4 ms·

> ...centuries of unavoidable costs no matter what... OR, you put the nasty and long-lived radwaste into (say) lead barrels, and bury those below some nice, de

> ...centuries of unavoidable costs no matter what... OR, you put the nasty and long-lived radwaste into (say) lead barrels, and bury those below some nice, deep, easily-monitored ocean trench. Absolutely nobody's going to accidentally dig those up. And if the effort needed to intentionally do so would be greater than the effort to brew their own fresh radwaste, then nobody will bother trying that, either.

wkat4242 2y ago
Barrels don't last when filled with nuclear material. The radiation embrittles the materials over time, they wouldn't last 100 years. And then all that crap will be released into the ocean and swerve all over the world.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Assume that the folks building the barrels know about the embrittlement, and have both a decent budget and some experienced engineers to mitigate the problem. Also note my phrase "bury them". Radwaste is not some magical Sealed Evil in a Can. If bound in compounds with substantially higher density that the ocean sediments, and emplaced a few tens of meters below the sea floor, then gravity will quite strongly discourage its upward migration.
  - Kon5ole 2y ago
    Four decades of studies by experienced engineers and a very decent budget to figure out how to store US nuclear waste has resulted in 0 solutions so far. I think we can safely assume that dumping it at sea is not an option.
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      We have solutions in the US, but politicians keep playing games. Yucca mountain has been authorized and de-authorized back and forth for decades. It isn't an engineering problem at all.
      - bell-cot 2y ago
        True-ish - but those game-playing politicians don't have much freedom of choice, if they want to keep their jobs. The US nuclear establishment has earned itself a "bungling pathological liars" reputation with the public. Why would the average voter react well to any "we'll store a whole lotta Bad Stuff near you" plan?
- jenadine 2y ago
  Nuclear material is put in glass which can last many thousands of years. Geological studies of the locations where the nuclear waste is burried show that it would take millions of year for the isotopes to escape. Meanwhile, the effects of low dose radiations on health are vastly exaggerated. Every industry is releasing pollution in the ecosystem that are way more toxic and dangerous. And these get barely any attention for some reasons.
- natmaka 2y ago
  Indeed, officially the casks conceived during the 1980's are OK, however in 2011 the MIT discovered that "Cracking related to corrosion could occur in 30 years or less, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is studying whether the casks can be used for 100 years as some hope." https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/researching-safer-nuclear-energy/ https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/...
pvaldes 2y ago
People keep proposing that nonsense from 70's but can be cured studying some really basic biology and oceanography. In 2024 is at a level similar than saying that smoking is good for your children. Is not even funny as a joke. > Absolutely nobody's going to accidentally dig those up Read about the concept of vertical migration
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Are you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diel_vertical_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diel_vertical_migration If so, Wikipedia's first para makes it clear that that migration occurs at vastly shallower depths than an ocean trench.
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    Why do you think that people spend decades studying and mastering a field where they could just instead read a page of Wikipedia? There are hundreds of entire books about marine ecology and sea physics. Thick books with entire chapters about how energy/matter moves up and down in the ocean. There are more than one type of migration and we don't still know a lot of things about the sea. Physics tell us also that warm water tend to ascend over cold water, and that the water is moved from very deep areas to some coastal areas just because the shape of continents. To achieve the same effect of leaving a barrel of nuclear waste in the middle of the sea (hoping in vain that nothing will move from there) we could better to put nuclear dust in the way of a stampede, or leave the barrels in the beach before the tornado season. Would achieve the same effect but saving much more money.
    - bell-cot 2y ago
      (Sadly, it feels like my use of the colloquial term "barrel" has triggered a "proclaim authority, dismiss straw man" reflex.)
      - pvaldes 2y ago
        If its makes you feel better, that word never supposed any problem. For me, is just a synonym of container here
Moldoteck 2y ago
why bury precious fuel? Use purex or fast reactors, vitrify rest, put in casks and deal with it at least till transmutation research advances
- bell-cot 2y ago
  My understanding is that the anti-proliferation lobby* is intensely allergic to several of the technologies involved in doing that. *EDIT - I'm referring to the US-centered anti-proliferation lobby. Though "national security establishment" might be a better term. And yes, its ability to influence French, Japanese, etc. domestic nuclear power policy is much more limited.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    i mean, france does purex, japan too, soon us too. fast reactors are slowly rolling out in some countries like india, china, russia, even eu has some projects in mind

wkat4242 2y ago

Barrels don't last when filled with nuclear material. The radiation embrittles the materials over time, they wouldn't last 100 years. And then all that crap will be released into the ocean and swerve all over the world.

