4 ms·

I think it is you who hasn't bothered to do basic research before forming an opinion. I suggest at least skimming the wikipedia page on radioactive waste. [0] T

I think it is you who hasn't bothered to do basic research before forming an opinion. I suggest at least skimming the wikipedia page on radioactive waste. [0] There's also a page documenting the various national management plans. [1] > I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible ... It just needs to be little enough that the cost of constructing long term storage space isn't cost prohibitive. The amount produced is something like 25 to 30 tons per GW per year before reprocessing; after reprocessing it's something like ~5% of that. Unfortunately I couldn't readily find numbers for the dilution rate when vitrifying the waste for geological disposal. Regardless, that amount is almost nothing when considered in terms of volume. A full size shipping container is somewhere between 75 and 108 cubic meters depending on which standard you prefer. To give a rough idea that equates to ~180 (US) tons of borosilicate glass (one of the materials commonly used to vitrify high level waste) on the low end (assuming I got the math right). There are also alternative disposal methods to consider such as breeder reactors (rather expensive at present) or horizontal drillholes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management#National_management_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...

awesome_dude 4mo ago
You're repeating the problem - You're saying that there is less waste to deal with which magically means it's safe. You do understand that don't you?
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  You appear to be reiterating an irrational position. I provided links to overviews of the topic; I strongly suggest at least skimming them. The quantity of unavoidable high level waste would appear to be sufficiently small that geological disposal is a cost effective solution. The high level waste in question is not magically safe. Rather the various reprocessing and disposal methods have been extensively engineered and deliberated. At this point there is no cause to believe deep geological disposal in crystalline bedrock to be unsafe.
  - awesome_dude 4mo ago
    I said from the start that the argument you presented was fallacious, and all you did was present it, now, because you have no other argument, you're working on aggressive attacks. You're on your own now. Bye.
    - fc417fc802 4mo ago
      Do please explain how it's fallacious? I've made the claims that one, there is a sufficiently low volume of waste produced per unit of generation that geologic disposal is affordable and scalable and that two, said geological disposal is in fact safe. Where's the fallacy? It appears to me that you are attached to a position that you aren't capable of defending.
      - roenxi 4mo ago
        Also worth seeing that less has to be fundamentally safe at some point, otherwise background radiation would be a threat. If examined on its own without considering the surrounding inert volume, one decaying particle is presumably quite radioactive. So since less->magically safer is true some point, the argument can't be made fallacious by asserting it is true. The worst the argument can be is unpersuasive (although it is persuasive - from a practical perspective there is a tiny volume of toxic waste, it isn't a reason to block progress).
        awesome_dude 4mo ago
        He literally mentioned tonnes of waste being generated. But don't let that get in the way of a good pile on.
      - bvcp 4mo ago
        also its not really waste, its waste by law only, in reality its unrefined fuel
- cyberax 4mo ago
  Less waste to deal with makes it safer, simply because you need to control and manage less material. We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years. It's prohibitively expensive right now, but may be feasible in the future once technology matures.
  - awesome_dude 4mo ago
    > We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years In the interests of fairness, is like a citation showing that
    - cyberax 4mo ago
      It's called "closed [nuclear] fuel cycle". Just google it. I studied it at a university. TLDR; if you have enough fast neutrons, you can transmute anything into safe materials. Fast neutron reactors produce enough, classic PWR reactors do not. The only commercial fast reactor right now is in Russia. If at some point humanity decides to stop making reactors altogether, it's still possible to burn the waste with particle accelerators. It'll take hundreds of years, but waste won't be going anywhere. And finally, if commercial fusion reactors ever happen, they can also be used as neutron sources to trivially burn up all the waste.
      - awesome_dude 4mo ago
        [dead]
      - leonidasrup 4mo ago
        In the US reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste was stopped not for technical reasons, but for political reasons. The primary reasoning was that: US reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste would encourage other non-nuclear weapon states to build nuclear reprocessing capabilities which would make easier access to plutonium - nuclear weapon material. "On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/read... Commercial fusion reactors could be used burn (transmutate) long-term transuranic waste, on the other hand they will produce short-term nuclear waste, like neutron activated steels.

awesome_dude 4mo ago

You're repeating the problem - You're saying that there is less waste to deal with which magically means it's safe. You do understand that don't you?

fc417fc802 4mo ago
You appear to be reiterating an irrational position. I provided links to overviews of the topic; I strongly suggest at least skimming them. The quantity of unavoidable high level waste would appear to be sufficiently small that geological disposal is a cost effective solution. The high level waste in question is not magically safe. Rather the various reprocessing and disposal methods have been extensively engineered and deliberated. At this point there is no cause to believe deep geological disposal in crystalline bedrock to be unsafe.
- awesome_dude 4mo ago
  I said from the start that the argument you presented was fallacious, and all you did was present it, now, because you have no other argument, you're working on aggressive attacks. You're on your own now. Bye.
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    Do please explain how it's fallacious? I've made the claims that one, there is a sufficiently low volume of waste produced per unit of generation that geologic disposal is affordable and scalable and that two, said geological disposal is in fact safe. Where's the fallacy? It appears to me that you are attached to a position that you aren't capable of defending.
    - roenxi 4mo ago
      Also worth seeing that less has to be fundamentally safe at some point, otherwise background radiation would be a threat. If examined on its own without considering the surrounding inert volume, one decaying particle is presumably quite radioactive. So since less->magically safer is true some point, the argument can't be made fallacious by asserting it is true. The worst the argument can be is unpersuasive (although it is persuasive - from a practical perspective there is a tiny volume of toxic waste, it isn't a reason to block progress).
      - awesome_dude 4mo ago
        He literally mentioned tonnes of waste being generated. But don't let that get in the way of a good pile on.
    - bvcp 4mo ago
      also its not really waste, its waste by law only, in reality its unrefined fuel
cyberax 4mo ago
Less waste to deal with makes it safer, simply because you need to control and manage less material. We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years. It's prohibitively expensive right now, but may be feasible in the future once technology matures.
- awesome_dude 4mo ago
  > We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years In the interests of fairness, is like a citation showing that
  - cyberax 4mo ago
    It's called "closed [nuclear] fuel cycle". Just google it. I studied it at a university. TLDR; if you have enough fast neutrons, you can transmute anything into safe materials. Fast neutron reactors produce enough, classic PWR reactors do not. The only commercial fast reactor right now is in Russia. If at some point humanity decides to stop making reactors altogether, it's still possible to burn the waste with particle accelerators. It'll take hundreds of years, but waste won't be going anywhere. And finally, if commercial fusion reactors ever happen, they can also be used as neutron sources to trivially burn up all the waste.
    - awesome_dude 4mo ago
      [dead]
    - leonidasrup 4mo ago
      In the US reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste was stopped not for technical reasons, but for political reasons. The primary reasoning was that: US reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste would encourage other non-nuclear weapon states to build nuclear reprocessing capabilities which would make easier access to plutonium - nuclear weapon material. "On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/read... Commercial fusion reactors could be used burn (transmutate) long-term transuranic waste, on the other hand they will produce short-term nuclear waste, like neutron activated steels.