4 ms·

Not sure why you're down voted, but who cares. This is THE issue. I hope you're forgiven, in time, for stepping out of line in the cathedral of modern nuclear p

Not sure why you're down voted, but who cares. This is THE issue. I hope you're forgiven, in time, for stepping out of line in the cathedral of modern nuclear power.

nandomrumber 1y ago
The nuclear waste issue is such a non-issue that the overwhelming majority of nuclear waste, the actual spent fuel, is stored on site at the nuclear power plants. Long lived nuclear waste just isn't that radioactive, and highly reactive nuclear waste products just aren't that long lived. If the waste is vitrified (glassified) it becomes basically chemically non-reactive too.
- MostlyStable 1y ago
  This is an important point that a lot of people don't seem to understand. The longest live materials that are the hardest store are the least dangerous.
  - LightBug1 1y ago
    Least dangerous. I recommend storing them in a shed next to your home. Thanks for stepping up. We appreciate you.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Happily. As long as I also receive a billion dollar check and the necessary permits for digging a ridiculously deep shaft straight down. The issues surrounding long term storage are almost entirely political.
      - LightBug1 1y ago
        All I read above is "If's" "As long as" "Unless'" , etc. I'll do further research but my initial impression is that you're all operating like economists ... "ceteris paribus". The funny thing is. Life isn't like that. Mismanagement, cost compromises, engineering fuck ups, climate disaster, terrorism, etc are almost de rigueur ... You've not convinced me.
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        There are many cases where I'd agree with you that the economic model is an elaborate mathematical ruse to discount externalities and critical tail risks. In this case I'll pose a question. Consider a geologically stable location within the US of your choosing. How deep would a hole have to be before you would no longer be concerned about the potential consequences of mishaps? Is that depth technologically viable for us to reach today? Keep in mind that the contingency plan here is to simply fill in the pit and forget that it exists.
    - MostlyStable 1y ago
      You are acting like this is some kind of gotcha...I literally would do this for extremely reasonable sums. Unless you are grinding up and swallowing these materials (which requires that you first break into their storage casks), they are not at all dangerous.
tsimionescu 1y ago
It is not "THE" issue, it's barely even "an issue". The amount of radioactive material produced by a fission plant, and the form in which it comes, makes it trivial to store relatively safely - certainly much, much easier than the CO2 waste that most of our other energy generation solutions emit. Also, the biggest issues with nuclear power are (1) the risk of catastrophic meltdowns, (2) the risk of using it as cover for nuclear armament, (3) the massive capital expenditure to create a plant, and (4) the amount of water needed for cooling and running the plant. All of these make the problem of taking some radioactive rocks and burying them trivial in comparison.
- moron4hire 1y ago
  Do I remember correctly that modern thorium-based reactor designs mitigate at least #1 and #2?
  - yellowapple 1y ago
    And #4 can be addressed by not using potable water for cooling. Even assuming a reactor is water-cooled in the first place, that water has to be purified anyway before it can be used as coolant - so might as well just use seawater if you're gonna have to purify it anyway. Hell, a coastal nuclear plant could be a net-negative water consumer with a desalination plant onsite. California could completely abolish the very notion of "drought" within its borders by going all-in on nuclear and desalination. It probably never will, though, because rich landowners are California's most protected class and anything that'll lower their property values (by "ruining" the pretty coastal views) is verboten.
    - MostlyStable 1y ago
      I actually tried to do some back-of-the-napkin calculations about this a while ago and unfortunately, even if you made nuclear regulations sane, so that the cost came down significantly, I still don't think it would be cheap enough for ag use, which is the actual issue with droughts in CA. Municipal water you could likely supply completely with desal and it wouldn't even get that much more expensive, but 70% of water use in CA is for ag, and they couldn't support the price increase.

Not sure why you're down voted, but who cares. This is THE issue. I hope you're forgiven, in time, for stepping out of line in the cathedral of modern nuclear power.

nandomrumber 1y ago

The nuclear waste issue is such a non-issue that the overwhelming majority of nuclear waste, the actual spent fuel, is stored on site at the nuclear power plants. Long lived nuclear waste just isn't that radioactive, and highly reactive nuclear waste products just aren't that long lived. If the waste is vitrified (glassified) it becomes basically chemically non-reactive too.

MostlyStable 1y ago
This is an important point that a lot of people don't seem to understand. The longest live materials that are the hardest store are the least dangerous.
- LightBug1 1y ago
  Least dangerous. I recommend storing them in a shed next to your home. Thanks for stepping up. We appreciate you.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Happily. As long as I also receive a billion dollar check and the necessary permits for digging a ridiculously deep shaft straight down. The issues surrounding long term storage are almost entirely political.
    - LightBug1 1y ago
      All I read above is "If's" "As long as" "Unless'" , etc. I'll do further research but my initial impression is that you're all operating like economists ... "ceteris paribus". The funny thing is. Life isn't like that. Mismanagement, cost compromises, engineering fuck ups, climate disaster, terrorism, etc are almost de rigueur ... You've not convinced me.
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        There are many cases where I'd agree with you that the economic model is an elaborate mathematical ruse to discount externalities and critical tail risks. In this case I'll pose a question. Consider a geologically stable location within the US of your choosing. How deep would a hole have to be before you would no longer be concerned about the potential consequences of mishaps? Is that depth technologically viable for us to reach today? Keep in mind that the contingency plan here is to simply fill in the pit and forget that it exists.
  - MostlyStable 1y ago
    You are acting like this is some kind of gotcha...I literally would do this for extremely reasonable sums. Unless you are grinding up and swallowing these materials (which requires that you first break into their storage casks), they are not at all dangerous.

tsimionescu 1y ago

It is not "THE" issue, it's barely even "an issue". The amount of radioactive material produced by a fission plant, and the form in which it comes, makes it trivial to store relatively safely - certainly much, much easier than the CO2 waste that most of our other energy generation solutions emit. Also, the biggest issues with nuclear power are (1) the risk of catastrophic meltdowns, (2) the risk of using it as cover for nuclear armament, (3) the massive capital expenditure to create a plant, and (4) the amount of water needed for cooling and running the plant. All of these make the problem of taking some radioactive rocks and burying them trivial in comparison.

moron4hire 1y ago
Do I remember correctly that modern thorium-based reactor designs mitigate at least #1 and #2?
- yellowapple 1y ago
  And #4 can be addressed by not using potable water for cooling. Even assuming a reactor is water-cooled in the first place, that water has to be purified anyway before it can be used as coolant - so might as well just use seawater if you're gonna have to purify it anyway. Hell, a coastal nuclear plant could be a net-negative water consumer with a desalination plant onsite. California could completely abolish the very notion of "drought" within its borders by going all-in on nuclear and desalination. It probably never will, though, because rich landowners are California's most protected class and anything that'll lower their property values (by "ruining" the pretty coastal views) is verboten.
  - MostlyStable 1y ago
    I actually tried to do some back-of-the-napkin calculations about this a while ago and unfortunately, even if you made nuclear regulations sane, so that the cost came down significantly, I still don't think it would be cheap enough for ag use, which is the actual issue with droughts in CA. Municipal water you could likely supply completely with desal and it wouldn't even get that much more expensive, but 70% of water use in CA is for ag, and they couldn't support the price increase.