Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finland-found-the-answer-to-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-by-burying-it
472 comments
> “Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might have to move it, who cares. If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.”
This isn’t the right way to plan centuries ahead. You can’t just say “well if the dummies can’t do this one more thing we imposed on them, they deserve what they get.”
With generational risks we should aim to reduce them now as much as possible and take the most dangerous contingencies off the table.
This isn’t the right way to plan centuries ahead. You can’t just say “well if the dummies can’t do this one more thing we imposed on them, they deserve what they get.”
With generational risks we should aim to reduce them now as much as possible and take the most dangerous contingencies off the table.
What, really, is the impact of a compromised nuclear casket in a remote, unpopulated area above ground? What is the impact buried just 100 feet deep in an unpopulated area? Someone would have to excavate the uranium and either spend loads of time around it or move it to a populated area.
Water contamination from naturally occurring uranium is a bigger risk than nuclear waste (uranium, like lead, can cause heavy metal poisoning independent of radioactivity). Chemical waste from non-nuclear industries are far more hazardous than nuclear waste, yet the latter is for some reason an enormously larger concern. If you're worried about generational risk, there are plenty of things an order of magnitude more concerning than nuclear waste.
Water contamination from naturally occurring uranium is a bigger risk than nuclear waste (uranium, like lead, can cause heavy metal poisoning independent of radioactivity). Chemical waste from non-nuclear industries are far more hazardous than nuclear waste, yet the latter is for some reason an enormously larger concern. If you're worried about generational risk, there are plenty of things an order of magnitude more concerning than nuclear waste.
Thing is that maybe in 300 years someone wants to develop that land and the documents that say to not do that there are in an old version of .docx in an obsolete storage form buried under layers of bureaucracy. That’s how someone ends up living on the casket growing a massive thyroid.
Same reason that makes us not write code that only the author can understand (when working in a team), we need to plan ahead in the same way. We can’t rely on the future solving our current problems or even understanding them fully.
Same reason that makes us not write code that only the author can understand (when working in a team), we need to plan ahead in the same way. We can’t rely on the future solving our current problems or even understanding them fully.
Options:
1. So you start digging and find huge concrete cylinders with clearly marked "radioactive" warning signs. Hilarity ensues, people sue each other, and cylinders get moved somewhere else.
2. You just build a house on the ground (without digging). Nothing bad happens.
3. Civilization collapses, nobody cares about the abandoned casks.
1. So you start digging and find huge concrete cylinders with clearly marked "radioactive" warning signs. Hilarity ensues, people sue each other, and cylinders get moved somewhere else.
2. You just build a house on the ground (without digging). Nothing bad happens.
3. Civilization collapses, nobody cares about the abandoned casks.
>1. So you start digging and find huge concrete cylinders with clearly marked "radioactive" warning signs. Hilarity ensues, people sue each other, and cylinders get moved somewhere else.
The radioactive symbol (trefoil) was invented in 1946. In 2007 a new supplementary symbol was created. Sure it still includes a trefoil, but it's smaller.
Now just imagine the symbols we used today, what we think is obvious might not be obvious in 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, much less in 100000 years.
These are time spans that aren't imaginable to us. Creating a symbol that's intelligible throughout that time is a task we dont know we can do.
Can you decipher the symbols in Göbleki Tepe reliably? There are some hypotheses around these. But if they're warning you about something that warning is hard to decipher, much less obvious. And this is only 10000 years ago.
The radioactive symbol (trefoil) was invented in 1946. In 2007 a new supplementary symbol was created. Sure it still includes a trefoil, but it's smaller.
Now just imagine the symbols we used today, what we think is obvious might not be obvious in 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, much less in 100000 years.
These are time spans that aren't imaginable to us. Creating a symbol that's intelligible throughout that time is a task we dont know we can do.
Can you decipher the symbols in Göbleki Tepe reliably? There are some hypotheses around these. But if they're warning you about something that warning is hard to decipher, much less obvious. And this is only 10000 years ago.
> The radioactive symbol (trefoil) was invented in 1946. In 2007 a new supplementary symbol was created. Sure it still includes a trefoil, but it's smaller.
ISO 21482:
> On February 15, 2007, two groups—the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)—jointly announced the adoption of a new ionizing radiation warning symbol to supplement the traditional trefoil symbol. The new symbol, to be used on sealed radiation sources, is aimed at alerting anyone, anywhere to the danger of being close to a strong source of ionizing radiation.[12] It depicts, on a red background, a black trefoil with waves of radiation streaming from it, along with a black skull and crossbones, and a running figure with an arrow pointing away from the scene. The radiating trefoil suggests the presence of radiation, while the red background and the skull and crossbones warn of danger. The figure running away from the scene is meant to suggest taking action to avoid the labeled material. The new symbol is not intended to be generally visible, but rather to appear on internal components of devices that house radiation sources so that if anybody attempts to disassemble such devices they will see an explicit warning not to proceed any further.[13][14]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol#Ionizing_radiati...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_21482
ISO 21482:
> On February 15, 2007, two groups—the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)—jointly announced the adoption of a new ionizing radiation warning symbol to supplement the traditional trefoil symbol. The new symbol, to be used on sealed radiation sources, is aimed at alerting anyone, anywhere to the danger of being close to a strong source of ionizing radiation.[12] It depicts, on a red background, a black trefoil with waves of radiation streaming from it, along with a black skull and crossbones, and a running figure with an arrow pointing away from the scene. The radiating trefoil suggests the presence of radiation, while the red background and the skull and crossbones warn of danger. The figure running away from the scene is meant to suggest taking action to avoid the labeled material. The new symbol is not intended to be generally visible, but rather to appear on internal components of devices that house radiation sources so that if anybody attempts to disassemble such devices they will see an explicit warning not to proceed any further.[13][14]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol#Ionizing_radiati...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_21482
First, people that far in the future will still know about the previous civilizations. So it's highly unlikely that they'll forget all the languages.
Sure, every random Zakjsnd, Joe and Yelaldto won't know English, but archeologists certainly will. And they'll be able to read it.
But even if we suppose that a nearby supernova explosion resulted in a burst of magic rays that somehow wiped all memories, people will either:
1. Know what radiation is, and they'll test casks for it.
2. They won't be doing digging down for at least tens of meters.
You really need a very unlikely confluence of factors: a very developed, but still pre-technological civilization, that is somehow interested in digging way down (why?) in that particular spot.
Sure, every random Zakjsnd, Joe and Yelaldto won't know English, but archeologists certainly will. And they'll be able to read it.
But even if we suppose that a nearby supernova explosion resulted in a burst of magic rays that somehow wiped all memories, people will either:
1. Know what radiation is, and they'll test casks for it.
2. They won't be doing digging down for at least tens of meters.
You really need a very unlikely confluence of factors: a very developed, but still pre-technological civilization, that is somehow interested in digging way down (why?) in that particular spot.
I'm pretty sure that pre-Curie Europeans did a lot of digging tens of meters in the ground.
If that knowledge somehow gets lost, which over such a long timeline seems almost likely, people will die from radiation poisoning without knowing what hit them.
If that knowledge somehow gets lost, which over such a long timeline seems almost likely, people will die from radiation poisoning without knowing what hit them.
> I'm pretty sure that pre-Curie Europeans did a lot of digging tens of meters in the ground.
In pre-industrial era? Not really. There was more digging after the steam engine invention, as suddenly people started looking for coal and ore. But that's what, 400 years out of 10000+ years of European culture?
In pre-industrial era? Not really. There was more digging after the steam engine invention, as suddenly people started looking for coal and ore. But that's what, 400 years out of 10000+ years of European culture?
We can read Egyptian hieroglyphics. Anything written in simple English will be understandable even by an alien species in 100,000 years. Even without that, you could give the information visually in cartoon form.
>We can read Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Only because we found like one stone hundreds of years ago, if that was not the case we probably could not have done it.
>Anything written in simple English will be understandable even by an alien species in 100,000 years.
[Citation needed] This seems like quite an assumption.
Anyhow, the situation he sketched was that some random guy develops a fields with cylinders 300 years from now, how reasonable is it that he somehow understand the language or goes through the effort to translate it? I would wager pretty slim, I can barely understand text in my own language from 100 years ago.
Only because we found like one stone hundreds of years ago, if that was not the case we probably could not have done it.
>Anything written in simple English will be understandable even by an alien species in 100,000 years.
[Citation needed] This seems like quite an assumption.
