5 ms·

Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. There is so much fear around this stuff, but it's usually based on the incorrect notion

by zizee 2y ago

Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. There is so much fear around this stuff, but it's usually based on the incorrect notion that radioactive wastes is both super dangerous, and lasts forever. But this is not true. The super dangerous stuff doesn't hang around that long, whilst the stuff that does isn't that dangerous. The super-duper dangerous radioactive waste has a relatively short half-life, and volume. The vast amount of waste is fairly benign. It's a solvable problem.

Terr_ 2y ago
Perhaps, but the world is full of examples of problems that are/were "solvable" but remained unsolved for long periods of time causing a lot of harm. The fact that the problem still exists at all is an indicator it's not actually that easy.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Like Universal healthcare? Very hard problem, we should learn from all those other 150 countries that have it. Very smart people. Wish I saved the quote, but I remember reading something to the tone of "Everybody across all lines wants healthcare. But 8 rich people disagree, so it's complicated".
taurath 2y ago
Radiation and long term consequences of radioactive contamination is very specifically terrifying to the general public because you can neither see nor feel it happening and the consequences may not happen until much later. Both of those effects create an outsized defensive response that is not irrational at all but just most people are unable to modulate their perceptions of the size of threats like that.
- zizee 2y ago
  It's not irrational, but it's a similar concern to things like lead poisoning (similar because you cannot see it, and the effects are long term). Like with any risk, there should be appropriate and proportional risk mitigation strategies put in place. Current strategies are outsized compared to the risk. The anti-nuclear environmental movement will go down in history as one of the biggest own goals. If nuclear power had have had continued investment into engineering improvements, the world would be in a much better place WRT climate change.
  - bb88 2y ago
    What's super interesting along this line of thought are the events that happened in Flint, Michigan circa 2014 when the local government (who were unelected emergency managers) decided to switch the water source of Flint. This water reacted with the lead pipes causing lead levels to spike in the water supply. It's not the outsized risk of lead levels people are necessarily worried about. It's the outsized risk of some health risk that gets covered up, lied about, or dismissed by those in charge. There appears to be a high correlation between nuclear accidents and government and political coverups.
    - zizee 2y ago
      Well, back to my original point that the challenges are political in nature. Nuclear has one of the lowest mortality rates per megawatt hour. It would be even better if only modern reactor designs were considered. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
      - bb88 2y ago
        But also the highest potential for mass disaster. Even the so-called "safe" designs like pebble bed reactors have had issues with dust from the pebbles grinding against each other.
        zizee 2y ago
        This is just not true. A hydroelectric dam failure has demonstrably more potential for mass disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
  - taurath 2y ago
    > If nuclear power had have had continued investment into engineering improvements, the world would be in a much better place WRT climate change. Thats the thing though, its already been the titanic. People have seen the ship sink, and the promised engineering improvements didn't make up for the fact that it was not only an engineering problem but a human one. Some human somewhere is going to fail the system catastrophically, inevitably. If not an operator, then perhaps some day in the future someone else will gain control of it, or damage it, or make something happen that is out of the range of possibility with even moderately responsible engineering. Maybe its all solved now, I heard nice things about thorium reactors properties, but thats the echo of the fear of nuclear power. Be interesting to see what the generational breakdown is there.
worik 2y ago
> Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. That is a strange statement. There is no place in the world geologically stable for the required period (we have no way to know) We have no way to communicate with people about the dangers for over 100_000 years. Those are technical problems. The political impetus is to get future generations to pay for our current consumption
- zizee 2y ago
  Vitrification of the waste (mixing it into and storage deep underground provides a safe way to store waste for 1000s of years. > There is no place in the world geologically stable for the required period (we have no way to know) This can be said of anything, which is IMO a defeatist attitude. Nothing we do is guaranteed to not cause harm. Likewise, our inaction could also cause harm. For the specific question of stable geology, past performance can help predict future performance. We can make educated guesses. If it has been stable for the last million years, it's a good be it will be stable for the next 10,000. > We have no way to communicate with people about the dangers for over 100_000 years. The need to communicate the dangers over vast timeframes presupposes that society has fallen into ruin, and our record keeping has been destroyed. I will argue that if that has happened, it means countless billions will have perished, and people+or lizardmen) living primitive lifestyles will have far bigger worries than and increased cancer risk. > The political impetus is to get future generations to pay for our current consumption We are paying for our current consumption of fossil fuels right now. How many deaths from climate change over the next 200 years are appropriate to ensure the safety of an unknown number of people thousands of years from now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification
  - worik 2y ago
    > Vitrification of the waste (mixing it into and storage deep underground provides a safe way to store waste for 1000s of years. No. It is a way of loosing it and leaving it around for someone to dig it up and become very sick Remember, it is hundreds of thousands of years

