4 ms·

> In the coming decades, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will need to transport that material to future storage facilities. No doubt at great cost, none of

> In the coming decades, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will need to transport that material to future storage facilities. No doubt at great cost, none of which is being factored into current nuclear projects or energy pricing. So, this is as unlikely to happen as it has been in the past 8 decades. The size of the problem just keeps on growing every year while we don't lift a finger to address the issues. Long term storage is more of an aspirational thing at this point than a concretely actionable thing. Only a small minority of all nuclear waste ever produced actually sits in long term storage. E.g. the Fins have taken into use an underground facility recently. But most nuclear waste elsewhere sits in temporary storage waiting to eventually be moved. Nobody wants to pay for that. Nobody wants this stuff in their backyard. Nobody really wants to even talk about the cost. Which is of course substantial. Especially people in favor of building more nuclear capacity to add to this problem. Somebody (i.e. future generations of tax payers, for millennia to come) will pay for it. Eventually. Which is convenient because we can pretend things are cheap short term.

opo 2y ago
>> In the coming decades, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will need to transport that material to future storage facilities. >No doubt at great cost, none of which is being factored into current nuclear projects or energy pricing. This is not correct: >...Moreover, every commercial nuclear power plant was required to help finance the construction of the federal waste repository. The plants raised funds for this by charging their customers a fee of one one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour. Every quarter, money has been transferred from the plant operators into the federal government’s Nuclear Waste Fund (Kacich, 2021). Including interest, electricity consumers have contributed more than $56 billion into that fund, which now generates over $1.5 billion in interest every year (NEI, 2021a; DOE-OIG, 2021). https://crownschool.uchicago.edu/student-life/advocates-forum/our-silent-zombie-commercial-nuclear-waste-storage-united-states#:~:text=Every%20quarter%2C%20money%20has%20been,DOE%2DOIG%2C%202021 https://crownschool.uchicago.edu/student-life/advocates-foru...). In reality, burying fuel without reprocessing it would be incredibly wasteful. Really it seems like it would make more sense to store it until the fuel can be reprocessed and some of the more dangerous remaining material burned in a 4th gen reactor. But there is so much fear-mongering about nuclear power I doubt there will ever be a rational discussion of it by politicians in this country.
defrost 2y ago
> Nobody really wants to even talk about the cost. Which is of course substantial. Especially people in favor of building more nuclear capacity to add to this problem. Especially, also, those in favour of an electric future filled with PV panels and batteries. Don't get me wrong, I'm not simping for the pro-nuclear lobby and I want to see an electric future. But very few people ever mention the radioactive waste that comes with Rare Earth processing. eg: The Lynas plant in Gebeng, Kuantan, 264 km. (164 miles) from Kuala Lumpur, had faced scrutiny over a lack of a safe disposal solution for its radioactive and toxic wastes. Chang said Lynas's permanent disposal facility, which has a capacity of 1.6 million metric tons, holds 1.2 million metric tons of waste. ~ https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/rare-earths-10242023150651.html https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/rare-earths... ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKJnbvtjjfQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKJnbvtjjfQ I think it's a good thing that people give a damn about radioactive waste, it's not so good when they only focus on a single source.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  TENORM is generated by oil/gas (https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-wastes https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-...), coal (https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-coal-combustion-residuals https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-coal-combustion-residua...), etc. as well. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/technologically-enhanced-naturally-occurring-radioactive-materials-tenorm https://www.epa.gov/radiation/technologically-enhanced-natur...
