3 ms·

> ...held in spent-fuel pools and/or moved to decommissioned facilities... Nuclear fuel is usually stored in dry casks on-site at running or decommissioned pow

> ...held in spent-fuel pools and/or moved to decommissioned facilities... Nuclear fuel is usually stored in dry casks on-site at running or decommissioned power plants. "Decommissioned" doesn't mean abandoned, there is still ferocious security present. No dry casks have ever been found to leak, or have been damaged intentionally or accidentally since they came into use in 1986. [1] > ...tanks filled with UF6... UF6 is a gas that reacts with water to form a corrosive acid. The fact that it's mildly radioactive is gilding the lily, as exposure to it would be pretty similar to any reactive fluorine compound and/or heavy metal (think mine waste). It's a problem, but UF6, a gas, is the polar opposite of dry cask storage, where even if the contents of a cask were sat in the open, they'd just sit there because they're vitrified (mixed into a glass). > ...concrete disposal facilities... Is this something related to nuclear energy? I don't know what this is referring to. > ...3 filled disposal facilities Here are 81: [2] [1]: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dry-cask-storage.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/d... [2]: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2316/ML23165A245.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2316/ML23165A245.pdf

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
Indeed, my point was to encourage folks to reason 30000 years of facility maintenance costs into their Total cost of ownership calculation. No known container is resilient enough to retain 100% structural containment in that time frame. Most thick-walled structures including stainless tanks undergo degradation from decaying materials, and will slowly form leaks over time. Hydrogen embrittlement from water-sources/cleaning-acids/anaerobic-bacteria in particular will slowly tear small fissures in most alloys. Note for dry casks the water presence is necessarily kept under tight control. My point was the existing solutions people were sure would work still leaked in relatively short time frames. Until a real long term solution is found, no one should accept the liability of long term waste stewardship. The best short-term solution, is mandating fuel recovery like Frances program. At least there would be better utility in that decision. I expect people on goat carts will be unconcerned about decaying plastics, concrete degradation, and alloy specific issues. After all, neither were you... Have a great day, =3
- nick238 2y ago
  > My point was the existing solutions people were sure would work still leaked in relatively short time frames. What are you referring to? The aforementioned UF6 canisters were a) NOT designed for long-term holding, more adapted from existing HF storage canisters (you can read some of the fun of storing fluorine compounds in the book "Ignition!" about liquid-fueled rockets), and as mentioned b) high level nuclear waste is vitrified to turn it into a non-volatile, non-dissolving, ceramic material that is largely stable by itself. > ... 30000 years of facility maintenance costs ... There are a variety of unused mines that could house high-level waste; the excavation is already done, thus fairly cheap. We are already factoring in storage of the fuel in casks, because it already is being stored in casks. The missing part is transport (hence the article, which is still kinda silly as the casks were designed to be trucked). If a nuclear waste cask gets hit by planes, trains, or automobiles, not much will happen. [1] If an ordinary tanker car falls off the tracks, it's like an improvised chemical warfare attack. [2] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palestine,_Ohio,_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palestine,_Ohio,_train_de...
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    "UF6 canisters were a) NOT designed for long-term holding" We agree on this for sure, but these were left at unsecured sites for decades slowly failing in the hot sun + acid rain. People have proven they can't keep track of every container of waste, and will do dodgy deals to hide their messes. Even your own cited article already shows the weeping rust stains on the side of the concrete enclosures. "nuclear waste is vitrified to turn it into a non-volatile, non-dissolving, ceramic material that is largely stable by itself." Except for material like Radon gas diffusion, and newly decayed water-soluble salts that drop off over time. The problem with decaying hot material, is in addition to the chemistry parts... it affects things even in proximity as gamma exposure pokes things apart over time. "variety of unused mines" Mines are constantly filling with water, and are designed to have active pumping. That is an improbable solution especially around acid rain... given holes get bigger with time due to erosion, and stuff will naturally shift around under tremendous force. The key concept we need to understand is all containment vessels have a maintenance cost associated with their stewardship. The 40gal barrels used in the 1950s to 1970s that didn't develop pin holes would simply be hit by rifle projectiles when they floated up to the surface from the sea bed. Problem solved right... ;-) Over a relatively short few decades people still failed to contain the waste... and I don't think incremental improvements using partially stable ceramics are an excuse to jeopardize arable land used for food. We will have to agree to disagree. All technologies have risk, and anyone that tells you differently is selling you something. If the 30 thousand year issue was trivial, than smart people would have solved it by now... Have a great day, =3

