5 ms·

Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement. "The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferr

Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement. "The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-americas-nuclear-future-report-secretary-energy https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am... One thing that drives me craziest of all is when people simultaneously claim that nuclear waste is among the most hazardous things out there while also blocking any progress to get it safely out of the biosphere.

PinguTS 3y ago
The thing is, that to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. But still it is not a solution. A solution would be to make it non-hazardous. But there is no viable way to do it right now.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. No, it's not. See comments elsewhere in the thread about reprocessing.
- aPoCoMiLogin 3y ago
  highly recommended to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
phkahler 3y ago
How about we reprocess it and use it as nuclear fuel. IIRC France is the only country that does this. We just don't like the kind of reactor needed.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > IIRC France is the only country that does this No, many countries do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
ScoobleDoodle 3y ago
I think the people you're referring to want us to stop producing nuclear waste in the first place. This approach of geological sequestration, while being the scientifically preferred solution, still has potential very negative consequences for some future generation many years in the future. By some people calling this safe, it enables the nuclear proponents to leverage that to say there is no issue with the waste so it's fine to create more.
- StanislavPetrov 3y ago
  > By some people calling this safe, it enables the nuclear proponents to leverage that to say there is no issue with the waste so it's fine to create more. Unfortunately those who believe nuclear energy generation is necessary often refuse to acknowledge the very real risks and costs associated with it. The fact is that there is no panacea when it comes to energy generation. All known methods come with risks, rewards and downside. It is fine to argue that nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest way to generate energy, but not that it is completely safe or without risk.
pdonis 3y ago
> by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program. This claim is simply false. Many countries reprocess nuclear waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
- acidburnNSA 3y ago
  Countries that reprocess nuclear waste still need a deep geologic repository for the fission products and minor actinides due to process losses. Reprocessing reduces the number of repositories you need for a given fleet size, but you still need a repository.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Countries that reprocess nuclear waste still need a deep geologic repository That's possible, but even if it's done, it's only necessary for hundreds of years (because the radioactive isotopes left over have much shorter half-lives), not 100,000 years. Big difference.
    - acidburnNSA 3y ago
      Radiotoxicity does indeed drop to ore levels in 300-500 years but even then there are a few problem actors. Partitioning and transmutation can help with these, probably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        I consider the elements containing those isotopes to be prime candidates for space disposal, not burial.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  That list includes the US, which hasn't had commercial reprocessing in many decades. The truth is that reprocessing is an economic loser at this point; even France admits it. Separated plutonium literally has negative value; you lose money trying to fabricate fuel elements from it instead of using freshly enriched natural uranium. France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that expensive compared to the cost of just building and operating nuclear reactors, so the boondoggle is not that big.
StanislavPetrov 3y ago
>The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach The parent post didn't say that burying the waste wasn't the scientifically preferred approach. Disposal is only needed if you create it in the first place.

PinguTS 3y ago

The thing is, that to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. But still it is not a solution. A solution would be to make it non-hazardous. But there is no viable way to do it right now.

pdonis 3y ago
> to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. No, it's not. See comments elsewhere in the thread about reprocessing.
aPoCoMiLogin 3y ago
highly recommended to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k

phkahler 3y ago

How about we reprocess it and use it as nuclear fuel. IIRC France is the only country that does this. We just don't like the kind of reactor needed.

pdonis 3y ago
> IIRC France is the only country that does this No, many countries do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...

ScoobleDoodle 3y ago

I think the people you're referring to want us to stop producing nuclear waste in the first place. This approach of geological sequestration, while being the scientifically preferred solution, still has potential very negative consequences for some future generation many years in the future. By some people calling this safe, it enables the nuclear proponents to leverage that to say there is no issue with the waste so it's fine to create more.

StanislavPetrov 3y ago
> By some people calling this safe, it enables the nuclear proponents to leverage that to say there is no issue with the waste so it's fine to create more. Unfortunately those who believe nuclear energy generation is necessary often refuse to acknowledge the very real risks and costs associated with it. The fact is that there is no panacea when it comes to energy generation. All known methods come with risks, rewards and downside. It is fine to argue that nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest way to generate energy, but not that it is completely safe or without risk.

pdonis 3y ago

> by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program. This claim is simply false. Many countries reprocess nuclear waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...

acidburnNSA 3y ago
Countries that reprocess nuclear waste still need a deep geologic repository for the fission products and minor actinides due to process losses. Reprocessing reduces the number of repositories you need for a given fleet size, but you still need a repository.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Countries that reprocess nuclear waste still need a deep geologic repository That's possible, but even if it's done, it's only necessary for hundreds of years (because the radioactive isotopes left over have much shorter half-lives), not 100,000 years. Big difference.
  - acidburnNSA 3y ago
    Radiotoxicity does indeed drop to ore levels in 300-500 years but even then there are a few problem actors. Partitioning and transmutation can help with these, probably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      I consider the elements containing those isotopes to be prime candidates for space disposal, not burial.
pfdietz 3y ago
That list includes the US, which hasn't had commercial reprocessing in many decades. The truth is that reprocessing is an economic loser at this point; even France admits it. Separated plutonium literally has negative value; you lose money trying to fabricate fuel elements from it instead of using freshly enriched natural uranium. France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that expensive compared to the cost of just building and operating nuclear reactors, so the boondoggle is not that big.

StanislavPetrov 3y ago

>The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach The parent post didn't say that burying the waste wasn't the scientifically preferred approach. Disposal is only needed if you create it in the first place.