Anyhow, the situation he sketched was that some random guy develops a fields with cylinders 300 years from now, how reasonable is it that he somehow understand the language or goes through the effort to translate it? I would wager pretty slim, I can barely understand text in my own language from 100 years ago.
I think the best thing we can do is bury all the nuclear waste. And to avoid any future generation excavating it, mark it's location, and to stand the test of time, build a massive stone pyramid on top of it. In 5000 years people will be able to figure that out.
Surely nobody would dig under a 10ky-old massive stone pyramid out of curiosity.
> This seems like quite an assumption.
The issue with hieroglyphics is that we only had a relatively small sample. If full books remain, it's going to be much easier to recover meaning from scratch. It's very close to what we already do with LLMs.
The issue with hieroglyphics is that we only had a relatively small sample. If full books remain, it's going to be much easier to recover meaning from scratch. It's very close to what we already do with LLMs.
What books last 10000 years? What writing is performed today on a medium that will last that long? No one is carving into clay any more
The one in text files. Data is already extremely cheap and there are many horders and archivists. I would bet that if advanced civilisation still exists in 10,000 years, they'll have an archived version of Wikipedia from around this century.
(And probably quite a few weirdos will still keep replicating the bible)
(And probably quite a few weirdos will still keep replicating the bible)
We have no way to know, either way, what humanity will look like 10k years from now.
We might have disassembled every planet within a few thousand light years to englobe each corresponding star within a Dyson swarm.
We might have suffered a cataclysm that almost wiped us out, and have only just returned to the equivalent of the early industrial age, and the occasional remaining patch of carved rock writing from our time is as unreadable to those living in that new world as 𐘃𐘅𐘈𐘊 𐘌 𐘍𐘎𐘑 𐘖 𐘗𐘂𐘆𐘋𐘐 𐘇𐘆 𐘊 𐘑𐘉𐘂𐘆𐘊 𐘇𐘆𐘋 𐘐 𐘇𐘆𐘑𐘐𐘅𐘋 𐘐 𐘏𐘏𐘈𐘊𐘑 𐘉𐘂 𐘏𐘏𐘈 𐘊𐘏 𐘏𐘐 𐘐𐘅𐘊𐘍𐘈 𐘇 𐘆𐘑 𐘐𐘅𐘊 𐘍𐘈𐘇𐘆𐘑𐘐 is to us.
We might have disassembled every planet within a few thousand light years to englobe each corresponding star within a Dyson swarm.
We might have suffered a cataclysm that almost wiped us out, and have only just returned to the equivalent of the early industrial age, and the occasional remaining patch of carved rock writing from our time is as unreadable to those living in that new world as 𐘃𐘅𐘈𐘊 𐘌 𐘍𐘎𐘑 𐘖 𐘗𐘂𐘆𐘋𐘐 𐘇𐘆 𐘊 𐘑𐘉𐘂𐘆𐘊 𐘇𐘆𐘋 𐘐 𐘇𐘆𐘑𐘐𐘅𐘋 𐘐 𐘏𐘏𐘈𐘊𐘑 𐘉𐘂 𐘏𐘏𐘈 𐘊𐘏 𐘏𐘐 𐘐𐘅𐘊𐘍𐘈 𐘇 𐘆𐘑 𐘐𐘅𐘊 𐘍𐘈𐘇𐘆𐘑𐘐 is to us.
We could only read Egyptian hieroglyphics several centuries after several tombs had been raided by early grave robbers. They would make a killing on a magical stone with funny pictures.
There is a fourth option. Nuclear waste can be used in dirty bombs and poisons as well. So waste sites should be somewhat secure.
So in the analogy it would be as if we left a stockpile of guns and ammo. I don’t think leaving a bunch of loaded guns around is a responsible way to hand the future to our children, especially since we can’t know what the future political situations will be.
So in the analogy it would be as if we left a stockpile of guns and ammo. I don’t think leaving a bunch of loaded guns around is a responsible way to hand the future to our children, especially since we can’t know what the future political situations will be.
But we did leave a stockpile of weapons and ammo. It's a minor inconvenience.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_bomb_disposal_i...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_bomb_disposal_i...
It’s a minor inconvenience in Europe because of the political stability of the region. However, it has been stable for only a relatively short period of time, with no guarantees for the future.
So let me reframe the question. Do you think it would be a good idea to store spent nuclear waste in present day Iraq or Syria?
So let me reframe the question. Do you think it would be a good idea to store spent nuclear waste in present day Iraq or Syria?
Proliferation is the biggest hazard, I think. Proliferation of the fissile material remains a problem for much longer than the radiation from the fission products (which is only a few hundred years).
The best way is to burn up these actinides in a suitable reactor.
The best way is to burn up these actinides in a suitable reactor.
It'd be easier to just mine naturally occurring uranium. Are terrorists somehow going to successfully excavate a mile deep into bedrock in Finland, without anyone noticing?
Again, we do have big stockpiles of guns and ammo. We have bunkers full of artillery shells, missiles, and weapons. Where's the outrage over the dozens (hundreds?) of munitions stockpiles militaries have strewn across the globe? Again the question is, what risk does nuclear pose that we don't already navigate with other more mundane materials?
Again, we do have big stockpiles of guns and ammo. We have bunkers full of artillery shells, missiles, and weapons. Where's the outrage over the dozens (hundreds?) of munitions stockpiles militaries have strewn across the globe? Again the question is, what risk does nuclear pose that we don't already navigate with other more mundane materials?
You can make poisons without nuclear materials just fine. Keep in mind, that regular heavy metals also don't go away.
The nuclear material in casks is not _that_ dangerous because of its long half-life. So dirty bombs made from it would not result in a significant loss of life. They'll just result in a very expensive cleanup of the affected areas.
The nuclear material in casks is not _that_ dangerous because of its long half-life. So dirty bombs made from it would not result in a significant loss of life. They'll just result in a very expensive cleanup of the affected areas.
1. You start digging, and you find these huge mysterious concrete cylinders with a funny symbols. These must clearly have been gift to their God(s) given the amount of work they put in. We should recover them, open them up and have buses of school kids admire them up close
If you have buses, then you also likely know about radioactivity. And the archeological lab will quickly identify the casks.
And if it's a pre-historic society, then why would you be digging 30 meters below ground anyway?
And if it's a pre-historic society, then why would you be digging 30 meters below ground anyway?
Why would a pre-historic society go to the trouble of dragging large stones 150 miles or more ? (Stonehenge)
Mankind has gone to great lengths to admire the death, and digging a 30 meter hole is definitely achievable given other prehistoric monuments.
Mankind has gone to great lengths to admire the death, and digging a 30 meter hole is definitely achievable given other prehistoric monuments.
Sure. And what are the chances that a Stonehenge-like monument would be located exactly on the site of nuclear waste disposal?
For this to happen, such monuments have to be commonplace. Which would require a technological civilization. Then see above.
For this to happen, such monuments have to be commonplace. Which would require a technological civilization. Then see above.
And why aren't we raising the same objection to the vastly greater quantities of non-nuclear industrial waste that will never decay into safer isotopes? Again, the question is, what is the heightened risk specific to nuclear waste that warrants so much more attention?
Or somebody spends 100$ on a Geiger counter ...
Nuclear waste will not simply be lost. The only way it gets lost if society literally collapses.
And if that happens the small amount of nuclear waste is the least important problem anybody will have.
Nuclear waste will not simply be lost. The only way it gets lost if society literally collapses.
And if that happens the small amount of nuclear waste is the least important problem anybody will have.
Nuclear waste has been lost multiple times throughout history and has killed people. Kind of amazing someone could think it cannot happen.
https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/overview-of-the-cns-gl...
https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/overview-of-the-cns-gl...
We are talking about spent nuclear fuel casks from civilian nuclear. Not medical isotopes that fell of a truck. We are mostly talking about many meters long fuel casks. They might get rerouted on a train once but they are rarely lost and even if they are, even during transport they are packaged to be save for a considerable amount of time.
And I couldn't find a clear indication of how many people died from civilian nuclear waste. The article you linked does not really give much information and I'm not gone read the whole report.
Every study shows that that nuclear energy has the lowest death per person. People are more likely to die during construction then anything else.
And I couldn't find a clear indication of how many people died from civilian nuclear waste. The article you linked does not really give much information and I'm not gone read the whole report.
Every study shows that that nuclear energy has the lowest death per person. People are more likely to die during construction then anything else.
