3 ms·

Problem with fission waste is it's super long decay duration. It will basically still be seriously dangerous way beyond the lifespan of its containers. We need

Problem with fission waste is it's super long decay duration. It will basically still be seriously dangerous way beyond the lifespan of its containers. We need the equivalent of the Manhatten project to build next generation facilities to burn down the waste. The original bomb scientists really wanted to go with thorium as it has several safety features. One it needs to be pushed to criticality so it can't go runaway. Two its waste is much safer in its duration. And now cost is becoming a factor, as solar, wind, battery storage, geothermal, ocean thermal and conservation all pile on with cost efficiencies that make fission rapidly too costly. The fission waste will still need to be processed and then stored in ways that can be hoped to be safe for eons.

cubefox 3y ago
Batteries are hardly getting cheaper anymore. See https://www.energy-storage.news/lithium-battery-pack-prices-go-up-for-first-time-since-bloombergnef-began-annual-survey/ https://www.energy-storage.news/lithium-battery-pack-prices-... The allegedly low cost of solar energy comes from ignoring battery cost. And the relatively high cost of fission comes largely from overregulation.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Going up one year isn't something you should make a trend from, especially given the long term price declines. Here's another graph of the same thing, but updated with the actual rather than predicted value for one year after your link was published — and the price decline is back: https://www.statista.com/statistics/883118/global-lithium-ion-battery-pack-costs/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/883118/global-lithium-io... > The allegedly low cost of solar energy comes from ignoring battery cost. Can also solve the same issues with other storage options, hedge with other renewables that are also cheap, and electricity transport is a political issue rather than an economic or engineering problem. > And the relatively high cost of fission comes largely from overregulation. The low cost of fission is it being subsidised by the military value. The regulations exist because even though the mean cost of accidents per TWh is tiny, the upper bound of the damage when they do happen is sufficient to bankrupt superpowers.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  This is hilarious, since LFP prices are crashing now. Renewables will be cheap even with storage costs included. Adding batteries to a utility scale PV field now actually saves money, because the cost of inverters and grid connection can be amortized over several times more energy. Nuclear apologists never actually explain just what regulations would be removed to achieve the putative cost savings. It's all just "it was cheap before, and now isn't, therefore... regulations!"
ben_w 3y ago
> Problem with fission waste is it's super long decay duration. Some of it does, the decay chains are wildly variable. Fortunately, the longer the half life, the lower the power output. If Cobalt-60 and Plutonium-242 released the same energy per decay event and you had the same number of atoms at the start, the radiation from the cobalt would be 72,000 times as intense to start with, but equal after 84 years. But the main point, all things nuclear are so energy dense that in practice there's (relatively speaking) so little of the waste it basically doesn't matter. I've been in single rooms large enough to contain all the world's high level nuclear waste. > The original bomb scientists really wanted to go with thorium as it has several safety features. One it needs to be pushed to criticality so it can't go runaway. Two its waste is much safer in its duration. That seems like a flaw for a bomb, which is specifically it going runaway. But also, it's quite hard to crush uranium or plutonium hard enough to do that. Even with Chernobyl, the fuel was surrounded by stuff designed to make it more energetic (although not as energetic as the actual accident, obviously).

cubefox 3y ago

Batteries are hardly getting cheaper anymore. See https://www.energy-storage.news/lithium-battery-pack-prices-go-up-for-first-time-since-bloombergnef-began-annual-survey/ https://www.energy-storage.news/lithium-battery-pack-prices-... The allegedly low cost of solar energy comes from ignoring battery cost. And the relatively high cost of fission comes largely from overregulation.

ben_w 3y ago
Going up one year isn't something you should make a trend from, especially given the long term price declines. Here's another graph of the same thing, but updated with the actual rather than predicted value for one year after your link was published — and the price decline is back: https://www.statista.com/statistics/883118/global-lithium-ion-battery-pack-costs/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/883118/global-lithium-io... > The allegedly low cost of solar energy comes from ignoring battery cost. Can also solve the same issues with other storage options, hedge with other renewables that are also cheap, and electricity transport is a political issue rather than an economic or engineering problem. > And the relatively high cost of fission comes largely from overregulation. The low cost of fission is it being subsidised by the military value. The regulations exist because even though the mean cost of accidents per TWh is tiny, the upper bound of the damage when they do happen is sufficient to bankrupt superpowers.
pfdietz 3y ago
This is hilarious, since LFP prices are crashing now. Renewables will be cheap even with storage costs included. Adding batteries to a utility scale PV field now actually saves money, because the cost of inverters and grid connection can be amortized over several times more energy. Nuclear apologists never actually explain just what regulations would be removed to achieve the putative cost savings. It's all just "it was cheap before, and now isn't, therefore... regulations!"

ben_w 3y ago

> Problem with fission waste is it's super long decay duration. Some of it does, the decay chains are wildly variable. Fortunately, the longer the half life, the lower the power output. If Cobalt-60 and Plutonium-242 released the same energy per decay event and you had the same number of atoms at the start, the radiation from the cobalt would be 72,000 times as intense to start with, but equal after 84 years. But the main point, all things nuclear are so energy dense that in practice there's (relatively speaking) so little of the waste it basically doesn't matter. I've been in single rooms large enough to contain all the world's high level nuclear waste. > The original bomb scientists really wanted to go with thorium as it has several safety features. One it needs to be pushed to criticality so it can't go runaway. Two its waste is much safer in its duration. That seems like a flaw for a bomb, which is specifically it going runaway. But also, it's quite hard to crush uranium or plutonium hard enough to do that. Even with Chernobyl, the fuel was surrounded by stuff designed to make it more energetic (although not as energetic as the actual accident, obviously).