5 ms·
2) I asked about waste buried in the ground, not in transit. 3) if a waste barrel explodes, somehow, underground how does the waste make it's way through a mil
by Manuel_D 1y ago
2) I asked about waste buried in the ground, not in transit.
3) if a waste barrel explodes, somehow, underground how does the waste make it's way through a mile of bedrock?
4) Again, how does a fire bring the wast up through a mile of bedrock?
5) This is just a vague statement.
6) So the concern is that future society will forget that this is a waste site, mine a mile deep and retrieve waste, and never figure out that the waste is bad for them? This is rather specific hypothetical that IMO demonstrates just how hard it is for a nuclear waste site to result in contamination.
- AtlasBarfed 1y agoI look forward to your revolutionary nuclear waste teleportation device.
- Manuel_D 1y agoTeleportation? You dig a tunnel underground, put the waste there, and fill the tunnel. It's been done before, it's not revolutionary engineering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...
- lukan 1y agoThe point was, you cannot ignore the risks of transportation, if you only have some safe spots to burry it. And what you linked is still under construction. We don't know yet, if it really works safe long term, or if there will be future costs.
- Manuel_D 1y agoFinland has two other disposal sites in operation since the 90s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
- lukan 1y agoYes, but when we want to store something in the range of million years, it is a bit early to say that 30 years are sufficient as a ultimate proof that nothing leaks. Now I believe it can be done safely, but only if monitored all the time with good care. But that is expensive and humans tend to skimp.
- Manuel_D 1y agoAgain, when you bury uranium half a kilometer deep in an area with no aquifer, how will it ever result in contamination? The only real scenarios are deliberate excavation, and a meteor impact directly on the waste repository. Neither of which are particularly likely scenarios.
- lukan 1y agoBecause the ground is not static. And we are just starting to understand what is going on down there. So yes, there are sites that remained quite unchanged (like with the natural fission reactor), but personally I remain sceptical with such statements.
- Manuel_D 1y agoHalf a kilometer isn't particularly deep. There are dozens of mines over 2 KM deep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines Are we supposed to hold off on developing the only geographically independent and non-intermittent form of clean energy because of some vague nebulous fear that waste buried half a kilometer deep in bedrock will come back up to the surface and harm people... somehow?
- lukan 1y agoNo, but maybe we should not pretend all is super safe and always will be, when we cannot know currently. Or rather we do know that the initial promises of reactor safety were also quite overconfident. So people assume the same of permanent storage of the waste.
- bobmcnamara 1y ago> It's been done before, it's not revolutionary engineering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re... It's not even open yet.
- Manuel_D 1y agoFinland has been operating two other sites for decades: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44332413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44332413
- bobmcnamara 1y agoThose aren't for reactor waste.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoThe primary transportation risk is that spent fuel contains cesium metal, which is reactive with air and water, so if you expose it to air you get a fire. It seems like a pretty obvious solution to this would be to purposely do the reaction under controlled conditions before transporting it, so then you're transporting stable cesium compounds instead of elemental cesium metal.
- pfdietz 1y agoThe cesium in spent fuel is not in the form of cesium metal. The cesium there is already oxidized to the +1 oxidation state, as it is in cesium salts.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoThis is what I get for giving people the benefit of the doubt. Here's some text from that PDF the GP linked: > Cesium will be the primary radionuclide released in a nuclear waste accident because it is present in what is called the fuel-clad gap. This gap is the space between the fuel pellets and the inside wall of the metal tube that contains the fuel. This “gap cesium” can be released in any event where the cladding is breached. Cesium is a highly reactive metal and even a small break in the seal will release significant amounts of it. Cesium burns spontaneously in air, and will explode when exposed to water. Obviously the "highly reactive" applies to elemental cesium and is meant to imply that a collision would be a serious problem because exposing it to air would cause a big fire and release a plume of radioactive material. If that isn't the case then it seems like the thesis of the paper is rubbish?
