4 ms·

I think the picture painted here is a bit on the rosy side. For example, at 4:22 a lady from Oklo says "we just don't have the commercial facility to do so [bur

I think the picture painted here is a bit on the rosy side. For example, at 4:22 a lady from Oklo says "we just don't have the commercial facility to do so [burn nuclear waste]. But the technology is there". What she fails to mention is that a technology that is not approved by the NRC is as good as not existing. We don't want another Chernobyl, do we? Well, the NRC has looked at their (Oklo's) technology, and said "no, thank you" [1]. So, what the lady should have said at 4:22 is "The technology is almost there, if we work hard we might iron out all the issues in 10 years. But more realistically in 20." Once they iron out those issues, they will have a fast reactor that could burn "nuclear waste". In reality, it will turn out that it will be orders of magnitude cheaper to burn freshly mined uranium, and they'll do just that. Why? Because nuclear waste contains all sorts of transuranic elements, like Neptunium, Plutonium, Americium, Curium, and each of them with several isotopes. Some of these isotopes are friendly to being burned in a reactor, but some not. Some are highly radioactive, while regular nuclear fuel is not. Getting reasonably "clean" fuel out of this is expensive. But even if expense is not an issue, getting the NRC to approve the fuel will be another one. The NRC does not approve only reactor designs, but also everything that has to do with reactor operations, including nuclear fuel. There are currently several applications to approve uranium fuel where U-235 is enriched to a bit higher than 5%. Six weeks ago the NRC gave an approval to Framatome [2] that will allow Framatome to eventually enrich fuel to 8%, however, I think they will need a few more approvals until that fuel will burn in reactors. It takes many years for the NRC to give an approval to even such a simple thing as increasing enrichment from 5% to 8%, but otherwise keeping everything the same. Imagine how long it would take them to allow someone to burn a fuel that is essentially a random mix of a bunch of radioisotopes. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col/aurora-oklo.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col/auro... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/NRC-approves-use-of-Framatome-codes-in-advanced-nu https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/NRC-approves-use...

hoobwhitty 3y ago
Pump the brakes on a "Chernobyl" comparison here. No NRC reactor would ever get to that - part of the reason it takes so long to approve. The technology discussed here was invented by the US in 60s. None of this is new. The US pioneered reprocessing, separation and everything. This technology is still used in the government space - but the government lost its appetite for the risk of the commercial industry producing potential weapons materials. This Pyro solution may be the ticket for allowing commercial reprocessing without producing potential weapons materials. And yes Uranium is/was cheap because we bought it from Russia - now it's maybe not so cheap. We have one domestic mine and it's not that cheap. And regardless - it may be cheap but USA HAS NO PATH for dispositioning all this fuel. So you can't say it's cheaper if it's no storage solution or anything. The cost for housing this spent fuel for forever practically in a Yucca or whatever is WAY more expensive over centuries than any cost to do this work. I'm not a fan of the economics argument when every spent fuel bundle is just sitting in a dry cask outside every reactor in the country and no one has a solution where to store it. Every commercial company only has plans for 50 years - not how to store it for 200,000 years.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > Pump the brakes on a "Chernobyl" comparison here. No NRC reactor would ever get to that - part of the reason it takes so long to approve. I guess we are saying the same thing, aren't we? We have the NRC, and the NRC is conservative in giving approvals, precisely because we don't want a Chernobyl. I'm happy about that, and I do think the NRC is doing a good job, so a Chernobyl in the US is extraordianarily unlikely. But if we didn't have an NRC, then we'd have a Chernobyl in due time. Why are you saying "pump the brakes on a Chernobyl comparison"? > The technology discussed here was invented by the US in 60s. None of this is new. The US pioneered reprocessing, separation and everything. All this was before Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. The technology exists and it may even be used in a research setting, but without the NRC approval it is as good as nonexistent for civilian reactors. > USA HAS NO PATH for dispositioning all this fuel. That's not because of any technical difficulty. The US is disposing of military nuclear waste at the WIPP facility [1]. I just read in the book "Energy" by Richard Rhodes that the US could dispose of all the spent fuel it can burn in a thousand years at the same place. It's not a technical problem, it's a political problem. If it's a problem that is personally bothering you, you should write to your representative. I am personally not that worried about storing the spent fuel on site. It is not a huge amount. Plus, in a hundred years, if we make progress with the nuclear technology, then it might become easy-peasy to reprocess spent fuel, and do what the Oklo guys are saying. I don't think we are quite there yet, and we won't be for 20 years, but I think it's entirely possible to get there in 50 years or 100 years. Why bury what something that holds the energy of hundreds of billions of tons of coal? [1] https://www.energy.gov/em/waste-isolation-pilot-plant-wipp https://www.energy.gov/em/waste-isolation-pilot-plant-wipp
  - hoobwhitty 3y ago
    > Why are you saying "pump the brakes on a Chernobyl comparison"? I say pump the brakes because even Russia has fixed its regulatory program and not had another Chernobyl in decades of operations - or anything even close. Hundreds of reactors operate around the world safely. Another Chernobyl won't happen. Bringing up that this could be Chernobyl is to me at least pushing on fear rather than realizing it's risk as incredibly small. Oil spills occur far more frequently but we still approve oil drilling even though it's incredibly damaging. Just because we want to use different technology doesn't mean we all of a sudden risk a Chernobyl. > All of this was before Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. In the commercial US space maybe. But several countries with just as rigorous of technical regulations as the NRC utilize this. Japan, France, Russia etc. NRC, to me, can get there to successfully approve these projects but the government doesn't have the political will to push this. And I'll note that none of these accidents were at a facility like this. Just saying not all nuclear facilities have the same accident possibilities. > That's not because of any technical difficulty. The US is disposing of military nuclear waste at the WIPP facility. Very true - and a WIPP like solution is feasible. But the state of New Mexico has to want that. WIPP (it's in its name) was supposed to be a pilot plant which obviously no longer is. They may not want everything coming to their land. And it hasn't ever supported spent fuel receipts because it wasn't designed for it. That's what Yucca was supposed to do but can't get built. So it's just more political issues to go that way too. But that's not an economic argument - it's a government one. So saying it's cheaper to just burn fresh fuel depends on there being a government solution to disposition. I'm just saying the "cheaper" argument is applying free market theory to something that's obviously heavily intertwined and depends on the government. As it should. > I am personally not that worried about storing the spent fuel on site. It is not a huge amount. Sure for now - but just like other political issues we are just kicking the can down the road and saying "future us will figure it out"!

