3 ms·

It's not. Not only is it a completely negligible amount (~one 50-gallon barrel per reactor per year), it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) and can be re-

It's not. Not only is it a completely negligible amount (~one 50-gallon barrel per reactor per year), it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) and can be re-enriched (renewable).

chrisweekly 1y ago
Citing sources would be helpful.
- stahorn 1y ago
  Here's one. A great read: https://www.amazon.com/Plentiful-Energy-technology-scientific-non-specialists/dp/1466384603 https://www.amazon.com/Plentiful-Energy-technology-scientifi... It's available online also: https://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf https://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf I read it 14 years ago or so, after the Fukushima accident. I don't think the science has changed since then, or since the 90s when this project was shut down. There continue to be so much money in coal, gas, and oil and it's from there I think most of the opposition to nuclear stems from. Apart from fast reactors, there's also the traditional reactors and storage of spent fuel. Finland's close to opening their process facility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
blueflow 1y ago
> it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) I showed your comment to someone who is currently writing their PhD on how to store nuclear waste safely. I barely understood half of what they said in the following rant, but they referenced the situation of the Sellafield site several times.
- qwe----3 1y ago
  You realize people in the 1950s were less careful than now?
  - blueflow 1y ago
    Yes, i have been listening to it and its consequences for the last 20 minutes.
- vslira 1y ago
  I swear I'm not trolling: do you mind asking them about simply dumping it (in leaded concrete barrels etc) in the deep ocean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... makes it seem not such a big deal
  - kulahan 1y ago
    I've heard of this solution before. I think the greater concern is that other people might gain access by diving down and gathering it back up. I've heard a solution to that is to put it in some container that's highly conductive so it superheats and melts through some amount of the seafloor.
  - blueflow 1y ago
    So about the containers for radioactive waste: to use Germany as an example, there are mutliple(!) issues with the simple containers used in the interim storage site Asse, where they simply corroded and started leaking radioactive material. So "normal" containers just don't cut it. To effectively seal and shield so-called "High-level radioactive waste" (which is basically the used fuel rods from a nuclear power plant) the CASTOR containers are used. Those reduce the radiation to some extent - but still not enough for a human to be able to stand next to them without issue. And that is not taking into account that the fuel rods are HOT. As in thermally. (This is btw how you generate heat in a nuclear power plant - you just use the heat from the fuel rods to boil water.) To sum up: you have insanely thick steel (or copper) containers which are super hot. And big. And made from metal, which enjoys corroding in salt water. And like in Tschornobyl, used fuel rods can kill you with their radiation in a couple of minutes if you just stand close enough. Diluting something like this would obviously reduce the immediate danger, but then secondary radiation effects kick in which basically means an increase in cancer rate. So if you throw something like this in the sea, you would probably kill any sea life around (not to mention you would also boil the water probably) it and give cancer to the rest. And since the radioactive particles are now in the fish, which humans tend to eat a lot of, now pretty much all humans have it too.
isk517 1y ago
Also you are forced to deal with it one way or another, instead of just dumping it in the atmosphere and washing your hands of it.
daemonologist 1y ago
Okay, not all of this is accurate. I am not against nuclear (although in recent years it has not been very cost effective), but here are some figures with citations: - The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year (from 94 reactors/97 GW) : https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... . For the whole world it's 7,000 tons (375-400 GW) : https://www.iaea.org/publications/14739/status-and-trends-in-spent-fuel-and-radioactive-waste-management https://www.iaea.org/publications/14739/status-and-trends-in... - Storing it is easy in the short term, but unfortunately any leaks are a big deal and you have to store it basically forever, which is a challenge. If Yucca Mountain were to be restarted it's estimated storing existing and new waste through 2031 there would cost in the neighborhood of $100 billion : (warning: large PDF) https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-603.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-603.pdf - It's possible to recycle the fuel, but currently an order of magnitude more expensive than digging up more : https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/economics-reprocessing-vs-direct-disposal-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/economics-reprocess...
- kulahan 1y ago
  I had no idea I was off by so much with respect to waste, thanks - that's important to know. Still seems like a fairly good trade though - 7000 tons for ~400GW. You're definitely right about long-term storage being a concern; I think only one long-term storage facility exists right now. I believe the cost of recycling fuel is largely because it's completely unexplored. I'm sure it'll follow a similar cost reduction path most industries share.

