4 ms·

Storage of nuclear wast turned out to be a hard to solve problem. As of now Germany has no “Endlagerstätte”, all current wast storage sides are intermediate. T

Storage of nuclear wast turned out to be a hard to solve problem. As of now Germany has no “Endlagerstätte”, all current wast storage sides are intermediate. The last attempt to establish a permanent storage side failed horribly and the nuclear wast that was interned there will be extracted under high costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

aeternum 3y ago
No one seems to care about the nuclear radiation release from coal-fired plants.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  Unlike nuclear waste which takes up space in barrels, coal-fired radiation and pollution isn't a problem, because it goes into the air where everyone can breathe it. This is clearly better for the environment and also human health: just ask any German environmentalist.
  - Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
    most radioactive waste created by coal power is filtered and ends up in barrels as well, and nuclear power also release radioactive waste into the atmosphere for everyone to breath, especially when looking at the whole cycle, including mining, milling and reprocessing.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      Citation needed.
      - Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
        United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation - 2016 Report to the General Assembly - Scientific Annex B
    - defrost 3y ago
      > release radioactive waste Well, BWRs and PWRs release Carbon-14 into the atmosphere where it is dwarfed by the Carbon-14 created by cosmic rays banging into Nitrogen ... and the total amount from both sources is truly tiny with a half life (of remaining in atmosphere) of 12 to 16 years. The decay half life of Carbon-14 is almost 6,000 years .. ie: it decays slowly and the small amounts of Carbon-14 release even smaller amounts of ionising radiation due that slow decay. Per human body Carbon-14 (mostly from cosmic ray interactions, magnitudes less from reactors) makes up a very very small part of regular mean environmental radiation per year per kilogram. Source: a decade+ running numbers on global geophysical exploration surveys: background magnetics, radiation, gravity, etc instrumentation running 12/7/360 (daylight hours, all days of the week, little downtime) across multiple airframes.
      - Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
        Looking at table 13 of annex b, how does the plutonium-239 emitted in the atmosphere by the reprocessing plants compare to naturally occurring atmospheric plutonium? (scnr - the comparison to cosmic rays just reminds me of the fuel industry claiming that atmospheric lead is natural) I know the answer, i want to highlight the cherry picking ;-) Sure there is natural carbon-14, but there is natural radon-222 as well, does that mean the radon exhaust of coal power plants can also be ignored when comparing coal and nuclear power generation industries to each other? I think not. The UNSCEAR boils all these complex details down to a collective effective dose per generated electricity (in man-sievert per gigawatt year) for atmospheric discharges. This hides a lot of details, including the mentioned plutonium-239 as well as the carbon-14 releases, the radon-222 exhaust, and the uranium-238 traces being discharged to the atmosphere both by coal burning power plants and the uranium mills required for nuclear power. How half life plays into that, why nuclear accidents were taken out of scope, and why you don't want an old italian geothermal complex in your backyard. As i said, any TLDR i can give will not do justice to the details and quality of the report.
        defrost 3y ago
        I wrote my comment to put your original comment [1] in proportion. You appear to have since edited your original comment to replace "Carbon-14" with a broader non specific "radioactive waste". > the "compared to cosmic rays" reminds me of the fuel industry claiming that atmospheric lead is natural It might remind you of that but I assure the intent was to legitimately compare the actual amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (which originates from cosmic ray collisions) against the additional amount added by PWR + BWR reactors. Reactors add very little by magnitude to an amount that is already very small and in toto the effect on humans is a very small part of the "normal" human exposure to environmental radiation that has persisted for our time on this planet. > there is natural radon-222 as well, does that mean the radon exhaust of coal power plants can be ignored .. Absolutely not, but for a meaningful understanding it should be compared to the already occurring creation of radon from 'natural' uranium decaying within granites and expressing to the surface. I'd suggest paying attention to ground topography also - radon pools in valleys until stiff breezes clear them of those pools - hence the recommendations for venting in basements in granite rich areas. > This hides a lot of details, ... will not do justice to details and quality of the source. If it's hiding details you can find better sources that drill deeper in the individual components. Eg: Australian AGSO and National Pollution Inventory reports on Olympic Dam [2] and other "uranium mills". Water usage might be an issue of greater significance there (at Olympic Dam). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35783728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35783728 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam_mine
- Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
  The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation cares, you can read about it in their 2016 Report to the General Assembly, Scientific Annex B, chapter V, including a comparison of different energy generation technologies in chapter VIII https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/publications/UNSCEAR_2016_Annex-B-CORR2.pdf https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/publicatio... You should read it yourself because any TLDR will not be able to mention all the intricate details
mgfist 3y ago
The intermediate solutions last for many decades. It's completely sufficient, especially if the alternative is coal plants.
- niemandhier 3y ago
  Even intermediate storage is an issue, but one that is conveniently disregarded due to its intermediate nature .
  - mgfist 3y ago
    On a philosophical level everything is an intermediate solution. Casks designed to last 50-100 years are much longer in duration than our solutions for most other things.

