4 ms·

Most of the costs are for managing the waste above ground. The overall cost of the project is estimated to be €5-6 billion, out of which construction is €1-2 bi

Most of the costs are for managing the waste above ground. The overall cost of the project is estimated to be €5-6 billion, out of which construction is €1-2 billion. I believe the actual underground facility cost ~€1 billion, while the rest is for various above-ground processing facilities. There has been a lot of speculative bullshitting on what to do with nuclear waste since the Onkalo project started in the late 80s. So far, nobody has come up with any concrete alternatives. Given the high costs of managing nuclear waste above ground, it's cheaper to bury it underground than to wait for new breakthroughs.

panick21_ 3y ago
For 5-6 billion they could have helped to develop and built new GenIV reactors and reduce the waste and also manage all the waste for the next 100 years. > Given the high costs of managing nuclear waste above ground Can you show me some concrete evidence that the cost is as high as you claim. In the US nuclear reactors have been storing the waste on parking lots for many decades and it doesn't seem to bankrupt them. In many places above ground nuclear waste is just standing around in casket with literally 0 people attending them. In Switzerland a single warehouse contains all nuclear waste for the last 50 years and there are not many people working there. Unless you can show me otherwise I'm gone go with 'its not gone cost billion+ $ to let nuclear waste sit around above ground for a century'.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  That's 5-6 billion over ~140 years. The operating costs of the Swiss Zwilag facility are similar. Storing the waste on site is cheap as long as the reactor is operational. The facilities and the staff are there anyway. It gets more expensive once the reactor stops operating. You can't just leave the high-level waste there for anyone to steal, and you should also work proactively to prevent leaks.
cyberax 3y ago
Fusion reactors will produce enough fast neutrons to transmute the waste into something less long-lived. This can be done with fast neutron fission reactors, albeit it's going to take a lot of time. Meanwhile, just keeping it in dry casks aboveground is perfectly fine.

panick21_ 3y ago

For 5-6 billion they could have helped to develop and built new GenIV reactors and reduce the waste and also manage all the waste for the next 100 years. > Given the high costs of managing nuclear waste above ground Can you show me some concrete evidence that the cost is as high as you claim. In the US nuclear reactors have been storing the waste on parking lots for many decades and it doesn't seem to bankrupt them. In many places above ground nuclear waste is just standing around in casket with literally 0 people attending them. In Switzerland a single warehouse contains all nuclear waste for the last 50 years and there are not many people working there. Unless you can show me otherwise I'm gone go with 'its not gone cost billion+ $ to let nuclear waste sit around above ground for a century'.

jltsiren 3y ago
That's 5-6 billion over ~140 years. The operating costs of the Swiss Zwilag facility are similar. Storing the waste on site is cheap as long as the reactor is operational. The facilities and the staff are there anyway. It gets more expensive once the reactor stops operating. You can't just leave the high-level waste there for anyone to steal, and you should also work proactively to prevent leaks.

cyberax 3y ago

Fusion reactors will produce enough fast neutrons to transmute the waste into something less long-lived. This can be done with fast neutron fission reactors, albeit it's going to take a lot of time. Meanwhile, just keeping it in dry casks aboveground is perfectly fine.