California experienced a wave that could crest Bodega Head's yuge natural seawall then we have bigger problems lol https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=96773349539f93042d90063536ffd22f https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=96773349539f93...
    - 4y ago
thesuitonym 4y ago
If zealous deniers of nuclear asked for storage of other power waste to be stored anywhere other than the sky, they'd realize their argument is worthless.
BrandoElFollito 4y ago
If zealous supporters of coal plants asked for the fumes to go into their neighborhood I still would not be on board. Have you ever seen the effects of coal power? Like really - lived there? I have and it is not pretty at all. I would take a correctly stored nuclear waste right away.
cpwright 4y ago
I had an active nuclear plant in my neighborhood (Indian Point Energy Center) until the NY government made it untenable to continue the relicensing process. I would be perfectly fine with the plant continuing to run and continuing to have onsite storage of the waste. It provided 25% of the power for our county and NYC, employed 1500 people directly, and paid for roughly 1/3 of our children's schools. Shutting it down was a mistake, nuclear is so upfront capital cost intensive that it is a waste to stop a functional plant.
yellowapple 4y ago
I hereby volunteer my bedroom for nuclear waste storage if it means more nuclear power right now.
yodelshady 4y ago
I would very happily have one in my neighbourhood, so kindly stop slandering me. Here's the deal: I get that, and am connected to the grid, you don't, and no fossil back up for either. Virtue signalling over a gas grid is killing people, people I know, and I don't like people who support that. No "batteries maybe in some mystical future". We had carbon free tech forty years ago. If you frustrated that you too are responsible for the destruction I now see everywhere.
otikik 4y ago
If you start calling the other side "zealous", make sure you are not one first.
thehappypm 4y ago
How much waste do you think will be produced? We’re talking about less than a typical landfill’s worth of waste for the entire world.
bombcar 4y ago
I'm willing to take some nuclear waste right here, and I understand if the glowing green barrels aren't available so I can take the green glass.

adamsb6 4y ago

Your terms are agreeable.

jbverschoor 4y ago

So instead we just pump energy waste / byproducts in the air?

goodpoint 4y ago

There are a lot of problem related to nuclear, including its cost, the centralization of political power and the centralization of the energy grid.

S201 4y ago
> the centralization of political power and the centralization of the energy grid. Sounds a lot better to me than relying on the middle east and Russia for fossil fuels.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  That's called false dichotomy.

colechristensen 4y ago

Waste is stored on site until it’s quite a bit less radioactive, this can and has been done for decades. The fear of shipping this cooled down waste and burying it in a mountain is entirely unfounded and the only reason it hasn’t happened is people spreading unnecessary fear.

S201 4y ago

Waste isn't a problem, or at least not a problem that can't be solved with a bit of effort. Let's stop repeating the scary propaganda line that there's mountains of highly radioactive waste pouring out of nuclear power plants that is just waiting to irradiate our neighborhoods because we don't have anywhere to put it. > If all the electricity use of the USA was distributed evenly among its population, and all of it came from nuclear power, then the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams. That’s the weight of seven U. S. quarters of waste, per year! And that's not even assuming that the "waste" was recycled into usable fuel again creating a mostly closed loop fuel cycle: > Nuclear waste generally is over 90% uranium. Thus, the spent fuel (waste) still contains 90% usable fuel! It can be chemically processed and placed in other reactors to close the fuel cycle. A closed fuel cycle means much less nuclear waste and much more energy extracted from the raw ore. Additionally, this process allows you to convert your waste into chemical forms that are totally immobilized. Source: https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html

delecti 4y ago
I agree that nuclear waste is an overblown problem, but that link entirely ignores the structural components that become radioactive. There's lots of things like concrete and steel that need to be contained as well.
- S201 4y ago
  Is that not only an issue when a plant is permanently decommissioned? That seems like a fairly easy problem to solve as well: Bury it like you would any other nuclear waste that can't be reprocessed; or melt the steel down and use it in a new reactor.
  - mjevans 4y ago
    Not an expert; but offhand I recall that irradiated materials, in addition to being harmful to biological entities like humans, are also changed by the absorbed radiation. Effectively they gain impurities from it. The best course of action would be to let the halflifes decay and then return it to the raw material stream.

amluto 4y ago

I would love a nuclear plant in my neighborhood, especially if I could buy power from it without going through PG&E. I have trouble imagining waste storage being cost effective here. Large nuclear wants to be somewhere that the (physically enormous) electric station and connection to the grid makes sense. Small nuclear could go near where power is used. Waste should be somewhere with inexpensive land and in a convenient location for putting the waste there. If there were container-sized reactors that produced a few tens of MW, they could go all over the place. Fancy neighborhoods could pay a premium to put them in fake houses. But the waste would probably be much more economical to handle by moving the entire container to a service facility, refueling at the facility, and handling the waste at or near the facility. This would be in an industrial area, just like other large warehouses or factories.

Lammy 4y ago
> Large nuclear wants to be somewhere that the (physically enormous) electric station and connection to the grid makes sense. Like Bodega Head where you can actually visit the never-finished reactor pit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- amluto 4y ago
  To be fair, if it was going to be a Fukushima-style boiling water reactor that can fail dangerously if it loses power, sticking it that close to a major fault line in an isolated area may not be the best idea.
  - Lammy 4y ago
    I honestly don't believe that :) At Fukushima, the reactor SCRAMed successfully and it was the seawater that took out the generators powering the decay-heat cooling system. If California experienced a wave that could crest Bodega Head's yuge natural seawall then we have bigger problems lol https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=96773349539f93042d90063536ffd22f https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=96773349539f93...
  - 4y ago

thesuitonym 4y ago

If zealous deniers of nuclear asked for storage of other power waste to be stored anywhere other than the sky, they'd realize their argument is worthless.

BrandoElFollito 4y ago

If zealous supporters of coal plants asked for the fumes to go into their neighborhood I still would not be on board. Have you ever seen the effects of coal power? Like really - lived there? I have and it is not pretty at all. I would take a correctly stored nuclear waste right away.

cpwright 4y ago

I had an active nuclear plant in my neighborhood (Indian Point Energy Center) until the NY government made it untenable to continue the relicensing process. I would be perfectly fine with the plant continuing to run and continuing to have onsite storage of the waste. It provided 25% of the power for our county and NYC, employed 1500 people directly, and paid for roughly 1/3 of our children's schools. Shutting it down was a mistake, nuclear is so upfront capital cost intensive that it is a waste to stop a functional plant.

yellowapple 4y ago

I hereby volunteer my bedroom for nuclear waste storage if it means more nuclear power right now.

yodelshady 4y ago

I would very happily have one in my neighbourhood, so kindly stop slandering me. Here's the deal: I get that, and am connected to the grid, you don't, and no fossil back up for either. Virtue signalling over a gas grid is killing people, people I know, and I don't like people who support that. No "batteries maybe in some mystical future". We had carbon free tech forty years ago. If you frustrated that you too are responsible for the destruction I now see everywhere.

otikik 4y ago

If you start calling the other side "zealous", make sure you are not one first.

thehappypm 4y ago

How much waste do you think will be produced? We’re talking about less than a typical landfill’s worth of waste for the entire world.

bombcar 4y ago

I'm willing to take some nuclear waste right here, and I understand if the glowing green barrels aren't available so I can take the green glass.