3 ms·
I have no doubt costs are high (after all, it’s a government project and it has the word “nuclear” in the name). That said, the article reads like anti-nuclear
by efitz 3y ago
I have no doubt costs are high (after all, it’s a government project and it has the word “nuclear” in the name).
That said, the article reads like anti-nuclear fear mongering: “SEE! This is why we have to ban nuclear power because nuclear waste cannot be stored safely!”
I am strongly pro-nuclear as part of a green energy strategy; it’s very clean and runs when the sun isn’t shining and when the wind isn’t blowing. I think it is more expensive than it needs to be due to over-regulation and NIMBY lawsuits.
I think in the US at least we had a very sound solution (Yucca Mountain) for storing nuclear waste, again killed by NIMBY.
- avar 3y agoArguably the most sensible solution to nuclear waste is dissolving it in the ocean. But you can see the response to the Fukushima wastewater release for a hint at the sort of massive hissy fit people would throw about that.
- vlovich123 3y agoWhy would we do that? Nuclear waste can be reprocessed into more fuel and medical applications and other use cases instead of just throwing it away.
- avar 3y agoIt can, but it's uneconomical except for some niche applications, and breeders also come with their own proliferation concerns. Most nuclear waste is being warehoused. So, a reason to do it is because it would be cheap and safe if done correctly. If you look at e.g. [1] you'll see that we generate around 100k TBq/y of waste. Just the radiation from natural potassium 40 in the ocean is 14,000,000x10^15 Bq. So if we dumped all the nuclear waste the world produces in a year into the ocean it would be just 0.0007% of the radioactivity we're already getting from only that natural potassium 40. We could keep it up for 1400 years before it would be a 1% addition. We're killing around 5 million a year from fossil fuel use. Anything that makes nuclear cheaper is a good thing in that scenario, and storing waste costs a lot of money. 1. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1591_web.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1591_web.p... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...
- vlovich123 3y agoI could be wrong but molten salt reactors can use spent LWR fuel too & that doesn't have the proliferation concerns of breeders. My underlying point is we have the technology to solve waste & dumping into the ocean seems wasteful ecological risks aside (cause you have to have some complicated system to transport & disperse the spent fuel).
- pvaldes 3y ago> the most sensible solution is dissolving nuclear waste in the ocean. yep, lets destroy cod fisheries for no reason, what could be wrong? We don't need food to survive... That big plan was a 70's solution. It was brain-dead level stupid in 70's and it was still stupid today. Would be ruinous for our economy (And the currents and hurricanes would end returning all of it to the coast).
- avar 3y agoTake all the nuclear waste the world produces in a year, now dissolve it in a swimming pool. Would you drink from that pool? No, and neither would I. I suspect the difference between our positions is that I'm willing to define how big that pool would have to be before I'd be comfortable drinking from it. Do you have any particular size in mind? > And the currents and hurricanes would end returning all of it to the coast) We as a species have already dumped on the order of how much nuclear waste we produce in a year now into the world's oceans. See the Wikipedia reference in a side-thread. Presumably you'll be able to point out at what coast that material has all coalesced at?
- pvaldes 3y agoThe ocean dynamics are much more complicated than a swimming pool. This kind of plans avoid carefully to include our modern knowledge about how ecosystems work. They are doomed from the start for this reason. A few people, maybe nostalgic about 60's or 70's, still lie to themselves and dream of cheap, tunnel vision, simple solutions that will not work. > Presumably you'll be able to point out at what coast that material has all coalesced at? Saint Onofre Beach. San Diego. California, for example All beaches within a radius of 100Km at the south of Fukushima had trapped Cesium sticked in the sand Just because you don't look for it, does not mean that is not there.
- Neil44 3y agoThe Guardian is pretty anti-nuclear.
- jansan 3y agoDo you think it is just a coincidence that those Sellafield articles are popping up right after 22 countries pledge to triple nuclear capacity? Me neither.