4 ms·

Sellafield also handles all waste from UK's nuclear plants. A site like that is needed whenever you have nuclear plants, bombs or not. In the US, the defence bu

Sellafield also handles all waste from UK's nuclear plants. A site like that is needed whenever you have nuclear plants, bombs or not. In the US, the defence budget covers the storage of waste. In Sweden the nuclear fund currently holds 7 billion and the estimated costs for storage are already at 12 billion euros and growing. Future taxpayers will pay the missing 5+ billion, but they will get no electricity from the plants that have been closed already. France's EDF was recently nationalized for over 60 billion euros, which is also paid by taxpayers, not electricity bills. Germanys taxpayers had to pay for the Asse II mine, long after the plants that produced the electricity that generated the waste were closed. So as I said, best case you leave a large cost to future generations. We haven't seen a worst case yet but the fact that Saami people in Lapland had to feed their animals special food because 30 years after Chernobyl gives a hint about what a worst case could mean. There are cheaper, safer, quicker and more stable options than nuclear, especially in Spain.

credit_guy 3y ago
> Sellafield also handles all waste from UK's nuclear plants. Let's see what you are trying to do here. If Sellafield handles both civilian and military waste, and Sellafield is bad, it follows that civilian nuclear waste is bad? That's your argument, right? And you see how it actually does not follow, logically speaking. It's like you saying this casino in Las Vegas is bad because there are lots of Mafia guys, and I say, yes, but at Carnegie Hall there are only musicians and ballerinas, and you say, sure but at at this Las Vegas casino there are musicians, ballerinas and Mafia guys, and it's a bad place, so Carnegie Hall must be a bad place too. The vast majority of civilian nuclear power plants don't reprocess their spent fuel, and certainly not on site. They put the spent fuel first in some type of swimming pools with water, to allow them to cool down, and after a few years they put them in some dry casks. The uranium from Sellafield was processed to extract the plutonium. That required huge amounts of chemicals, and there were some leaks. But those leaks are particular to the situation at Sellafield, and not relevant for the situation in Spain or other places that don't do reprocessing.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >If Sellafield handles both civilian and military waste, and Sellafield is bad, it follows that civilian nuclear waste is bad? That's your argument, right? No my point is not about waste it's about cost. Every country that operates nuclear power hides costs from nuclear plants in other parts of their budget. Sellafield is just one example from the UK where we actually have numbers. Countries that don't have a site like Sellafield must instead operate other storage facilities and handle unexpected costs related to them. Like Asse II in Germany or the 60 billion bailout of EDF in France or the underfinanced nuclear fund in Sweden, Rancho Seco in the US and so on. Charting the actual true cost of nuclear power is difficult, but it's easy to see that there are large costs that are in fact hidden. IMO this is very important to reveal, because many initiatives that could solve our problems are held back by the idea that they are "more expensive than nuclear", based on a fictional cost for nuclear. Synthesized gas from renewables is an example that is very likely cheaper than nuclear as of 2023, even short-term.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    You mention underfunded, but not overfunded. The civilian nuclear reactor operators in the US used to have to pay to a waste disposal fund, that currently has more than $44 BN [1]. This is well above what one would need to do the job: the total cost of the WIPP, which is the disposal site for the military waste in the US [2] was/is $19 BN, and there's twice as much military waste as civilian waste. > Countries that don't have a site like Sellafield must instead operate other storage facilities and handle unexpected costs related to them Why? It's like saying that every state in the US needs to have a waste facility. One is enough. I don't see why every country in the EU that has nuclear power reactors needs its own long term disposal place. Finland built one, other countries could use it. Plus, in the not so distant future we'll be able to significantly reduce the amount of high level waste by burning the actinides in it, and separating the unburned uranium (mainly U-238). This is not just pie in the sky, about 2 weeks ago Russia announced they have started manufacturing nuclear fuel with actinides extracted from waste [3]. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-permanent-nuclear-waste-dump-in-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant [3] https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Mixed-oxide-fuel-with-minor-actinides-produced-for https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Mixed-oxide-fuel-wit...

credit_guy 3y ago

> Sellafield also handles all waste from UK's nuclear plants. Let's see what you are trying to do here. If Sellafield handles both civilian and military waste, and Sellafield is bad, it follows that civilian nuclear waste is bad? That's your argument, right? And you see how it actually does not follow, logically speaking. It's like you saying this casino in Las Vegas is bad because there are lots of Mafia guys, and I say, yes, but at Carnegie Hall there are only musicians and ballerinas, and you say, sure but at at this Las Vegas casino there are musicians, ballerinas and Mafia guys, and it's a bad place, so Carnegie Hall must be a bad place too. The vast majority of civilian nuclear power plants don't reprocess their spent fuel, and certainly not on site. They put the spent fuel first in some type of swimming pools with water, to allow them to cool down, and after a few years they put them in some dry casks. The uranium from Sellafield was processed to extract the plutonium. That required huge amounts of chemicals, and there were some leaks. But those leaks are particular to the situation at Sellafield, and not relevant for the situation in Spain or other places that don't do reprocessing.

Kon5ole 3y ago
>If Sellafield handles both civilian and military waste, and Sellafield is bad, it follows that civilian nuclear waste is bad? That's your argument, right? No my point is not about waste it's about cost. Every country that operates nuclear power hides costs from nuclear plants in other parts of their budget. Sellafield is just one example from the UK where we actually have numbers. Countries that don't have a site like Sellafield must instead operate other storage facilities and handle unexpected costs related to them. Like Asse II in Germany or the 60 billion bailout of EDF in France or the underfinanced nuclear fund in Sweden, Rancho Seco in the US and so on. Charting the actual true cost of nuclear power is difficult, but it's easy to see that there are large costs that are in fact hidden. IMO this is very important to reveal, because many initiatives that could solve our problems are held back by the idea that they are "more expensive than nuclear", based on a fictional cost for nuclear. Synthesized gas from renewables is an example that is very likely cheaper than nuclear as of 2023, even short-term.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  You mention underfunded, but not overfunded. The civilian nuclear reactor operators in the US used to have to pay to a waste disposal fund, that currently has more than $44 BN [1]. This is well above what one would need to do the job: the total cost of the WIPP, which is the disposal site for the military waste in the US [2] was/is $19 BN, and there's twice as much military waste as civilian waste. > Countries that don't have a site like Sellafield must instead operate other storage facilities and handle unexpected costs related to them Why? It's like saying that every state in the US needs to have a waste facility. One is enough. I don't see why every country in the EU that has nuclear power reactors needs its own long term disposal place. Finland built one, other countries could use it. Plus, in the not so distant future we'll be able to significantly reduce the amount of high level waste by burning the actinides in it, and separating the unburned uranium (mainly U-238). This is not just pie in the sky, about 2 weeks ago Russia announced they have started manufacturing nuclear fuel with actinides extracted from waste [3]. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-permanent-nuclear-waste-dump-in-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant [3] https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Mixed-oxide-fuel-with-minor-actinides-produced-for https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Mixed-oxide-fuel-wit...