3 ms·

Shipping containers seem to have a maximum weight of about 20 tonnes so surely around 100 containers?

oefrha 2y ago
Nuclear waste has a density of ~10g/cm^3, so 2000t is about 200m^3. Standard 40’ container has a volume of 59.3m^3, so it’s indeed about 3 to 4 by volume. Of course you shouldn’t pack a container full of something so dense when shipping. Anyway it’s a pretty tiny amount of storage space; single family homes are usually larger by volume.
- carlmr 2y ago
  The more important consideration is we're wasting the waste. It still contains 90% of the fissile energy and we're calling it waste: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20generates%20about%202%2C000,an%20Olympic%2Dsized%20swimming%20pool https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-....
  - laurencerowe 2y ago
    The problem with nuclear reprocessing is that it creates more nuclear waste as a byproduct so it only really makes sense when you want to make nuclear weapons.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    That figure is correct only if you consider the energy content of the U-238 in the fuel. But reprocessing fuel to recover U-238 is idiotic: we have loads of U-238 in enrichment plant waste streams, and the material is so cheap they use it as ballast weights in sailboats.
- laurencerowe 2y ago
  That is just the high level nuclear waste (the spent control rods) which needs to be kept in cooling pools for about a decade before being transferred to dry cask storage. That definitely takes up a lot more space. > Dry cask storage is a method of storing high-level radioactive waste, such as spent nuclear fuel that has already been cooled in a spent fuel pool for at least one year and often as much as ten years. Casks are typically steel cylinders that are either welded or bolted closed. The fuel rods inside are surrounded by inert gas. Ideally, the steel cylinder provides leak-tight containment of the spent fuel. Each cylinder is surrounded by additional steel, concrete, or other material to provide radiation shielding to workers and members of the public. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage There’s also a lot of low level nuclear waste which is a pain to deal with (make sure you pick the right brand of kitty litter…) https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/26/395615637/official-report-nuclear-waste-accident-caused-by-wrong-kitty-litter https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/26/395615637...
roenxi 2y ago
It'd be volume limited, as the other comment points out Uranium is pretty dense. I would certainly agree that nobody should actually try to put a year's generation of dangerous nuclear waste in 3 shipping containers. It'd be hazardous and the shipping containers couldn't be moved without breaking (probably do some damage to them even without moving them). The point is more that we're dealing with a volume of material that is - for an industrial society - tiny. There is a reason that in practice it is ignored it despite the braying crowd of people insisting that it is an unsolved problem that we can't ignore. It is an extremely ignoreable problem on the scale of benefits that nuclear power provides.
- laurencerowe 2y ago
  I mostly agree but we should understand that the costs of dealing with the waste are not negligible. I’m pretty agnostic about nuclear power. I used to believe it was necessary but renewables and batteries now seem the more cost effective and a far faster way to reach 90% carbon free electricity.
oneshtein 2y ago
Radioactive materials needs to be physically protected, shielded against radiation, and have active cooling system or be small enough to have passive cooling. You may dedicate whole container to transport just a few kg of highly radioactive items.

Nuclear waste has a density of ~10g/cm^3, so 2000t is about 200m^3. Standard 40’ container has a volume of 59.3m^3, so it’s indeed about 3 to 4 by volume. Of course you shouldn’t pack a container full of something so dense when shipping. Anyway it’s a pretty tiny amount of storage space; single family homes are usually larger by volume.

carlmr 2y ago
The more important consideration is we're wasting the waste. It still contains 90% of the fissile energy and we're calling it waste: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20generates%20about%202%2C000,an%20Olympic%2Dsized%20swimming%20pool https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-....
- laurencerowe 2y ago
  The problem with nuclear reprocessing is that it creates more nuclear waste as a byproduct so it only really makes sense when you want to make nuclear weapons.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  That figure is correct only if you consider the energy content of the U-238 in the fuel. But reprocessing fuel to recover U-238 is idiotic: we have loads of U-238 in enrichment plant waste streams, and the material is so cheap they use it as ballast weights in sailboats.
laurencerowe 2y ago
That is just the high level nuclear waste (the spent control rods) which needs to be kept in cooling pools for about a decade before being transferred to dry cask storage. That definitely takes up a lot more space. > Dry cask storage is a method of storing high-level radioactive waste, such as spent nuclear fuel that has already been cooled in a spent fuel pool for at least one year and often as much as ten years. Casks are typically steel cylinders that are either welded or bolted closed. The fuel rods inside are surrounded by inert gas. Ideally, the steel cylinder provides leak-tight containment of the spent fuel. Each cylinder is surrounded by additional steel, concrete, or other material to provide radiation shielding to workers and members of the public. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage There’s also a lot of low level nuclear waste which is a pain to deal with (make sure you pick the right brand of kitty litter…) https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/26/395615637/official-report-nuclear-waste-accident-caused-by-wrong-kitty-litter https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/26/395615637...

roenxi 2y ago

It'd be volume limited, as the other comment points out Uranium is pretty dense. I would certainly agree that nobody should actually try to put a year's generation of dangerous nuclear waste in 3 shipping containers. It'd be hazardous and the shipping containers couldn't be moved without breaking (probably do some damage to them even without moving them). The point is more that we're dealing with a volume of material that is - for an industrial society - tiny. There is a reason that in practice it is ignored it despite the braying crowd of people insisting that it is an unsolved problem that we can't ignore. It is an extremely ignoreable problem on the scale of benefits that nuclear power provides.

laurencerowe 2y ago
I mostly agree but we should understand that the costs of dealing with the waste are not negligible. I’m pretty agnostic about nuclear power. I used to believe it was necessary but renewables and batteries now seem the more cost effective and a far faster way to reach 90% carbon free electricity.

oneshtein 2y ago

Radioactive materials needs to be physically protected, shielded against radiation, and have active cooling system or be small enough to have passive cooling. You may dedicate whole container to transport just a few kg of highly radioactive items.