That was nuclear waste from medical instruments, not 12 foot high concrete cinders of nuclear power plant waste: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File...
If anything, this example serves to prove that we have an irrationally heightened fear over nuclear power's waste: we have had incidents with medical radioisotopes, but yet that doesn't get nearly as much press as the supposed "waste problem" with nuclear power.
If anything, this example serves to prove that we have an irrationally heightened fear over nuclear power's waste: we have had incidents with medical radioisotopes, but yet that doesn't get nearly as much press as the supposed "waste problem" with nuclear power.
That report includes radiation sources which are much more radioactive and much smaller than nuclear waste from power plants. Small radioactive sources can be easily lost or stolen due to their size. Nuclear waste from a power plant is larger being mostly fuel rods or irradiated containers and is stored and transported in large containers that are not easily lost or stolen. Making an argument based on that report also covers arguing against the use of radioactive materials in healthcare and industry since that is where most of the small losable isotopes are employed.
You can not just go around and develop land today. First you need to take a survey, soil samples, water quality control, and then during digging and construction there are all kind of different dangerous. Most countries in EU still have a bunch of bombs in the ground left over from world war 2, and they will be there until someone finds them and disarms them. Soil and water contamination from industry is anyone guess, and protected archeological finds are only more likely to be found in 300 years than it is today. There will never be a .docx file to tell you that a specific land was the dumping ground for lead by-products in 19th century.
Land developers are not allowed, nor will ever be allowed to just assume that some land has never been used before. Too much of history is undocumented, and what is documented is not reliable.
Land developers are not allowed, nor will ever be allowed to just assume that some land has never been used before. Too much of history is undocumented, and what is documented is not reliable.
I think the argument is clearly trite, .docx seems like a joke, and very more likely within the hundreds to thousands of years, people probably won’t even speak Finnish there anymore.
I find the argument that they will need to speak Finish to be boring. Why should they in hundreds to thousands of years need to read an ancient document to figure out whats below the ground. It is not a realistic problem.
You don’t know that, all you can do is try your best TODAY to avoid issues in the future.
It seems very clear to me that if we all follow the rules of traffic we can safely go 90+ since I’m a pretty good driver, everyone else must be too. Yet the speed limit is much lower and people crash all the time anyway.
It’s evident to me that if I order a coffee, it’ll be hot, but the lid says “caution hot”.
It’s obvious that if I see that the floor is wet and the surface is slippery, I shouldn’t run if I’m trying to avoid slipping, yet we have those yellow signs everywhere.
Just because you think something is below YOU, super smart HN user, it doesn’t mean it keeps the average idiot safe in the future.
It seems very clear to me that if we all follow the rules of traffic we can safely go 90+ since I’m a pretty good driver, everyone else must be too. Yet the speed limit is much lower and people crash all the time anyway.
It’s evident to me that if I order a coffee, it’ll be hot, but the lid says “caution hot”.
It’s obvious that if I see that the floor is wet and the surface is slippery, I shouldn’t run if I’m trying to avoid slipping, yet we have those yellow signs everywhere.
Just because you think something is below YOU, super smart HN user, it doesn’t mean it keeps the average idiot safe in the future.
It not about how smart future people will be, or how we can eliminate every danger possible for future man. It is that we even today we do not reference old documents to figure out what is safe and was is not.
As an example, humanity has documented ocean dangers for centuries. Everything from human created dangers like shipwrecks to natural occurring shallows and strong currents. Captains that want to avoid those dangers could read those, learning every language from ancient Greek to Latin to dutch, scouring the many archives that exist to figure out what is down below. No one does this (except for archeologists). Captains use modern maps, sonar and satellites, neither which require knowledge of ancient Greek.
Maps and their information about dangers are perishable with a fairly short lifespan. Making a map with the intention of it lasting hundred of thousands of years is an impossible task. Any danger, be that natural like cliffs or unnatural like mine shafts, can not be made into a map that will last hundred of thousands of years. Such maps will need to be maintained or rediscovered. Every single garbage dump, every industrial area, every zone or place where humans has done something to the environment will have to be maintained in updated maps for as long as those places remain dangerous to humans.
As an example, humanity has documented ocean dangers for centuries. Everything from human created dangers like shipwrecks to natural occurring shallows and strong currents. Captains that want to avoid those dangers could read those, learning every language from ancient Greek to Latin to dutch, scouring the many archives that exist to figure out what is down below. No one does this (except for archeologists). Captains use modern maps, sonar and satellites, neither which require knowledge of ancient Greek.
Maps and their information about dangers are perishable with a fairly short lifespan. Making a map with the intention of it lasting hundred of thousands of years is an impossible task. Any danger, be that natural like cliffs or unnatural like mine shafts, can not be made into a map that will last hundred of thousands of years. Such maps will need to be maintained or rediscovered. Every single garbage dump, every industrial area, every zone or place where humans has done something to the environment will have to be maintained in updated maps for as long as those places remain dangerous to humans.
Frankly I don’t even understand why the poster above you says it’s unrealistic. Is it because humans won’t be around?
> a remote, unpopulated area above ground?
European countries and other denser ones may want to know where it finds those.. and as if we are not in a big change that will start a lot of instability, conflicts and migration.
European countries and other denser ones may want to know where it finds those.. and as if we are not in a big change that will start a lot of instability, conflicts and migration.
Yea, isn't coal ash way worst regardless of how "green" they capture the emissions. They always seem to leek into other water sources and do way more.
How did we get this way?
How did we get this way?
It's so tiresome that nuclear proponents pretend the only alternative to nuclear is coal.
His point is that other technologies are not held to the same standard. And that is still true.
Even above ground nuclear storage is far better waste management then virtually anything else, including wind and solar.
The likely hood of people dying from old wind and solar projects is quite a bit higher then people dying from nuclear waste.
Even above ground nuclear storage is far better waste management then virtually anything else, including wind and solar.
The likely hood of people dying from old wind and solar projects is quite a bit higher then people dying from nuclear waste.
The difference between the two scenario's is quite obvious. In coal ash it's highly diluted, in nuclear waste it's highly concentrated.
Being highly concentrated is exactly what makes it easy store and protect people from any impacts.
Every input into the nuclear reactor is just coming out the other side in a very controlled way. There is no dispersal of anything into the environment (except potentially heat).
The lifecycle of materials is handled way better then any other form of energy.
Every input into the nuclear reactor is just coming out the other side in a very controlled way. There is no dispersal of anything into the environment (except potentially heat).
The lifecycle of materials is handled way better then any other form of energy.
Actually it is the right way to plan centuries ahead. Taking a reasonable look at the risk and making an assessment.
The actual risk of nuclear waste is incredibly small. You point would make sense if it was a nuclear weapon that could just randomly go off or something like that.
However with civilian nuclear waste you really have to come up with pretty unlikely stuff for it to ever harm anybody. And you a tinfoil hat to come up with some scenario where it hurts a large number of people.
And those risks are incredibly easy to detect should they ever happen.
So again, unless you have total government collapse this simply isn't an issue. And if you have anarchy in Finland the least problem anybody will care about is a few leaking casks of nuclear waste that might happen.
This is like worrying about bad air quality for your great grant children while your house is on fire. There are about 1000 ways I could think of to improve the lives of people in 200 years that have a far better way to spend billions of $ then burying nuclear waste.
The more likely case is that people in 200 years will look back and say 'people back then already had all the fundamental research why were they so shit at using fission and fusion. What the fuck were they thinking'
The actual risk of nuclear waste is incredibly small. You point would make sense if it was a nuclear weapon that could just randomly go off or something like that.
However with civilian nuclear waste you really have to come up with pretty unlikely stuff for it to ever harm anybody. And you a tinfoil hat to come up with some scenario where it hurts a large number of people.
And those risks are incredibly easy to detect should they ever happen.
So again, unless you have total government collapse this simply isn't an issue. And if you have anarchy in Finland the least problem anybody will care about is a few leaking casks of nuclear waste that might happen.
This is like worrying about bad air quality for your great grant children while your house is on fire. There are about 1000 ways I could think of to improve the lives of people in 200 years that have a far better way to spend billions of $ then burying nuclear waste.
The more likely case is that people in 200 years will look back and say 'people back then already had all the fundamental research why were they so shit at using fission and fusion. What the fuck were they thinking'
> However with civilian nuclear waste you really have to come up with pretty unlikely stuff for it to ever harm anybody.
