3 ms·

The simple technology for storing nuclear fuel is a box. The volume of waste is very small and is easily stored as is.

stephenr 3y ago
I guess that's why the US still stores a bunch of used fuel at reactors in concrete and steel vessels, with zero long term storage plans... because it's "easy".
- zdragnar 3y ago
  We have had many long term storage options evaluated over the years, none more popularly known than Yucca mountain. Every time the political parties exchange power, it either gets renewed or cancelled. According to the GAO, it is not for technical or other reasons, just purely political ones.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  It's a lot easier than pumping pollution into the atmosphere where we all get to breathe it and it causes climate problems. But I guess you think that's a better solution.
  - stephenr 3y ago
    I'm just going to literally copy and paste a response I wrote 6 hours ago: > You realise that literally no one arguing against nuclear power, thinks fossil fuels are the alternative right? > What is it with nuclear proponents and ridiculous straw man arguments.
    - BurningFrog 3y ago
      New nuclear power does typically directly replace fossil fuel power.
II2II 3y ago
Statements like this make me more nervous about the advocates of nuclear energy than of the mass adoption of nuclear energy itself. In the simplest of terms: radioactive material emits energetic particles and photons. In itself, this is not much of a problem for naturally occurring radioactive materials since it is usually in low concentrations and captured by the crust of the Earth. The problem with radioactive materials used in reactors is that it has to be concentrated, otherwise the reaction rates would be too low to be useful. Disposing of that nuclear waste isn't as simple as sticking it in a small box then burying the box in a hole. At the very least, you're going to want that hole to be geologically stable (to ensure nature doesn't interfere with how it is stored) and physically secure (to ensure humanity doesn't interfere with how it is stored). You're going to want to consider what is absorbing those emitted particles and photons, since you want to minimize how much is being absorbed by the nuclear waste stored alongside it. So I hope you don't mind if I dismiss your claims that it is easily stored and put more faith in engineers and scientists who specialize in nuclear waste disposal. Sure, their systems may be over engineered and more expensive than they need to be. On the other hand, they have put a lot more thought into it.
- Sabinus 3y ago
  For an description of nuclear waste storage from someone in the industry I recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxksKmJa6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxksKmJa6U
- Mawr 3y ago
  It's not literally that simple, yes, but the general idea holds. Storing nuclear waste is trivial compared to any real energy problem, so conveying that sentiment through a simple statement makes sense.
kevincox 3y ago
Especially US and Canada which are huge and have uninhabited places (US) to literally most of the country which is devoid of population (Canada). Dumping the waste in a hole is almost certainly a feasible solution for a few centuries even if we switch to generating all of our energy from nuclear.

I guess that's why the US still stores a bunch of used fuel at reactors in concrete and steel vessels, with zero long term storage plans... because it's "easy".

zdragnar 3y ago
We have had many long term storage options evaluated over the years, none more popularly known than Yucca mountain. Every time the political parties exchange power, it either gets renewed or cancelled. According to the GAO, it is not for technical or other reasons, just purely political ones.
midoridensha 3y ago
It's a lot easier than pumping pollution into the atmosphere where we all get to breathe it and it causes climate problems. But I guess you think that's a better solution.
- stephenr 3y ago
  I'm just going to literally copy and paste a response I wrote 6 hours ago: > You realise that literally no one arguing against nuclear power, thinks fossil fuels are the alternative right? > What is it with nuclear proponents and ridiculous straw man arguments.
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    New nuclear power does typically directly replace fossil fuel power.

II2II 3y ago

Statements like this make me more nervous about the advocates of nuclear energy than of the mass adoption of nuclear energy itself. In the simplest of terms: radioactive material emits energetic particles and photons. In itself, this is not much of a problem for naturally occurring radioactive materials since it is usually in low concentrations and captured by the crust of the Earth. The problem with radioactive materials used in reactors is that it has to be concentrated, otherwise the reaction rates would be too low to be useful. Disposing of that nuclear waste isn't as simple as sticking it in a small box then burying the box in a hole. At the very least, you're going to want that hole to be geologically stable (to ensure nature doesn't interfere with how it is stored) and physically secure (to ensure humanity doesn't interfere with how it is stored). You're going to want to consider what is absorbing those emitted particles and photons, since you want to minimize how much is being absorbed by the nuclear waste stored alongside it. So I hope you don't mind if I dismiss your claims that it is easily stored and put more faith in engineers and scientists who specialize in nuclear waste disposal. Sure, their systems may be over engineered and more expensive than they need to be. On the other hand, they have put a lot more thought into it.

Sabinus 3y ago
For an description of nuclear waste storage from someone in the industry I recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxksKmJa6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxksKmJa6U
Mawr 3y ago
It's not literally that simple, yes, but the general idea holds. Storing nuclear waste is trivial compared to any real energy problem, so conveying that sentiment through a simple statement makes sense.

kevincox 3y ago

Especially US and Canada which are huge and have uninhabited places (US) to literally most of the country which is devoid of population (Canada). Dumping the waste in a hole is almost certainly a feasible solution for a few centuries even if we switch to generating all of our energy from nuclear.