aeternum 3y ago

No one seems to care about the nuclear radiation release from coal-fired plants.

midoridensha 3y ago
Unlike nuclear waste which takes up space in barrels, coal-fired radiation and pollution isn't a problem, because it goes into the air where everyone can breathe it. This is clearly better for the environment and also human health: just ask any German environmentalist.
- Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
  most radioactive waste created by coal power is filtered and ends up in barrels as well, and nuclear power also release radioactive waste into the atmosphere for everyone to breath, especially when looking at the whole cycle, including mining, milling and reprocessing.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    Citation needed.
    - Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
      United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation - 2016 Report to the General Assembly - Scientific Annex B
  - defrost 3y ago
    > release radioactive waste Well, BWRs and PWRs release Carbon-14 into the atmosphere where it is dwarfed by the Carbon-14 created by cosmic rays banging into Nitrogen ... and the total amount from both sources is truly tiny with a half life (of remaining in atmosphere) of 12 to 16 years. The decay half life of Carbon-14 is almost 6,000 years .. ie: it decays slowly and the small amounts of Carbon-14 release even smaller amounts of ionising radiation due that slow decay. Per human body Carbon-14 (mostly from cosmic ray interactions, magnitudes less from reactors) makes up a very very small part of regular mean environmental radiation per year per kilogram. Source: a decade+ running numbers on global geophysical exploration surveys: background magnetics, radiation, gravity, etc instrumentation running 12/7/360 (daylight hours, all days of the week, little downtime) across multiple airframes.
    - Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
      Looking at table 13 of annex b, how does the plutonium-239 emitted in the atmosphere by the reprocessing plants compare to naturally occurring atmospheric plutonium? (scnr - the comparison to cosmic rays just reminds me of the fuel industry claiming that atmospheric lead is natural) I know the answer, i want to highlight the cherry picking ;-) Sure there is natural carbon-14, but there is natural radon-222 as well, does that mean the radon exhaust of coal power plants can also be ignored when comparing coal and nuclear power generation industries to each other? I think not. The UNSCEAR boils all these complex details down to a collective effective dose per generated electricity (in man-sievert per gigawatt year) for atmospheric discharges. This hides a lot of details, including the mentioned plutonium-239 as well as the carbon-14 releases, the radon-222 exhaust, and the uranium-238 traces being discharged to the atmosphere both by coal burning power plants and the uranium mills required for nuclear power. How half life plays into that, why nuclear accidents were taken out of scope, and why you don't want an old italian geothermal complex in your backyard. As i said, any TLDR i can give will not do justice to the details and quality of the report.
      - defrost 3y ago
        I wrote my comment to put your original comment [1] in proportion. You appear to have since edited your original comment to replace "Carbon-14" with a broader non specific "radioactive waste". > the "compared to cosmic rays" reminds me of the fuel industry claiming that atmospheric lead is natural It might remind you of that but I assure the intent was to legitimately compare the actual amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (which originates from cosmic ray collisions) against the additional amount added by PWR + BWR reactors. Reactors add very little by magnitude to an amount that is already very small and in toto the effect on humans is a very small part of the "normal" human exposure to environmental radiation that has persisted for our time on this planet. > there is natural radon-222 as well, does that mean the radon exhaust of coal power plants can be ignored .. Absolutely not, but for a meaningful understanding it should be compared to the already occurring creation of radon from 'natural' uranium decaying within granites and expressing to the surface. I'd suggest paying attention to ground topography also - radon pools in valleys until stiff breezes clear them of those pools - hence the recommendations for venting in basements in granite rich areas. > This hides a lot of details, ... will not do justice to details and quality of the source. If it's hiding details you can find better sources that drill deeper in the individual components. Eg: Australian AGSO and National Pollution Inventory reports on Olympic Dam [2] and other "uranium mills". Water usage might be an issue of greater significance there (at Olympic Dam). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35783728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35783728 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam_mine
Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation cares, you can read about it in their 2016 Report to the General Assembly, Scientific Annex B, chapter V, including a comparison of different energy generation technologies in chapter VIII https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/publications/UNSCEAR_2016_Annex-B-CORR2.pdf https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/publicatio... You should read it yourself because any TLDR will not be able to mention all the intricate details

mgfist 3y ago

The intermediate solutions last for many decades. It's completely sufficient, especially if the alternative is coal plants.

niemandhier 3y ago
Even intermediate storage is an issue, but one that is conveniently disregarded due to its intermediate nature .
- mgfist 3y ago
  On a philosophical level everything is an intermediate solution. Casks designed to last 50-100 years are much longer in duration than our solutions for most other things.