Germany will be glad to hear that. They can continue using Asse II instead of needlessly spending billions clearing it out.
Germany will be glad to hear that. They can continue using Asse II instead of needlessly spending billions clearing it out.
Germany did exactly the stupid thing they shouldn't have done. Instead of easily managing the waste above ground they threw it into a mine. You are literally making my point for me.
Burring low level nuclear waste in Asse II would have been fine. Managing the high level nuclear waste above ground would have been preferable. Germany would have saved a lot of money and trouble if they had simply managed their high level nuclear waste above ground.
PS: I'm sick of the argument that 'somebody did something stupid with nuclear waste 50 years ago therefore it disproves everything'. The reality is in terms of safety there were 1000s of things happening in the 70s that damaged far more people then some nuclear waste management. Even totally unattended Asse II death count would likely be 0 or very close to 0.
In all of nuclear history a almost vanishingly small amount of people have died from civilian nuclear waste, maybe its actually 0. And more people will actually die from building these big hole to dump nuclear waste in then would actually have died if this was was managed above ground.
Burring low level nuclear waste in Asse II would have been fine. Managing the high level nuclear waste above ground would have been preferable. Germany would have saved a lot of money and trouble if they had simply managed their high level nuclear waste above ground.
PS: I'm sick of the argument that 'somebody did something stupid with nuclear waste 50 years ago therefore it disproves everything'. The reality is in terms of safety there were 1000s of things happening in the 70s that damaged far more people then some nuclear waste management. Even totally unattended Asse II death count would likely be 0 or very close to 0.
In all of nuclear history a almost vanishingly small amount of people have died from civilian nuclear waste, maybe its actually 0. And more people will actually die from building these big hole to dump nuclear waste in then would actually have died if this was was managed above ground.
"The reality is in terms of safety there were 1000s of things happening in the 70s that damaged far more people then some nuclear waste management."
Eh, no. You are making my point for me. All the "nuclear is safe and sustainable" propoganda hinges on getting a series of highly complex reactors all built and interoperating (well), and even then I am not clear that all the fuel is re-used, or that the "unspent" portions have some amazing-yet-not-yet-known use. I am sick and tired to the argument that "it's ok lets just do thes 20 other things 5 of which don't even exist yet and have innumerable hurdles facing them and it will be fine".
It's really not fine, as you state we are quite good at making mistakes and bungling things, adding more factors into the equation increases the risk of something going wrong, it doesn't reduce them. We can even see from this article, the "solutions" already involve unproven theories that we think quite possibly are wrong, and yet the plans proceed as if nothing were to go wrong.
Eh, no. You are making my point for me. All the "nuclear is safe and sustainable" propoganda hinges on getting a series of highly complex reactors all built and interoperating (well), and even then I am not clear that all the fuel is re-used, or that the "unspent" portions have some amazing-yet-not-yet-known use. I am sick and tired to the argument that "it's ok lets just do thes 20 other things 5 of which don't even exist yet and have innumerable hurdles facing them and it will be fine".
It's really not fine, as you state we are quite good at making mistakes and bungling things, adding more factors into the equation increases the risk of something going wrong, it doesn't reduce them. We can even see from this article, the "solutions" already involve unproven theories that we think quite possibly are wrong, and yet the plans proceed as if nothing were to go wrong.
So many things wrong here. Even if you don't build any 'highly complex reactors' as you call them nuclear waste is safe.
Reduction of waste threw a reusable fuel cycle would reduce the amount of waste considerably but it isn't actually a necessary condition.
Geological storage is unproven and costs billions, but that you seem to ok with. That also involves a lot of steps and a lot of things that can go wrong.
> portions have some amazing-yet-not-yet-known use
We already know many of the potential use cases but I guess if you are not interested in production of medical isotopes to advance cancer research then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Right now we build new reactors only to make these isotopes and the are incredibly limited and only available to a limited set of people.
Equally the storage of nuclear batteries has run out and NASA and other space agencies are desperately to start producing them again.
> It's really not fine, as you state we are quite good at making mistakes and bungling things, adding more factors into the equation increases the risk of something going wrong
It also increases the risk of bringing sustainable reliable green energy, advances in nuclear technology with many application and high paying jobs in the local economy rather then putting up some solar panels produced in China.
> unproven theories that we think quite possibly are wrong
The theories are not unproven. Its simply a matter of doing the engineering, nobody really questions that these things are possible. Its just a matter of having the funds. Instead of every country spending billions digging a hole, investing in next generation technology is just obviously a better idea. For the price of the nuclear repository Switzerland is planning they could literally build a whole fleet of new reactors to power the country.
Reduction of waste threw a reusable fuel cycle would reduce the amount of waste considerably but it isn't actually a necessary condition.
Geological storage is unproven and costs billions, but that you seem to ok with. That also involves a lot of steps and a lot of things that can go wrong.
> portions have some amazing-yet-not-yet-known use
We already know many of the potential use cases but I guess if you are not interested in production of medical isotopes to advance cancer research then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Right now we build new reactors only to make these isotopes and the are incredibly limited and only available to a limited set of people.
Equally the storage of nuclear batteries has run out and NASA and other space agencies are desperately to start producing them again.
> It's really not fine, as you state we are quite good at making mistakes and bungling things, adding more factors into the equation increases the risk of something going wrong
It also increases the risk of bringing sustainable reliable green energy, advances in nuclear technology with many application and high paying jobs in the local economy rather then putting up some solar panels produced in China.
> unproven theories that we think quite possibly are wrong
The theories are not unproven. Its simply a matter of doing the engineering, nobody really questions that these things are possible. Its just a matter of having the funds. Instead of every country spending billions digging a hole, investing in next generation technology is just obviously a better idea. For the price of the nuclear repository Switzerland is planning they could literally build a whole fleet of new reactors to power the country.
So many unfounded assertions.
> Just walk away, turn off the pumps, it'll be fine.
Pretty much, yeah. "Contamination" there is at trace levels, some places on Earth have naturally more radioactive water.
Pretty much, yeah. "Contamination" there is at trace levels, some places on Earth have naturally more radioactive water.
Sadly, the actually-plausible generational risks don't get anywhere near this care.
A breached nuclear cask in the very specific case that civilisation has collapsed and lost all knowledge of nuclear material and signage is a limited local event. Low impact on a societal level (admittedly high on the guy with the hand tools cutting into it) and low probability.
Climate change is a probability-1 event that affects everyone. So is plastic pollution. For that matter, indeed, lack of affordable housing probably will end up with worse consequences projected into the far future than a hypothetical deep-time grave-robbing mishap.
While doing a good job of handling nuclear waste is obviously extremely important, handwringing over the effect on a contrived far-future devolved society to the extent that we inhibited the one power source that could have avoided the latter 70 years of the fossil fuel boom in the first place, a boom which actually has plausible civilisation-scale effects, seems backwards.
Admittedly it's now getting to the point where non-nuclear non-fossil energy may be the cheaper and scalable option (pending a mind-boggling but physically-possible amount of storage) so maybe the moment for a nuclear-based energy system has passed. I don't really buy it and still think only nuclear is likely to deliver the energy needed over the next 100 years, including decarbonisation of heating, industry, transport and also possibly environmental remediation. In any case, assuming human civilisation retains knowledge of the 20th and 21st centuries, they're going to be wondering what the hell we were thinking between the 1950s and the 2050s when we had nuclear energy in our hands and nearly destroyed the biosphere anyway by choice (and that "nearly" is only there because this assumes enough of it survives for someone to be looking back in the first place).
A breached nuclear cask in the very specific case that civilisation has collapsed and lost all knowledge of nuclear material and signage is a limited local event. Low impact on a societal level (admittedly high on the guy with the hand tools cutting into it) and low probability.
Climate change is a probability-1 event that affects everyone. So is plastic pollution. For that matter, indeed, lack of affordable housing probably will end up with worse consequences projected into the far future than a hypothetical deep-time grave-robbing mishap.
While doing a good job of handling nuclear waste is obviously extremely important, handwringing over the effect on a contrived far-future devolved society to the extent that we inhibited the one power source that could have avoided the latter 70 years of the fossil fuel boom in the first place, a boom which actually has plausible civilisation-scale effects, seems backwards.