It's not. Not only is it a completely negligible amount (~one 50-gallon barrel per reactor per year), it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) and can be re-enriched (renewable).

chrisweekly 1y ago

Citing sources would be helpful.

stahorn 1y ago
Here's one. A great read: https://www.amazon.com/Plentiful-Energy-technology-scientific-non-specialists/dp/1466384603 https://www.amazon.com/Plentiful-Energy-technology-scientifi... It's available online also: https://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf https://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf I read it 14 years ago or so, after the Fukushima accident. I don't think the science has changed since then, or since the 90s when this project was shut down. There continue to be so much money in coal, gas, and oil and it's from there I think most of the opposition to nuclear stems from. Apart from fast reactors, there's also the traditional reactors and storage of spent fuel. Finland's close to opening their process facility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

blueflow 1y ago

> it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) I showed your comment to someone who is currently writing their PhD on how to store nuclear waste safely. I barely understood half of what they said in the following rant, but they referenced the situation of the Sellafield site several times.

qwe----3 1y ago
You realize people in the 1950s were less careful than now?
- blueflow 1y ago
  Yes, i have been listening to it and its consequences for the last 20 minutes.
vslira 1y ago
I swear I'm not trolling: do you mind asking them about simply dumping it (in leaded concrete barrels etc) in the deep ocean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... makes it seem not such a big deal
- kulahan 1y ago
  I've heard of this solution before. I think the greater concern is that other people might gain access by diving down and gathering it back up. I've heard a solution to that is to put it in some container that's highly conductive so it superheats and melts through some amount of the seafloor.
- blueflow 1y ago
  So about the containers for radioactive waste: to use Germany as an example, there are mutliple(!) issues with the simple containers used in the interim storage site Asse, where they simply corroded and started leaking radioactive material. So "normal" containers just don't cut it. To effectively seal and shield so-called "High-level radioactive waste" (which is basically the used fuel rods from a nuclear power plant) the CASTOR containers are used. Those reduce the radiation to some extent - but still not enough for a human to be able to stand next to them without issue. And that is not taking into account that the fuel rods are HOT. As in thermally. (This is btw how you generate heat in a nuclear power plant - you just use the heat from the fuel rods to boil water.) To sum up: you have insanely thick steel (or copper) containers which are super hot. And big. And made from metal, which enjoys corroding in salt water. And like in Tschornobyl, used fuel rods can kill you with their radiation in a couple of minutes if you just stand close enough. Diluting something like this would obviously reduce the immediate danger, but then secondary radiation effects kick in which basically means an increase in cancer rate. So if you throw something like this in the sea, you would probably kill any sea life around (not to mention you would also boil the water probably) it and give cancer to the rest. And since the radioactive particles are now in the fish, which humans tend to eat a lot of, now pretty much all humans have it too.

isk517 1y ago

Also you are forced to deal with it one way or another, instead of just dumping it in the atmosphere and washing your hands of it.

daemonologist 1y ago

Okay, not all of this is accurate. I am not against nuclear (although in recent years it has not been very cost effective), but here are some figures with citations: - The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year (from 94 reactors/97 GW) : https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... . For the whole world it's 7,000 tons (375-400 GW) : https://www.iaea.org/publications/14739/status-and-trends-in-spent-fuel-and-radioactive-waste-management https://www.iaea.org/publications/14739/status-and-trends-in... - Storing it is easy in the short term, but unfortunately any leaks are a big deal and you have to store it basically forever, which is a challenge. If Yucca Mountain were to be restarted it's estimated storing existing and new waste through 2031 there would cost in the neighborhood of $100 billion : (warning: large PDF) https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-603.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-603.pdf - It's possible to recycle the fuel, but currently an order of magnitude more expensive than digging up more : https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/economics-reprocessing-vs-direct-disposal-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/economics-reprocess...

kulahan 1y ago
I had no idea I was off by so much with respect to waste, thanks - that's important to know. Still seems like a fairly good trade though - 7000 tons for ~400GW. You're definitely right about long-term storage being a concern; I think only one long-term storage facility exists right now. I believe the cost of recycling fuel is largely because it's completely unexplored. I'm sure it'll follow a similar cost reduction path most industries share.