by zizee 2y ago

Terr_ 2y ago

Perhaps, but the world is full of examples of problems that are/were "solvable" but remained unsolved for long periods of time causing a lot of harm. The fact that the problem still exists at all is an indicator it's not actually that easy.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Like Universal healthcare? Very hard problem, we should learn from all those other 150 countries that have it. Very smart people. Wish I saved the quote, but I remember reading something to the tone of "Everybody across all lines wants healthcare. But 8 rich people disagree, so it's complicated".

taurath 2y ago

Radiation and long term consequences of radioactive contamination is very specifically terrifying to the general public because you can neither see nor feel it happening and the consequences may not happen until much later. Both of those effects create an outsized defensive response that is not irrational at all but just most people are unable to modulate their perceptions of the size of threats like that.

zizee 2y ago
It's not irrational, but it's a similar concern to things like lead poisoning (similar because you cannot see it, and the effects are long term). Like with any risk, there should be appropriate and proportional risk mitigation strategies put in place. Current strategies are outsized compared to the risk. The anti-nuclear environmental movement will go down in history as one of the biggest own goals. If nuclear power had have had continued investment into engineering improvements, the world would be in a much better place WRT climate change.
- bb88 2y ago
  What's super interesting along this line of thought are the events that happened in Flint, Michigan circa 2014 when the local government (who were unelected emergency managers) decided to switch the water source of Flint. This water reacted with the lead pipes causing lead levels to spike in the water supply. It's not the outsized risk of lead levels people are necessarily worried about. It's the outsized risk of some health risk that gets covered up, lied about, or dismissed by those in charge. There appears to be a high correlation between nuclear accidents and government and political coverups.
  - zizee 2y ago
    Well, back to my original point that the challenges are political in nature. Nuclear has one of the lowest mortality rates per megawatt hour. It would be even better if only modern reactor designs were considered. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
    - bb88 2y ago
      But also the highest potential for mass disaster. Even the so-called "safe" designs like pebble bed reactors have had issues with dust from the pebbles grinding against each other.
      - zizee 2y ago
        This is just not true. A hydroelectric dam failure has demonstrably more potential for mass disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
- taurath 2y ago
  > If nuclear power had have had continued investment into engineering improvements, the world would be in a much better place WRT climate change. Thats the thing though, its already been the titanic. People have seen the ship sink, and the promised engineering improvements didn't make up for the fact that it was not only an engineering problem but a human one. Some human somewhere is going to fail the system catastrophically, inevitably. If not an operator, then perhaps some day in the future someone else will gain control of it, or damage it, or make something happen that is out of the range of possibility with even moderately responsible engineering. Maybe its all solved now, I heard nice things about thorium reactors properties, but thats the echo of the fear of nuclear power. Be interesting to see what the generational breakdown is there.

worik 2y ago

> Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. That is a strange statement. There is no place in the world geologically stable for the required period (we have no way to know) We have no way to communicate with people about the dangers for over 100_000 years. Those are technical problems. The political impetus is to get future generations to pay for our current consumption

zizee 2y ago
Vitrification of the waste (mixing it into and storage deep underground provides a safe way to store waste for 1000s of years. > There is no place in the world geologically stable for the required period (we have no way to know) This can be said of anything, which is IMO a defeatist attitude. Nothing we do is guaranteed to not cause harm. Likewise, our inaction could also cause harm. For the specific question of stable geology, past performance can help predict future performance. We can make educated guesses. If it has been stable for the last million years, it's a good be it will be stable for the next 10,000. > We have no way to communicate with people about the dangers for over 100_000 years. The need to communicate the dangers over vast timeframes presupposes that society has fallen into ruin, and our record keeping has been destroyed. I will argue that if that has happened, it means countless billions will have perished, and people+or lizardmen) living primitive lifestyles will have far bigger worries than and increased cancer risk. > The political impetus is to get future generations to pay for our current consumption We are paying for our current consumption of fossil fuels right now. How many deaths from climate change over the next 200 years are appropriate to ensure the safety of an unknown number of people thousands of years from now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification
- worik 2y ago
  > Vitrification of the waste (mixing it into and storage deep underground provides a safe way to store waste for 1000s of years. No. It is a way of loosing it and leaving it around for someone to dig it up and become very sick Remember, it is hundreds of thousands of years