Admittedly it's now getting to the point where non-nuclear non-fossil energy may be the cheaper and scalable option (pending a mind-boggling but physically-possible amount of storage) so maybe the moment for a nuclear-based energy system has passed. I don't really buy it and still think only nuclear is likely to deliver the energy needed over the next 100 years, including decarbonisation of heating, industry, transport and also possibly environmental remediation. In any case, assuming human civilisation retains knowledge of the 20th and 21st centuries, they're going to be wondering what the hell we were thinking between the 1950s and the 2050s when we had nuclear energy in our hands and nearly destroyed the biosphere anyway by choice (and that "nearly" is only there because this assumes enough of it survives for someone to be looking back in the first place).
What do the 'dummies' have to do exactly? Just not touch containers marked as "nuclear waste?"
And can you imagine the good outcomes that can be produced with 1 billion Euros today? Why spend money on something that will maybe prevent a problem centuries from now when we have such great available investments we can make today?
And can you imagine the good outcomes that can be produced with 1 billion Euros today? Why spend money on something that will maybe prevent a problem centuries from now when we have such great available investments we can make today?
Have thief/wild life/earthquakes/floods/some rare natural disasters, and forget to go back and check if the container is intact.
A thief is mostly just scifi nonsense.
Most Earthquakes would damage the casks. Unless its right on the fault line this at best causes some damages that would have to be repaired. This is incredibly unlikely to ever happen in most of the world. Also burring the casks is more likely to cause issues in case of a major unexpected earth quake. This is one of those maybe ever few 100 years somebody has to move the casks.
Floods are pretty predictable in where they happen, don't put the nuclear waste there. And if somebody put them there in error, somebody at some point might have to slightly move them. If countries figure out to not put something away from a flood prawn area, why do you think they can build a major geologically save location that can hold up for 100k years?
> some rare natural disasters
I guess if a vulcano happens and damages cask people might have bigger issues. And again, simply not really relevant for the waste majority of places.
Once you are at maybe some unknown super disaster might happen then the whole logic with the deep geostorage also doesn't hold up anymore.
Finding a location above ground that is reasonably safe for 100 years is far, far, far, far, far easier and cheaper then building a geological storage that can last 100k years.
> forget to go back and check if the container is intact
Ok, then some light radiation might leak in a area that is likely far away from human population. Maybe not fantastic but also not some major problem that is worth spending billions of $ fixing.
And again, if a government can't manage to get a guy every year to do a quick check, then your country has far bigger problems. Also this monitoring can be done by a private person with a Geiger counter even if a country has collapse into anarchy, and people would avoid that location.
Most Earthquakes would damage the casks. Unless its right on the fault line this at best causes some damages that would have to be repaired. This is incredibly unlikely to ever happen in most of the world. Also burring the casks is more likely to cause issues in case of a major unexpected earth quake. This is one of those maybe ever few 100 years somebody has to move the casks.
Floods are pretty predictable in where they happen, don't put the nuclear waste there. And if somebody put them there in error, somebody at some point might have to slightly move them. If countries figure out to not put something away from a flood prawn area, why do you think they can build a major geologically save location that can hold up for 100k years?
> some rare natural disasters
I guess if a vulcano happens and damages cask people might have bigger issues. And again, simply not really relevant for the waste majority of places.
Once you are at maybe some unknown super disaster might happen then the whole logic with the deep geostorage also doesn't hold up anymore.
Finding a location above ground that is reasonably safe for 100 years is far, far, far, far, far easier and cheaper then building a geological storage that can last 100k years.
> forget to go back and check if the container is intact
Ok, then some light radiation might leak in a area that is likely far away from human population. Maybe not fantastic but also not some major problem that is worth spending billions of $ fixing.
And again, if a government can't manage to get a guy every year to do a quick check, then your country has far bigger problems. Also this monitoring can be done by a private person with a Geiger counter even if a country has collapse into anarchy, and people would avoid that location.
"A thief is mostly just scifi nonsense."
Yes, militaries, secret services and terrorists don't exist. Russia/China/USA don't exist and wouldn't find it incredibly convenient to cause major damage to each other by "leaking" these stockpiles. Added benefit, it only would kill those exposed and leave machinery untouched. Nobody would ever steal stuff like this. /S
Yes, militaries, secret services and terrorists don't exist. Russia/China/USA don't exist and wouldn't find it incredibly convenient to cause major damage to each other by "leaking" these stockpiles. Added benefit, it only would kill those exposed and leave machinery untouched. Nobody would ever steal stuff like this. /S
The old 'what if evil terrorist' nonsense.
Terrorist would hurt 1000x more people buy destroying the rails along a high speed train route.
Stealing nuclear waste is incredibly hard and borderline useless.
And Russia and China don't need to attack civilian nuclear waste, if they want to nuke you they can just do that.
Do you actually really believe a general in Russia is sitting around thinking 'mhh we can make the civilian nuclear waste leak and then maybe the cancer rate is slightly higher in 20 years'.
To actually come up with a scenario where a country is seriously hurt by civilian nuclear waste takes about 3 tin foil hats on top of each other. And the is proven by the reality that civilian nuclear casts are standing around lots of places barley protected and have been doing so for many decades with nobody giving a shit.
Be more afraid that China pays for pro-smoking ads on twitter, because that's gone cause more cancer.
Terrorist would hurt 1000x more people buy destroying the rails along a high speed train route.
Stealing nuclear waste is incredibly hard and borderline useless.
And Russia and China don't need to attack civilian nuclear waste, if they want to nuke you they can just do that.
Do you actually really believe a general in Russia is sitting around thinking 'mhh we can make the civilian nuclear waste leak and then maybe the cancer rate is slightly higher in 20 years'.
To actually come up with a scenario where a country is seriously hurt by civilian nuclear waste takes about 3 tin foil hats on top of each other. And the is proven by the reality that civilian nuclear casts are standing around lots of places barley protected and have been doing so for many decades with nobody giving a shit.
Be more afraid that China pays for pro-smoking ads on twitter, because that's gone cause more cancer.
"The old 'what if evil terrorist' nonsense."
The old nothing bad ever happens nonsense.
Have you heard about the Ukraine conflict or does your lack of coherent points include a lack of knowlegde of current events?
Then there are the frequent insecurities, missing nuclear materials, and other fun new conflicts brewing...
The old nothing bad ever happens nonsense.
Have you heard about the Ukraine conflict or does your lack of coherent points include a lack of knowlegde of current events?
Then there are the frequent insecurities, missing nuclear materials, and other fun new conflicts brewing...
> The old nothing bad ever happens nonsense.
Exact that not what I said. What I said to make a rational assessment of danger.
Yes things happen, how likely are their and at what risk level.
And if you do that for civilian nuclear waste you can conclude that the danger is very low and even if something happens the overwhelming probability is that it is a very low risk thing.
I have actually been to the Ukraine during the conflict? Have you? And I work with Ukrainians that have displaced family. Just saying 'what about Ukraine' is not an argument.
> Then there are the frequent insecurities, missing nuclear materials, and other fun new conflicts brewing...
Yeah what if the Russians capture the civilian nuclear waste that was originally produced in the Soviet union. The Russians could be building nuclear weapons. What then, oh the humanity.
> missing nuclear materials
When the terrorist show up and steal 12m high concert blocks only to then make an inefficient dirty bomb. I much prefer terrorist to try that then doing something that's actually effective, like derailing trains of flying planes into buildings.
> and other fun new conflicts brewing
Ok but you know what, most of the time, most nations that have civilian nuclear waste are not at war. And terrorism isn't what George Bush apparently made you believe.
And even if war or terror happen, civilian nuclear waste is incredibly low risk.
Your argument essentially boils down to 'sometimes something happens' therefore no risk of anything bad ever happening is acceptable. Of course the same argument could be made against pretty much every other human built infrastructure.
Exact that not what I said. What I said to make a rational assessment of danger.
Yes things happen, how likely are their and at what risk level.
And if you do that for civilian nuclear waste you can conclude that the danger is very low and even if something happens the overwhelming probability is that it is a very low risk thing.
I have actually been to the Ukraine during the conflict? Have you? And I work with Ukrainians that have displaced family. Just saying 'what about Ukraine' is not an argument.
> Then there are the frequent insecurities, missing nuclear materials, and other fun new conflicts brewing...
Yeah what if the Russians capture the civilian nuclear waste that was originally produced in the Soviet union. The Russians could be building nuclear weapons. What then, oh the humanity.
> missing nuclear materials
When the terrorist show up and steal 12m high concert blocks only to then make an inefficient dirty bomb. I much prefer terrorist to try that then doing something that's actually effective, like derailing trains of flying planes into buildings.