- eru 2y ago
  Nuclear has great engineering, but alas politically wind and PV is what's feasible. That's still much better than coal. And if solar and batteries keep falling in price, they might drop below what nuclear can provide. (OK, batteries can mostly move energy from day to night; they have more of a problem with moving energy from summer to winter. But we can solve that particular problem with eg very long cables; and lots of other ingenuity.)
- jamil7 2y ago
  Solar panels and batteries don’t typically use rare earth metals. Wind turbines do use small amounts and are probably the harder of the two to recycle currently.
SECProto 2y ago
> No doubt at great cost, none of which is being factored into current nuclear projects or energy pricing The cost to develop these railcars was 33 million, per the article. A rounding error in the cost of any energy source. Long term storage costs should be much lower than they are, but the DGR has been stymied since I was a child. Not to mention how most of this waste is actually a resource How much of current carbon emissions are being factored into the cost of electricity (for any of the various sources)?
- eru 2y ago
  > How much of current carbon emissions are being factored into the cost of electricity (for any of the various sources)? You can relatively easily do those calculations. The results are about what you'd expect: hydro, wind and solar don't get much more expensive; coal gets a lot more expensive, etc. Of course, details depend on what carbon pricing you use. Funny enough, to go off on a tangent: if solar keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, that could make coal viable even with carbon costs fully priced in. What I mean is: assume solar panels keep dropping in price so that electricity is approximately free when the sun is shining. But still has a very positive cost when the sun ain't shining. You can do some carry-over into the night with batteries, but seasonal storage all the way from summer to winter is much harder. Now here's something that becomes feasible: when you have excess electricity from your solar panels, capture carbon from the atmosphere to build up a deficit. Then, when you need power but no sun, you can burn coal and use up your carbon deficit. (I'm not suggesting this is in any way optimal, just that it might be feasible under certain circumstances; even if you fully account for carbon pricing.)
  - jakewins 2y ago
    This sounds much less efficient than the current proposed path of electrolyzing hydrogen? Direct air capture of carbon has, as I understand, extremely low efficiency. What would be the benefit of capturing carbon over making hydrogen?
    - eru 2y ago
      > This sounds much less efficient than the current proposed path of electrolyzing hydrogen? Addendum: it's hard to store hydrogen for a long time. That stuff is so volatile, and even 'seeps' through steel. What I sketched would work for seasonal 'storage'. But you are right, that it's very likely far from the optimal thing to do.
Moldoteck 2y ago
Or future generations will find a way to reprocess and reuse that fuel cheaper than now
- throw0101c 2y ago
  Future generations will not have to find anything out, as we already how to reprocess it: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0UJSlKIy8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0UJSlKIy8g * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing Though given current uranium prices (i.e. not relatively high), it may not actually be worth it—economically speaking—to actually do it commercially.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    That's why I've mentioned 'cheaper than now'