- pfdietz 1y agoThe idea that cesium is present in metallic form is chemically very dubious. Cesium is extremely reactive, as is noted. In particular, it will readily reduce U(+4) to U(+3). Nuclear reactor fuel is primarily uranium dioxide, so there is ample material there for this putative metallic cesium to react with. Cesium is the most electropositive element, so it will give electrons to (reduce) almost anything. The state of cesium in the vapor gap will be relatively volatile cesium compounds, like cesium iodide. The core temperature of a uranium dioxide fuel pellet greatly exceeds the normal boiling point of this salt.
- pfdietz 1y agoIf nuclear waste disposal were what is holding back nuclear energy, it would be in great shape. It's not a primary blocking problem.
- lostlogin 1y agoRegarding 3) and 4): Ground water contamination.
- Manuel_D 1y agoYou can dig in bedrock that has no groundwater. Furthermore, naturally occurring uranium exists in groundwater and needs to be filtered out in places where levels exceed safe limits. So it's not like burying waste is creating a new problem: https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminates-water-california-central-valley https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminat...
- bobmcnamara 1y agoHeavy metal and radiological exposure is not a boolean safe/unsafe.
- Manuel_D 1y agoSure, but the important point is that we already have infrastructure deployed to detect and remove uranium from the water supply on account of naturally occurring uranium.
- bobmcnamara 1y agoThat's...not a very good point.
- Manuel_D 1y agoIt is. Presumably your fear is that uranium from spent fuel might somehow contaminate water supplies, and cause illness. But we already monitor water for contamination from naturally occurring uranium, and have the infrastructure to remove it. So what happens if uranium from nuclear waste somehow works its way into the water supply? We'll detect it and remove it in water treatment, just like how we remove contamination from naturally occurring uranium.
- bobmcnamara 1y ago2/3/4) Please see historical data above regarding three burial sites. Practically today, these sites are built by mining. 5) Industry term. Operationalizing any significant system will involve human beings, and with it their workplace culture. You can read about it here: https://mshasafetyservices.com/fostering-a-culture-of-safety-awareness-in-the-mining-industry/ https://mshasafetyservices.com/fostering-a-culture-of-safety.... Many mining hese were written in blood. 6) No, the concern is that people may be harmed. You see we've lost track of radioactive waste in the past. And humans are remarkably curious. Often we've figured it out before anyone was harmed. Sometimes sadly not. But the harm is the concern, not the lack of knowledge of harm.
- Manuel_D 1y agoThe example you linked above is disposal of nuclear weapons waste, not nuclear power generation. This isn't even the same material (plutonium vs uranium). Sure, there were plenty of bad nuclear waste disposal programs in the early cold war, but this has quite limited relevance to nuclear power generation. And again, the question remains how people may be harmed by nuclear waste buried in bedrock half a kilometer underground? A even if a buried waste canister spontaneously combusts, how does the waste make it through half a kilometer of rock? In order for an unknown harm to occur, harm first has to actually occur. This kind of appeal to an unknown harm can be used to arbitrarily object to anything. "We need to stop building solar panels and wind turbines because they have the potential to cause an unknown harm. You disagree that these systems have the potential to cause harm? Well of course you can't know this, because it's an unknown harm that we're trying to prevent. How can you possibly disprove the existence of an unknown harm?"
- bobmcnamara 1y ago> This isn't even the same material (plutonium vs uranium). Please note that these are both chemically and radioactively harmful to people. > Sure, there were plenty of bad nuclear waste disposal programs in the early cold war, but this has quite limited relevance to nuclear power generation. That's what they said in the 00s, 90s, 80s, 70s... > In order for an unknown harm to occur, harm first has to actually occur. Nuclear power is an incredible technology, but understand that the nuclear industry has done little to earn trust. Just feels like an abusive ex plastered on the porch shouting "it'll be difficult this time I've changed" and doesn't inspire confidence.