> and other fun new conflicts brewing
Ok but you know what, most of the time, most nations that have civilian nuclear waste are not at war. And terrorism isn't what George Bush apparently made you believe.
And even if war or terror happen, civilian nuclear waste is incredibly low risk.
Your argument essentially boils down to 'sometimes something happens' therefore no risk of anything bad ever happening is acceptable. Of course the same argument could be made against pretty much every other human built infrastructure.
The waste has to be slightly monitored but that's it. The most likely case is that for 100+ years nobody has to do anything to this fuel.
You can easily collocate this with other research operations. Then you don't even have to pay a dedicated secure guard.
> You can't just leave the high-level waste there for anyone to steal
The lots of places where nuclear waste stands around totally unguarded with maybe a small fence. And yet in reality people don't steal gigantic concrete blocks that need spacial transport.
If you are seriously question the argument that digging a huge incredibly complex geological storage is more expensive then a normal storage building then I question your sanity.
Your argument seems to boil down to the typical 'what if highly unrealistic terrorist from a holywood movie set show up'. I prefer to live in the real world, rather then Holywood fantasy land where villains with incredibly dumb and unrealistic plans are a weekly event.
You can easily collocate this with other research operations. Then you don't even have to pay a dedicated secure guard.
> You can't just leave the high-level waste there for anyone to steal
The lots of places where nuclear waste stands around totally unguarded with maybe a small fence. And yet in reality people don't steal gigantic concrete blocks that need spacial transport.
If you are seriously question the argument that digging a huge incredibly complex geological storage is more expensive then a normal storage building then I question your sanity.
Your argument seems to boil down to the typical 'what if highly unrealistic terrorist from a holywood movie set show up'. I prefer to live in the real world, rather then Holywood fantasy land where villains with incredibly dumb and unrealistic plans are a weekly event.
The right way to plan centuries ahead is to trust future generations.
We don’t beed to treat the grownups on 2200 like children.
They will probably have better science than we do, and will have had centuries of experience.
If there’s a benefit to the nuclear waste, let them have it.
We don’t beed to treat the grownups on 2200 like children.
They will probably have better science than we do, and will have had centuries of experience.
If there’s a benefit to the nuclear waste, let them have it.
Most of the costs are for managing the waste above ground. The overall cost of the project is estimated to be €5-6 billion, out of which construction is €1-2 billion. I believe the actual underground facility cost ~€1 billion, while the rest is for various above-ground processing facilities.
There has been a lot of speculative bullshitting on what to do with nuclear waste since the Onkalo project started in the late 80s. So far, nobody has come up with any concrete alternatives. Given the high costs of managing nuclear waste above ground, it's cheaper to bury it underground than to wait for new breakthroughs.
There has been a lot of speculative bullshitting on what to do with nuclear waste since the Onkalo project started in the late 80s. So far, nobody has come up with any concrete alternatives. Given the high costs of managing nuclear waste above ground, it's cheaper to bury it underground than to wait for new breakthroughs.
Fusion reactors will produce enough fast neutrons to transmute the waste into something less long-lived.
This can be done with fast neutron fission reactors, albeit it's going to take a lot of time.
Meanwhile, just keeping it in dry casks aboveground is perfectly fine.
This can be done with fast neutron fission reactors, albeit it's going to take a lot of time.
Meanwhile, just keeping it in dry casks aboveground is perfectly fine.
For 5-6 billion they could have helped to develop and built new GenIV reactors and reduce the waste and also manage all the waste for the next 100 years.
> Given the high costs of managing nuclear waste above ground
Can you show me some concrete evidence that the cost is as high as you claim. In the US nuclear reactors have been storing the waste on parking lots for many decades and it doesn't seem to bankrupt them. In many places above ground nuclear waste is just standing around in casket with literally 0 people attending them.
In Switzerland a single warehouse contains all nuclear waste for the last 50 years and there are not many people working there.
Unless you can show me otherwise I'm gone go with 'its not gone cost billion+ $ to let nuclear waste sit around above ground for a century'.
> Given the high costs of managing nuclear waste above ground
Can you show me some concrete evidence that the cost is as high as you claim. In the US nuclear reactors have been storing the waste on parking lots for many decades and it doesn't seem to bankrupt them. In many places above ground nuclear waste is just standing around in casket with literally 0 people attending them.
In Switzerland a single warehouse contains all nuclear waste for the last 50 years and there are not many people working there.
Unless you can show me otherwise I'm gone go with 'its not gone cost billion+ $ to let nuclear waste sit around above ground for a century'.
That's 5-6 billion over ~140 years. The operating costs of the Swiss Zwilag facility are similar.
Storing the waste on site is cheap as long as the reactor is operational. The facilities and the staff are there anyway. It gets more expensive once the reactor stops operating. You can't just leave the high-level waste there for anyone to steal, and you should also work proactively to prevent leaks.
Storing the waste on site is cheap as long as the reactor is operational. The facilities and the staff are there anyway. It gets more expensive once the reactor stops operating. You can't just leave the high-level waste there for anyone to steal, and you should also work proactively to prevent leaks.
This sheer ignorance around nuclear energy is the main reason I'm happy it already peaked in the Western World and is replaced by safe and clean renewable energies.
I mean, you don't even have to look far these days. It's Finland. You know...the country just around the corner of our old and new arch enemy, Russia. And you want to create an additional target for sabotage?
Also, you're talking about wasting money? Reprocessing is hilariously expensive, and they don't even have a facility. No country in the Western World will ever build one again because it's not worth it. You're still producing a bit less radioactive material in this expensive process, which has to be stored. The end product is more expensive than new fuel. It's a completely useless circle. Especially for Finland, which has a hole dug up already.
The whole nuclear energy project is a waste of money. Especially taxpayer money. The technology is overdue. New ones are here already. They are cheaper, faster to build, and they are actually getting better all the time. Unlike nuclear, which Finland had to shut down recently because it just wasn't worth the money to keep it running...
I mean, you don't even have to look far these days. It's Finland. You know...the country just around the corner of our old and new arch enemy, Russia. And you want to create an additional target for sabotage?
Also, you're talking about wasting money? Reprocessing is hilariously expensive, and they don't even have a facility. No country in the Western World will ever build one again because it's not worth it. You're still producing a bit less radioactive material in this expensive process, which has to be stored. The end product is more expensive than new fuel. It's a completely useless circle. Especially for Finland, which has a hole dug up already.
The whole nuclear energy project is a waste of money. Especially taxpayer money. The technology is overdue. New ones are here already. They are cheaper, faster to build, and they are actually getting better all the time. Unlike nuclear, which Finland had to shut down recently because it just wasn't worth the money to keep it running...
> Unlike nuclear, which Finland had to shut down recently because it just wasn't worth the money to keep it running...
What are you referring to here? Nuclear power has not been shut down here in Finland to my knowledge.
There have been times when production has been scaled down because there is temporarily excess energy available, when it is windy (turbines produce more) and warm (warming uses less), but that is a temporary situation.
What are you referring to here? Nuclear power has not been shut down here in Finland to my knowledge.
There have been times when production has been scaled down because there is temporarily excess energy available, when it is windy (turbines produce more) and warm (warming uses less), but that is a temporary situation.
> There have been times when production has been scaled down because there is temporarily excess energy available, when it is windy (turbines produce more) and warm (warming uses less), but that is a temporary situation.
This is what I meant, excuse my wrong wording, implying that you could shut down a reactor just like that only because the prices for energy doesn't justify to keep it running at all. Something which is quite nice to have these days with all those cheap renewable energies producing that "excess" energy.
This is what I meant, excuse my wrong wording, implying that you could shut down a reactor just like that only because the prices for energy doesn't justify to keep it running at all. Something which is quite nice to have these days with all those cheap renewable energies producing that "excess" energy.
This has to be repeated again and again. Civilian nuclear waste isn't really a good great target for sabotage. There are 1000 places to attack that are far cheaper and have higher effect.
> Reprocessing is hilariously expensive, and they don't even have a facility.
So you know about every form of re-procession that will ever be invented and already know the associated costs.
> No country in the Western World will ever build one again
Canada is planning one right now to reprocess spend CANDU fuel.
> The end product is more expensive than new fuel.
This equation changes if you add the cost of storage facility the new fuel as well.
> Especially taxpayer money.
Finnland even with its very expensive new reactor now produces stable green energy and this reactor captial investment will pay off 80-100 years.