opo 2y ago

>> In the coming decades, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will need to transport that material to future storage facilities. >No doubt at great cost, none of which is being factored into current nuclear projects or energy pricing. This is not correct: >...Moreover, every commercial nuclear power plant was required to help finance the construction of the federal waste repository. The plants raised funds for this by charging their customers a fee of one one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour. Every quarter, money has been transferred from the plant operators into the federal government’s Nuclear Waste Fund (Kacich, 2021). Including interest, electricity consumers have contributed more than $56 billion into that fund, which now generates over $1.5 billion in interest every year (NEI, 2021a; DOE-OIG, 2021). https://crownschool.uchicago.edu/student-life/advocates-forum/our-silent-zombie-commercial-nuclear-waste-storage-united-states#:~:text=Every%20quarter%2C%20money%20has%20been,DOE%2DOIG%2C%202021 https://crownschool.uchicago.edu/student-life/advocates-foru...). In reality, burying fuel without reprocessing it would be incredibly wasteful. Really it seems like it would make more sense to store it until the fuel can be reprocessed and some of the more dangerous remaining material burned in a 4th gen reactor. But there is so much fear-mongering about nuclear power I doubt there will ever be a rational discussion of it by politicians in this country.

defrost 2y ago

> Nobody really wants to even talk about the cost. Which is of course substantial. Especially people in favor of building more nuclear capacity to add to this problem. Especially, also, those in favour of an electric future filled with PV panels and batteries. Don't get me wrong, I'm not simping for the pro-nuclear lobby and I want to see an electric future. But very few people ever mention the radioactive waste that comes with Rare Earth processing. eg: The Lynas plant in Gebeng, Kuantan, 264 km. (164 miles) from Kuala Lumpur, had faced scrutiny over a lack of a safe disposal solution for its radioactive and toxic wastes. Chang said Lynas's permanent disposal facility, which has a capacity of 1.6 million metric tons, holds 1.2 million metric tons of waste. ~ https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/rare-earths-10242023150651.html https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/rare-earths... ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKJnbvtjjfQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKJnbvtjjfQ I think it's a good thing that people give a damn about radioactive waste, it's not so good when they only focus on a single source.

ceejayoz 2y ago
TENORM is generated by oil/gas (https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-wastes https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-...), coal (https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-coal-combustion-residuals https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-coal-combustion-residua...), etc. as well. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/technologically-enhanced-naturally-occurring-radioactive-materials-tenorm https://www.epa.gov/radiation/technologically-enhanced-natur...
eru 2y ago
Nuclear has great engineering, but alas politically wind and PV is what's feasible. That's still much better than coal. And if solar and batteries keep falling in price, they might drop below what nuclear can provide. (OK, batteries can mostly move energy from day to night; they have more of a problem with moving energy from summer to winter. But we can solve that particular problem with eg very long cables; and lots of other ingenuity.)
jamil7 2y ago
Solar panels and batteries don’t typically use rare earth metals. Wind turbines do use small amounts and are probably the harder of the two to recycle currently.

SECProto 2y ago

> No doubt at great cost, none of which is being factored into current nuclear projects or energy pricing The cost to develop these railcars was 33 million, per the article. A rounding error in the cost of any energy source. Long term storage costs should be much lower than they are, but the DGR has been stymied since I was a child. Not to mention how most of this waste is actually a resource How much of current carbon emissions are being factored into the cost of electricity (for any of the various sources)?

eru 2y ago
> How much of current carbon emissions are being factored into the cost of electricity (for any of the various sources)? You can relatively easily do those calculations. The results are about what you'd expect: hydro, wind and solar don't get much more expensive; coal gets a lot more expensive, etc. Of course, details depend on what carbon pricing you use. Funny enough, to go off on a tangent: if solar keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, that could make coal viable even with carbon costs fully priced in. What I mean is: assume solar panels keep dropping in price so that electricity is approximately free when the sun is shining. But still has a very positive cost when the sun ain't shining. You can do some carry-over into the night with batteries, but seasonal storage all the way from summer to winter is much harder. Now here's something that becomes feasible: when you have excess electricity from your solar panels, capture carbon from the atmosphere to build up a deficit. Then, when you need power but no sun, you can burn coal and use up your carbon deficit. (I'm not suggesting this is in any way optimal, just that it might be feasible under certain circumstances; even if you fully account for carbon pricing.)
- jakewins 2y ago
  This sounds much less efficient than the current proposed path of electrolyzing hydrogen? Direct air capture of carbon has, as I understand, extremely low efficiency. What would be the benefit of capturing carbon over making hydrogen?
  - eru 2y ago
    > This sounds much less efficient than the current proposed path of electrolyzing hydrogen? Addendum: it's hard to store hydrogen for a long time. That stuff is so volatile, and even 'seeps' through steel. What I sketched would work for seasonal 'storage'. But you are right, that it's very likely far from the optimal thing to do.

Moldoteck 2y ago

Or future generations will find a way to reprocess and reuse that fuel cheaper than now

throw0101c 2y ago
Future generations will not have to find anything out, as we already how to reprocess it: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0UJSlKIy8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0UJSlKIy8g * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing Though given current uranium prices (i.e. not relatively high), it may not actually be worth it—economically speaking—to actually do it commercially.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  That's why I've mentioned 'cheaper than now'