3 ms·

So a site that is to contain a quantity of transuranics (primarily Pu239 which is the least dangerous long lived transuranic) roughly the same quantity as a sin

So a site that is to contain a quantity of transuranics (primarily Pu239 which is the least dangerous long lived transuranic) roughly the same quantity as a single 1GW reactor produces in a couple of decades and a quantity of fission products that such a reactor would produce in 5 years along with some low level and intermediate level waste, cost billions of dollars, and already had a multi-billion dollar whoopsie where they spilled plutonium is somehow supposed to trivially contain hundreds of times as much?

olejorgenb 4y ago
So the problem with OPs argument according to you is that (a) the liquid waste is compacted/dehydrated before storage(?) (so the volume comparison does not hold), and (b) is less hazardous (spent fuel is harder to store) and (c) the handling of the waste is likely to result in some leaks. Or is (a) that the extra volume required to safely store spent fuel is larger than for this liquid waste? If it's true that the liquid waste need to be processed before storage, it seems to me to increase the risk of leaks during handling compared to spent fuel which is already concentrated(?)? IIRC spent fuel is already stored as very robust concrete slabs at the power stations. Nitpick: > The cost of the 2014 accident was expected to exceed $2 billion and disrupted other programs in various nuclear-industry sites.[44] On January 9, 2017, the plant was formally reopened after three years of cleanup costing $500 million, which is significantly less than forecasted Interesting: > The source of contamination was later found to be a barrel that exploded on February 14 because contractors at Los Alamos National Laboratory packed it with organic cat litter instead of clay cat litter.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  If it were diluted to the same level it would be trillions of gallons, but this would be a terrible idea. The site is significantly too small because a long term SNF containment hole is about 100x as big as the spent fuel and needs to be separated from the next one for thermal reasons. The site is also woefully unsuited to containing something that dangerous. SNF is also a very small fraction of the intermediate and long lived waste generated by a nuclear plant.

olejorgenb 4y ago

So the problem with OPs argument according to you is that (a) the liquid waste is compacted/dehydrated before storage(?) (so the volume comparison does not hold), and (b) is less hazardous (spent fuel is harder to store) and (c) the handling of the waste is likely to result in some leaks. Or is (a) that the extra volume required to safely store spent fuel is larger than for this liquid waste? If it's true that the liquid waste need to be processed before storage, it seems to me to increase the risk of leaks during handling compared to spent fuel which is already concentrated(?)? IIRC spent fuel is already stored as very robust concrete slabs at the power stations. Nitpick: > The cost of the 2014 accident was expected to exceed $2 billion and disrupted other programs in various nuclear-industry sites.[44] On January 9, 2017, the plant was formally reopened after three years of cleanup costing $500 million, which is significantly less than forecasted Interesting: > The source of contamination was later found to be a barrel that exploded on February 14 because contractors at Los Alamos National Laboratory packed it with organic cat litter instead of clay cat litter.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
If it were diluted to the same level it would be trillions of gallons, but this would be a terrible idea. The site is significantly too small because a long term SNF containment hole is about 100x as big as the spent fuel and needs to be separated from the next one for thermal reasons. The site is also woefully unsuited to containing something that dangerous. SNF is also a very small fraction of the intermediate and long lived waste generated by a nuclear plant.