> Finland had to shut down
Funny how Finalnd with lots of nuclear has far greener energy with less money investment then Germany. Finland didn't make a 20 year propaganda campaign to claim they are so great and green, they just build a reactor and are fine now.
If you shit on a nuclear reactor for being turned off, boy I have news for you about wind and solar.
Lets actually look at data rather then what lives in your imagination:
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Mhh look at that Finland has green energy thanks to nuclear power.
You can do the math. Had Germany started building nuclear reactors, even with conservative cost estimate. Nuclear would have been a far better deal then the 'Energiewende' they actually did. Starting in 2000 building nuclear reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s would have lead to a far, far greener grid then they have now.
My calculation result in about 4-5% of debt to GDP increase for a full build-out to 100% nuclear energy starting in 2020. And those reactors would last 60-100 years. Unlike the investments they actually did, lots of wind turbines and solar that have to be replaced 2 times over until then.
Nuclear for France has been on of the best public investments ever done. Minimal impact on taxes and cheap long term stable fuel prices for literally half a century.
> Reprocessing is hilariously expensive, and they don't even have a facility.
So you know about every form of re-procession that will ever be invented and already know the associated costs.
> No country in the Western World will ever build one again
Canada is planning one right now to reprocess spend CANDU fuel.
> The end product is more expensive than new fuel.
This equation changes if you add the cost of storage facility the new fuel as well.
> Especially taxpayer money.
Finnland even with its very expensive new reactor now produces stable green energy and this reactor captial investment will pay off 80-100 years.
> Finland had to shut down
Funny how Finalnd with lots of nuclear has far greener energy with less money investment then Germany. Finland didn't make a 20 year propaganda campaign to claim they are so great and green, they just build a reactor and are fine now.
If you shit on a nuclear reactor for being turned off, boy I have news for you about wind and solar.
Lets actually look at data rather then what lives in your imagination:
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Mhh look at that Finland has green energy thanks to nuclear power.
You can do the math. Had Germany started building nuclear reactors, even with conservative cost estimate. Nuclear would have been a far better deal then the 'Energiewende' they actually did. Starting in 2000 building nuclear reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s would have lead to a far, far greener grid then they have now.
My calculation result in about 4-5% of debt to GDP increase for a full build-out to 100% nuclear energy starting in 2020. And those reactors would last 60-100 years. Unlike the investments they actually did, lots of wind turbines and solar that have to be replaced 2 times over until then.
Nuclear for France has been on of the best public investments ever done. Minimal impact on taxes and cheap long term stable fuel prices for literally half a century.
> This has to be repeated again and again. Civilian nuclear waste isn't really a good great target for sabotage. There are 1000 places to attack that are far cheaper and have higher effect.
Sure...there is the nuclear reactor around the corner...
What is this sentence even based upon? Do you have some strategic study on that? Because they're investing a hell lot of money to protect that stuff.
> So you know about every form of re-procession that will ever be invented and already know the associated costs.
Please tell me of that magic forms of reprocessing which are somewhere even at the far horizon.
> Canada is planning one right now to reprocess spend CANDU fuel.
There is a lot "in planning" and has been for decades, not much came of it. Even with those reactors currently being build...besides rising costs of course.
> This equation changes if you add the cost of storage facility the new fuel as well.
How does it if nobody wants to buy your overpriced fuel you still have to mix with actual fresh fuel which you can get cheaper? Do you want to force them to take it after you wasted so much money on it? To what end? It doesn't go away. You'll still have to store it in the end, just like the stuff which gets created during the process. The process actually generates more stuff you have to store...
> Finnland even with its very expensive new reactor now produces stable green energy and this reactor captial investment will pay off 80-100 years.
The fact that they already had to reduce output because the actual price on the market is far below what they produce already shows that it will take much longer. Longer then the thing will run.
> Funny how Finalnd with lots of nuclear has far greener energy with less money investment then Germany. Finland didn't make a 20 year propaganda campaign to claim they are so great and green, they just build a reactor and are fine now.
The only "funny" thing about that paragraph (and the whole comment) is the use of greenwashing.
Other than that: Germany has done much more for the implementation of truly green energy around the world than any of those "nuclear countries" you've mentioned here. Today, humans on the farthest corners of this planet can afford to have electricity, and it's not because of a nuclear reactor in their backyard.
> If you shit on a nuclear reactor for being turned off, boy I have news for you about wind and solar.
The difference between turning off wind or solar is that it works almost instantly and without creating additional costs. It's called flexibility. Flexibility in power generation is a concept from the future. You should read it up. It's cheap and clean. Unlike with nuclear, where countries like France (back when their fleet wasn't rotting around) have to sell for peanuts on the EEX because it's too expensive and problematic to reduce power on the reactor. Not even talking about a real shut down here.
> Had Germany started building nuclear reactors, even with conservative cost estimate. Nuclear would have been a far better deal then the 'Energiewende' they actually did. Starting in 2000 building nuclear reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s would have lead to a far, far greener grid then they have now.
This is hilarious. Germany replaced their nuclear fleet years ago. Why would they need to waste money on a technology from the past? Especially because not even France can build reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s...
How didn't you know that? It's a running joke for years.
> My calculation
Your calculations are useless if you don't even know about those astronomical cost explosions and delays around nuclear reactors in Europe...
> And those reactors would last 60-100 years.
This is hilarious. How did you miss all those news about the rotting fleet in France?
> Nuclear for France has been on of the best public investments ever done. Minimal impact on taxes and cheap long term stable fuel prices for literally half a century.
The price is fixed by the government. It's called tarif blue and the company selling the stuff had to be nationalised...again. Such a "great" business...
How didn't you know that...too...?
We both know why: you grabbed those talking points from the Astro Turf and their followers without checking anything of it.
Sure...there is the nuclear reactor around the corner...
What is this sentence even based upon? Do you have some strategic study on that? Because they're investing a hell lot of money to protect that stuff.
> So you know about every form of re-procession that will ever be invented and already know the associated costs.
Please tell me of that magic forms of reprocessing which are somewhere even at the far horizon.
> Canada is planning one right now to reprocess spend CANDU fuel.
There is a lot "in planning" and has been for decades, not much came of it. Even with those reactors currently being build...besides rising costs of course.
> This equation changes if you add the cost of storage facility the new fuel as well.
How does it if nobody wants to buy your overpriced fuel you still have to mix with actual fresh fuel which you can get cheaper? Do you want to force them to take it after you wasted so much money on it? To what end? It doesn't go away. You'll still have to store it in the end, just like the stuff which gets created during the process. The process actually generates more stuff you have to store...
> Finnland even with its very expensive new reactor now produces stable green energy and this reactor captial investment will pay off 80-100 years.
The fact that they already had to reduce output because the actual price on the market is far below what they produce already shows that it will take much longer. Longer then the thing will run.
> Funny how Finalnd with lots of nuclear has far greener energy with less money investment then Germany. Finland didn't make a 20 year propaganda campaign to claim they are so great and green, they just build a reactor and are fine now.
The only "funny" thing about that paragraph (and the whole comment) is the use of greenwashing.
Other than that: Germany has done much more for the implementation of truly green energy around the world than any of those "nuclear countries" you've mentioned here. Today, humans on the farthest corners of this planet can afford to have electricity, and it's not because of a nuclear reactor in their backyard.
> If you shit on a nuclear reactor for being turned off, boy I have news for you about wind and solar.
The difference between turning off wind or solar is that it works almost instantly and without creating additional costs. It's called flexibility. Flexibility in power generation is a concept from the future. You should read it up. It's cheap and clean. Unlike with nuclear, where countries like France (back when their fleet wasn't rotting around) have to sell for peanuts on the EEX because it's too expensive and problematic to reduce power on the reactor. Not even talking about a real shut down here.
> Had Germany started building nuclear reactors, even with conservative cost estimate. Nuclear would have been a far better deal then the 'Energiewende' they actually did. Starting in 2000 building nuclear reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s would have lead to a far, far greener grid then they have now.
This is hilarious. Germany replaced their nuclear fleet years ago. Why would they need to waste money on a technology from the past? Especially because not even France can build reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s...
How didn't you know that? It's a running joke for years.
> My calculation
Your calculations are useless if you don't even know about those astronomical cost explosions and delays around nuclear reactors in Europe...
> And those reactors would last 60-100 years.
This is hilarious. How did you miss all those news about the rotting fleet in France?
