6 ms·

The solution to nuclear waste is simple. Build a single warehouse in the desert somewhere and keep it there until we use it as fuel later in breeder reactors. T

by evilos 3y ago

The solution to nuclear waste is simple. Build a single warehouse in the desert somewhere and keep it there until we use it as fuel later in breeder reactors. The waste is already in concrete casks. You basically just need a concrete pad for them to sit on. Hell, just build it at Area 52 or something. Or the existing WIPPS site where military nuclear waste is disposed of. It was originally meant for civilian waste as well anyways. Lets say you insist we bury perfectly good U238. Fine, just expand WIPPs a bit. Or we can use deep borehole disposal to bury it several km underground in a seismically stable location. Done. No monitoring necessary. We know this will be fine because nature formed natural nuclear reactors in the ground billions of years ago and the 'waste' has moved less than a meter in billions of years. The dangerous part of the waste (fission products) will be gone in a few hundred years anyways. What is left after that needs to be ground up and eaten to be dangerous.

tpm 3y ago
> Build a single warehouse in the desert There are countries with no desert and for some unknown reason most countries are not desperate to import spent fuel. > You basically just need a concrete pad for them to sit on. And the elements and radiation to take the 'concrete casks' apart and blow the bad stuff out. All solutions to that are expensive and you have to monitor and fix leaks for a very long time. The deeper you bury it, the deeper you have to dig later to fix the leaks. > will be gone in a few hundred years anyways That's a lot of time (and associated costs) in human lifetimes.
- evilos 3y ago
  It doesn't literally need to be a desert. Just somewhere with low population density. This isn't a final disposal site. Just a central monitored place to hold the waste in a warehouse before the fuel is recycled or buried. The casks are rated for 100+ years and if they wear out, it's easy to swap casks. Deep borehole tech is readily available since America got so good at shale operations. It would be extremely cheap compared to building a huge underground facility like Finland is planning. > That's a lot of time (and associated costs) in human lifetimes. Again, no monitoring necessary once you bury it several km underground and fill the channel with concrete.
natmaka 3y ago
> until we use it as fuel later in breeder reactors After approx 70 years and many projects there not a single industrial breeder reactor working satisfactorily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an...
- evilos 3y ago
  ? The BN-600 and BN-800 are operating commercially today and they are looking to expand the design to the BN-1200. Also, there's little need for breeders today because the overall percentage of energy we get from nuclear energy is low. In the future, if this expands is when we would need to deploy breeders. The casks that the waste is put in are rated for 100+ years and its trivial to swap containers.
  - natmaka 3y ago
    The BN-600 had many problems (leaks) and is an obsolete version. The most successful was its successor, the BN-800, but "problems ((...)) indicated a redesign was needed", and construction of it's successor (the BN-1200) was postponed many times (now 2035). Problems related to cost and process/security seem quite difficult to solve... Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor Instead of deploying BNs Russians pause them and are back to the drawing board. The sole officially actively pursued (since 2021) pertinent design, BREST-OD-300 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) ), is a very different architecture (lead, not sodium, is the coolant) and will only (when completed, if ever) be a demonstrator (low power: 300MWe). Hence: the is no satisfying industrial breeder reactor. > there's little need for breeders today The whole nuclear industry knows since the 1950's that breeding is the only way for nuclear to really gain momentum and this is sound from a strategic viewpoint (dependency towards uranium exporters). However after huge R&D efforts in many nations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an... )... there is no adequate reactor.
    - 3y ago

by evilos 3y ago

tpm 3y ago

> Build a single warehouse in the desert There are countries with no desert and for some unknown reason most countries are not desperate to import spent fuel. > You basically just need a concrete pad for them to sit on. And the elements and radiation to take the 'concrete casks' apart and blow the bad stuff out. All solutions to that are expensive and you have to monitor and fix leaks for a very long time. The deeper you bury it, the deeper you have to dig later to fix the leaks. > will be gone in a few hundred years anyways That's a lot of time (and associated costs) in human lifetimes.

evilos 3y ago
It doesn't literally need to be a desert. Just somewhere with low population density. This isn't a final disposal site. Just a central monitored place to hold the waste in a warehouse before the fuel is recycled or buried. The casks are rated for 100+ years and if they wear out, it's easy to swap casks. Deep borehole tech is readily available since America got so good at shale operations. It would be extremely cheap compared to building a huge underground facility like Finland is planning. > That's a lot of time (and associated costs) in human lifetimes. Again, no monitoring necessary once you bury it several km underground and fill the channel with concrete.

natmaka 3y ago

> until we use it as fuel later in breeder reactors After approx 70 years and many projects there not a single industrial breeder reactor working satisfactorily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an...

evilos 3y ago
? The BN-600 and BN-800 are operating commercially today and they are looking to expand the design to the BN-1200. Also, there's little need for breeders today because the overall percentage of energy we get from nuclear energy is low. In the future, if this expands is when we would need to deploy breeders. The casks that the waste is put in are rated for 100+ years and its trivial to swap containers.
- natmaka 3y ago
  The BN-600 had many problems (leaks) and is an obsolete version. The most successful was its successor, the BN-800, but "problems ((...)) indicated a redesign was needed", and construction of it's successor (the BN-1200) was postponed many times (now 2035). Problems related to cost and process/security seem quite difficult to solve... Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor Instead of deploying BNs Russians pause them and are back to the drawing board. The sole officially actively pursued (since 2021) pertinent design, BREST-OD-300 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) ), is a very different architecture (lead, not sodium, is the coolant) and will only (when completed, if ever) be a demonstrator (low power: 300MWe). Hence: the is no satisfying industrial breeder reactor. > there's little need for breeders today The whole nuclear industry knows since the 1950's that breeding is the only way for nuclear to really gain momentum and this is sound from a strategic viewpoint (dependency towards uranium exporters). However after huge R&D efforts in many nations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an... )... there is no adequate reactor.
  - 3y ago