bell-cot 2y ago
Assume that the folks building the barrels know about the embrittlement, and have both a decent budget and some experienced engineers to mitigate the problem. Also note my phrase "bury them". Radwaste is not some magical Sealed Evil in a Can. If bound in compounds with substantially higher density that the ocean sediments, and emplaced a few tens of meters below the sea floor, then gravity will quite strongly discourage its upward migration.
- Kon5ole 2y ago
  Four decades of studies by experienced engineers and a very decent budget to figure out how to store US nuclear waste has resulted in 0 solutions so far. I think we can safely assume that dumping it at sea is not an option.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    We have solutions in the US, but politicians keep playing games. Yucca mountain has been authorized and de-authorized back and forth for decades. It isn't an engineering problem at all.
    - bell-cot 2y ago
      True-ish - but those game-playing politicians don't have much freedom of choice, if they want to keep their jobs. The US nuclear establishment has earned itself a "bungling pathological liars" reputation with the public. Why would the average voter react well to any "we'll store a whole lotta Bad Stuff near you" plan?
jenadine 2y ago
Nuclear material is put in glass which can last many thousands of years. Geological studies of the locations where the nuclear waste is burried show that it would take millions of year for the isotopes to escape. Meanwhile, the effects of low dose radiations on health are vastly exaggerated. Every industry is releasing pollution in the ecosystem that are way more toxic and dangerous. And these get barely any attention for some reasons.
natmaka 2y ago
Indeed, officially the casks conceived during the 1980's are OK, however in 2011 the MIT discovered that "Cracking related to corrosion could occur in 30 years or less, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is studying whether the casks can be used for 100 years as some hope." https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/researching-safer-nuclear-energy/ https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/...

pvaldes 2y ago

People keep proposing that nonsense from 70's but can be cured studying some really basic biology and oceanography. In 2024 is at a level similar than saying that smoking is good for your children. Is not even funny as a joke. > Absolutely nobody's going to accidentally dig those up Read about the concept of vertical migration

bell-cot 2y ago
Are you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diel_vertical_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diel_vertical_migration If so, Wikipedia's first para makes it clear that that migration occurs at vastly shallower depths than an ocean trench.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  Why do you think that people spend decades studying and mastering a field where they could just instead read a page of Wikipedia? There are hundreds of entire books about marine ecology and sea physics. Thick books with entire chapters about how energy/matter moves up and down in the ocean. There are more than one type of migration and we don't still know a lot of things about the sea. Physics tell us also that warm water tend to ascend over cold water, and that the water is moved from very deep areas to some coastal areas just because the shape of continents. To achieve the same effect of leaving a barrel of nuclear waste in the middle of the sea (hoping in vain that nothing will move from there) we could better to put nuclear dust in the way of a stampede, or leave the barrels in the beach before the tornado season. Would achieve the same effect but saving much more money.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    (Sadly, it feels like my use of the colloquial term "barrel" has triggered a "proclaim authority, dismiss straw man" reflex.)
    - pvaldes 2y ago
      If its makes you feel better, that word never supposed any problem. For me, is just a synonym of container here

Moldoteck 2y ago

why bury precious fuel? Use purex or fast reactors, vitrify rest, put in casks and deal with it at least till transmutation research advances

bell-cot 2y ago
My understanding is that the anti-proliferation lobby* is intensely allergic to several of the technologies involved in doing that. *EDIT - I'm referring to the US-centered anti-proliferation lobby. Though "national security establishment" might be a better term. And yes, its ability to influence French, Japanese, etc. domestic nuclear power policy is much more limited.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  i mean, france does purex, japan too, soon us too. fast reactors are slowly rolling out in some countries like india, china, russia, even eu has some projects in mind