Joel_Mckay 2y ago

Indeed, my point was to encourage folks to reason 30000 years of facility maintenance costs into their Total cost of ownership calculation. No known container is resilient enough to retain 100% structural containment in that time frame. Most thick-walled structures including stainless tanks undergo degradation from decaying materials, and will slowly form leaks over time. Hydrogen embrittlement from water-sources/cleaning-acids/anaerobic-bacteria in particular will slowly tear small fissures in most alloys. Note for dry casks the water presence is necessarily kept under tight control. My point was the existing solutions people were sure would work still leaked in relatively short time frames. Until a real long term solution is found, no one should accept the liability of long term waste stewardship. The best short-term solution, is mandating fuel recovery like Frances program. At least there would be better utility in that decision. I expect people on goat carts will be unconcerned about decaying plastics, concrete degradation, and alloy specific issues. After all, neither were you... Have a great day, =3

nick238 2y ago
> My point was the existing solutions people were sure would work still leaked in relatively short time frames. What are you referring to? The aforementioned UF6 canisters were a) NOT designed for long-term holding, more adapted from existing HF storage canisters (you can read some of the fun of storing fluorine compounds in the book "Ignition!" about liquid-fueled rockets), and as mentioned b) high level nuclear waste is vitrified to turn it into a non-volatile, non-dissolving, ceramic material that is largely stable by itself. > ... 30000 years of facility maintenance costs ... There are a variety of unused mines that could house high-level waste; the excavation is already done, thus fairly cheap. We are already factoring in storage of the fuel in casks, because it already is being stored in casks. The missing part is transport (hence the article, which is still kinda silly as the casks were designed to be trucked). If a nuclear waste cask gets hit by planes, trains, or automobiles, not much will happen. [1] If an ordinary tanker car falls off the tracks, it's like an improvised chemical warfare attack. [2] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palestine,_Ohio,_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palestine,_Ohio,_train_de...
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  "UF6 canisters were a) NOT designed for long-term holding" We agree on this for sure, but these were left at unsecured sites for decades slowly failing in the hot sun + acid rain. People have proven they can't keep track of every container of waste, and will do dodgy deals to hide their messes. Even your own cited article already shows the weeping rust stains on the side of the concrete enclosures. "nuclear waste is vitrified to turn it into a non-volatile, non-dissolving, ceramic material that is largely stable by itself." Except for material like Radon gas diffusion, and newly decayed water-soluble salts that drop off over time. The problem with decaying hot material, is in addition to the chemistry parts... it affects things even in proximity as gamma exposure pokes things apart over time. "variety of unused mines" Mines are constantly filling with water, and are designed to have active pumping. That is an improbable solution especially around acid rain... given holes get bigger with time due to erosion, and stuff will naturally shift around under tremendous force. The key concept we need to understand is all containment vessels have a maintenance cost associated with their stewardship. The 40gal barrels used in the 1950s to 1970s that didn't develop pin holes would simply be hit by rifle projectiles when they floated up to the surface from the sea bed. Problem solved right... ;-) Over a relatively short few decades people still failed to contain the waste... and I don't think incremental improvements using partially stable ceramics are an excuse to jeopardize arable land used for food. We will have to agree to disagree. All technologies have risk, and anyone that tells you differently is selling you something. If the 30 thousand year issue was trivial, than smart people would have solved it by now... Have a great day, =3