3 ms·
The US produces about 2000 tons of spent nuclear fuel per year, which is to say about 20 tons per nuclear power plant. Spent nuclear fuel is almost entirely Ura
by credit_guy 4y ago
The US produces about 2000 tons of spent nuclear fuel per year, which is to say about 20 tons per nuclear power plant. Spent nuclear fuel is almost entirely Uranium-238, which has a density of about 20 g/cm3. So about one cubic meter of spent fuel per year.
Right now we can't do much with the U-238. But one day we'll develop fast reactors where U-238 will be just regular nuclear fuel. At that point, we could mine new Uranium from the ground or use what we currently call "waste".
Burying the spent fuel does not make the environment of our children cleaner, it makes it dirtier.
- AdamJacobMuller 4y agoWhat always struck me about nuclear power is that even if you regard all of the waste fuel (ignoring your correct points about U238 being still useful in the future) as pollution, the pollution is so incredibly contained that it makes it comparatively trivial to sequester and contain it effectively indefinitely. Making nuclear plants which can effectively and safely run for 100+ years is a more important challenge as well because decommissioning and commissioning are huge (and radioactive) tasks which only need to be done once (each) but fuel storage is a comparatively tiny and seemingly very well understood and controlled issue. I don’t know why people focus on it so much.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago> I don’t know why people focus on it so much Because the nanosecond you stop shining a spotlight on it, Duke Energy or similar will pull a chevron, and 20 years later when the casks corrode through we'll find 200 tonnes of SNF under a playground. There are still messes all over the planet which haven't been cleaned up from mining and milling from before tye "alarmists" started pointing out the hazards and mass protesting.
- credit_guy 4y agoI suppose you are aware that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exits?
- Schroedingersat 4y agoAnd all of the nuclear stans have constant tantrums over them enforcing regulations. There are also regulatory safety bodies for rail and dangerous chemicals but we see how well they work when there isn't constamt hypervigilence.
- credit_guy 4y ago> There are also regulatory safety bodies for rail and dangerous chemicals but we see how well they work when there isn't constamt hypervigilence. That's a pretty smart comeback, I have to admit. But aside from being smart, what are you trying to say? Should we get rid of railways? Should we get rid of "dangerous chemicals". What does "constant hypervigilence" mean for rail and dangerous chemicals? Assuming the public is guilty of not showing constant hypervigilence (as you seem to imply), what should the public do? Not rely on regulatory bodies? Supplement somehow what the regulatory bodies do? How? Back to the NRC, do you feel the public has to tell the NRC how to do its job? I mean, you obviously are saying that, but how do you propose that to happen?
- Schroedingersat 4y agoSee now you're just trying to pretend you weren't proposing a change and I was. This is called gaslighting. The "unjustified" focus is the primary mechanism by which an extremely corrupt industry was brought into some semblance of safety after windscale, church hill, and browns ferry. There are constant attempts at regulatory capture and undermining safety. The 'irrational' strict rules are the only system that has ever worked in safety critical industries like aerospace. Without strict adherence you get a challenger disaster or similar. This lesson has been learnt in other industries over amd over, we don't need to learn it again with an actually uncontained meltdown or by listening to the kinds of people that call filters Cockraine's Folly. When politicians know relaxing the rules and letting the usual corner cutting thrive would end their entire party's careers we at least get a mostly-safe nuclear industry and the corruption is focused on stealing tax money.
- 4y ago