hoobwhitty 3y ago

Pump the brakes on a "Chernobyl" comparison here. No NRC reactor would ever get to that - part of the reason it takes so long to approve. The technology discussed here was invented by the US in 60s. None of this is new. The US pioneered reprocessing, separation and everything. This technology is still used in the government space - but the government lost its appetite for the risk of the commercial industry producing potential weapons materials. This Pyro solution may be the ticket for allowing commercial reprocessing without producing potential weapons materials. And yes Uranium is/was cheap because we bought it from Russia - now it's maybe not so cheap. We have one domestic mine and it's not that cheap. And regardless - it may be cheap but USA HAS NO PATH for dispositioning all this fuel. So you can't say it's cheaper if it's no storage solution or anything. The cost for housing this spent fuel for forever practically in a Yucca or whatever is WAY more expensive over centuries than any cost to do this work. I'm not a fan of the economics argument when every spent fuel bundle is just sitting in a dry cask outside every reactor in the country and no one has a solution where to store it. Every commercial company only has plans for 50 years - not how to store it for 200,000 years.

credit_guy 3y ago
> Pump the brakes on a "Chernobyl" comparison here. No NRC reactor would ever get to that - part of the reason it takes so long to approve. I guess we are saying the same thing, aren't we? We have the NRC, and the NRC is conservative in giving approvals, precisely because we don't want a Chernobyl. I'm happy about that, and I do think the NRC is doing a good job, so a Chernobyl in the US is extraordianarily unlikely. But if we didn't have an NRC, then we'd have a Chernobyl in due time. Why are you saying "pump the brakes on a Chernobyl comparison"? > The technology discussed here was invented by the US in 60s. None of this is new. The US pioneered reprocessing, separation and everything. All this was before Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. The technology exists and it may even be used in a research setting, but without the NRC approval it is as good as nonexistent for civilian reactors. > USA HAS NO PATH for dispositioning all this fuel. That's not because of any technical difficulty. The US is disposing of military nuclear waste at the WIPP facility [1]. I just read in the book "Energy" by Richard Rhodes that the US could dispose of all the spent fuel it can burn in a thousand years at the same place. It's not a technical problem, it's a political problem. If it's a problem that is personally bothering you, you should write to your representative. I am personally not that worried about storing the spent fuel on site. It is not a huge amount. Plus, in a hundred years, if we make progress with the nuclear technology, then it might become easy-peasy to reprocess spent fuel, and do what the Oklo guys are saying. I don't think we are quite there yet, and we won't be for 20 years, but I think it's entirely possible to get there in 50 years or 100 years. Why bury what something that holds the energy of hundreds of billions of tons of coal? [1] https://www.energy.gov/em/waste-isolation-pilot-plant-wipp https://www.energy.gov/em/waste-isolation-pilot-plant-wipp
- hoobwhitty 3y ago
  > Why are you saying "pump the brakes on a Chernobyl comparison"? I say pump the brakes because even Russia has fixed its regulatory program and not had another Chernobyl in decades of operations - or anything even close. Hundreds of reactors operate around the world safely. Another Chernobyl won't happen. Bringing up that this could be Chernobyl is to me at least pushing on fear rather than realizing it's risk as incredibly small. Oil spills occur far more frequently but we still approve oil drilling even though it's incredibly damaging. Just because we want to use different technology doesn't mean we all of a sudden risk a Chernobyl. > All of this was before Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. In the commercial US space maybe. But several countries with just as rigorous of technical regulations as the NRC utilize this. Japan, France, Russia etc. NRC, to me, can get there to successfully approve these projects but the government doesn't have the political will to push this. And I'll note that none of these accidents were at a facility like this. Just saying not all nuclear facilities have the same accident possibilities. > That's not because of any technical difficulty. The US is disposing of military nuclear waste at the WIPP facility. Very true - and a WIPP like solution is feasible. But the state of New Mexico has to want that. WIPP (it's in its name) was supposed to be a pilot plant which obviously no longer is. They may not want everything coming to their land. And it hasn't ever supported spent fuel receipts because it wasn't designed for it. That's what Yucca was supposed to do but can't get built. So it's just more political issues to go that way too. But that's not an economic argument - it's a government one. So saying it's cheaper to just burn fresh fuel depends on there being a government solution to disposition. I'm just saying the "cheaper" argument is applying free market theory to something that's obviously heavily intertwined and depends on the government. As it should. > I am personally not that worried about storing the spent fuel on site. It is not a huge amount. Sure for now - but just like other political issues we are just kicking the can down the road and saying "future us will figure it out"!