> Nuclear for France has been on of the best public investments ever done. Minimal impact on taxes and cheap long term stable fuel prices for literally half a century.
The price is fixed by the government. It's called tarif blue and the company selling the stuff had to be nationalised...again. Such a "great" business...
How didn't you know that...too...?
We both know why: you grabbed those talking points from the Astro Turf and their followers without checking anything of it.
> I just don't like this, a huge amount of money spent for nothing. This fuel can be managed just fine above ground. Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might have to move it, who cares. If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.
I love this sentiment.
“Yeah nuclear mismanagement could be society-ending if done poorly, but avoiding it costs money!”
I love this sentiment.
“Yeah nuclear mismanagement could be society-ending if done poorly, but avoiding it costs money!”
Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. Did you read to much Greenpeace propaganda or maybe was it some cheap action movie?
And I'm not against spending money. I'm pro-spending money. I want them to spend money on next generation nuclear technology that actually uses the 'waste' to produce energy and other things, like medical isotopes and nuclear batteries. This waste that would be produced from advanced reactors could be reduced to only need 300 years of storage, and for that you don't need geopolitical storage.
So how about instead of spending billions digging a hole, spend billions actually improving the situation.
And I'm not against spending money. I'm pro-spending money. I want them to spend money on next generation nuclear technology that actually uses the 'waste' to produce energy and other things, like medical isotopes and nuclear batteries. This waste that would be produced from advanced reactors could be reduced to only need 300 years of storage, and for that you don't need geopolitical storage.
So how about instead of spending billions digging a hole, spend billions actually improving the situation.
> Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending.
What does this sentence mean?
>If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.
What does this sentence mean?
>If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.
I think the argument was that if the society loses the ability to manage nuclear waste, it would have been due to some societal collapse caused by other reasons.
By my reading, it's the opposite, that only a society that has already ended (of some other cause) would be incapable of managing nuclear waste; dangerous levels of mismanagement would only occur in a postapocalyptic setting or similar.
"dangerous levels of mismanagement would only occur in a postapocalyptic setting."
I know it's not your argument, but based on what exactly?
Accidents (repeatedly) happen. I don't get where this concept comes from that accidents are suddenly "delusional". If you don't believe me go check your home house fire rate. Accidents are frequent, safety controls just help reduce frequency. There is nothing delusional here, other than the idea we can suddenly obviate accidents.
I know it's not your argument, but based on what exactly?
Accidents (repeatedly) happen. I don't get where this concept comes from that accidents are suddenly "delusional". If you don't believe me go check your home house fire rate. Accidents are frequent, safety controls just help reduce frequency. There is nothing delusional here, other than the idea we can suddenly obviate accidents.
Which civilization has lasted so long that nuclear waste mismanagement would never have become an issue?
Every nation, every civilization, falls in time.
Every nation, every civilization, falls in time.
Yes, finally the politicians do something properly and immediately they get criticised for spending money.. on long term, sustainable solutions that will help generations to come.
I have not criticized them for spending money, but spending money inefficiently and on the wrong things.
What would actually help generations to come is innovating in terms of GenIV nuclear reactors that can reduce the total amount of waste. That could potentially reduce the global waste, rather then this solution that only works for Finland and has to be replicated many more times to actually solve the waste solution.
Burning up the waste and turning it into 300 year waste is the actual long term sustainable solution.
What would actually help generations to come is innovating in terms of GenIV nuclear reactors that can reduce the total amount of waste. That could potentially reduce the global waste, rather then this solution that only works for Finland and has to be replicated many more times to actually solve the waste solution.
Burning up the waste and turning it into 300 year waste is the actual long term sustainable solution.
In the extreme, the have been politicians and other leaders who came in and decided to undo decisions of their predecessors for petty reasons. A memorable example being the US' 45th President.
If this high cost is in the long run cheaper than relying on 10+ generations to do the right thing, it's probably a worthwhile cost.
If this high cost is in the long run cheaper than relying on 10+ generations to do the right thing, it's probably a worthwhile cost.
Generations 1 through 9 don't really need to do anything. Generation 10 will have a bit of work to do, but much less work than it takes to deal with it now. The really radioactive components of the waste (the fission products) decay away after a few hundred years.
by the time we get to generation 10....all documents are lost, technology is obsoleted, no living engineer know how this works.
And now you are proving my original argument. If society collapses to a point where engineers can't handle some well contained radioactive waste then you have far bigger problems then nuclear waste.
The idea that our primary worry should be that maybe in 300 years countries will be unable to handle this simple technical task that the US figured out in 1960s is bananas.
We are not talking about active nuclear weapons that detonate if you touch them wrong. We are talking about dry casks that might maybe start to leak a little in a few 100 years.
Even in the worst of bad cases you have to come up with quite a story to figure out how anybody actually dies from this, let alone many people.
Spending billions of $ now so in 300 years maybe somebody might be saved is laughable when we know that we can save people by putting up 100$ concrete railing for bike lanes right now. Let alone the 100s of other things that could be done with billions.
The idea that our primary worry should be that maybe in 300 years countries will be unable to handle this simple technical task that the US figured out in 1960s is bananas.
We are not talking about active nuclear weapons that detonate if you touch them wrong. We are talking about dry casks that might maybe start to leak a little in a few 100 years.
Even in the worst of bad cases you have to come up with quite a story to figure out how anybody actually dies from this, let alone many people.
Spending billions of $ now so in 300 years maybe somebody might be saved is laughable when we know that we can save people by putting up 100$ concrete railing for bike lanes right now. Let alone the 100s of other things that could be done with billions.
"The idea that our primary worry should be that maybe in 300 years countries will be unable to handle this simple technical task that the US figured out in 1960s is bananas."
I suggest you open a history book. It is quite likely the same countries that exist today do not exist in the future and the same knowledge does not either.
Furthermore it is not necessarily about being unable to understand some physics and processes but instead that language and knowledge quickly "deteriorates" over time, e.g. the langauge today is vastly different than even 100 years ago - technical terms and the like shift the fastest, cultural ones the slowest, but they do all become obscured by time. Even a more advanced civilization may encounter challenges that have no logical correlation with the task of keeping spent fuel safe, e.g. intential security measures such as encryption/obfuscation/code rot/reliance on no-longer manufactured tools.
Anyways there is another objection you are fundamentally missing is that the timeframes are possibly un-sustainable in terms of time per acres. Sure you have storage for 100 years in dry casks (maybe some parking lot) but then must wait 100000 years. So you must store 1000 more times the fuel for it to be truly sustainable, digging giant holes in the ground is def not sustainable. Maybe parking lots are, but then you need to be sure your mountain of nuclear waste is stable (harder to do).
I suggest you open a history book. It is quite likely the same countries that exist today do not exist in the future and the same knowledge does not either.
Furthermore it is not necessarily about being unable to understand some physics and processes but instead that language and knowledge quickly "deteriorates" over time, e.g. the langauge today is vastly different than even 100 years ago - technical terms and the like shift the fastest, cultural ones the slowest, but they do all become obscured by time. Even a more advanced civilization may encounter challenges that have no logical correlation with the task of keeping spent fuel safe, e.g. intential security measures such as encryption/obfuscation/code rot/reliance on no-longer manufactured tools.
Anyways there is another objection you are fundamentally missing is that the timeframes are possibly un-sustainable in terms of time per acres. Sure you have storage for 100 years in dry casks (maybe some parking lot) but then must wait 100000 years. So you must store 1000 more times the fuel for it to be truly sustainable, digging giant holes in the ground is def not sustainable. Maybe parking lots are, but then you need to be sure your mountain of nuclear waste is stable (harder to do).
The most likely scenario is that at some point next 300 years we figure out advanced fission or fusion and if we do so burning that waste up isn't that big a deal.
If the danger were a nuclear explosion destroying a city, then you would have point.
But its not, the danger is maybe a slightly leaking cask could maybe lead to slightly higher cancer rates in a certain area.
> So you must store 1000 more times the fuel for it to be truly sustainable
Instead of one 1 football field it might be 1000 over the next 10000 years. Yeah horrible, we can't possible spare 1000 football fields full of parking lots.
If the danger were a nuclear explosion destroying a city, then you would have point.
But its not, the danger is maybe a slightly leaking cask could maybe lead to slightly higher cancer rates in a certain area.
> So you must store 1000 more times the fuel for it to be truly sustainable
Instead of one 1 football field it might be 1000 over the next 10000 years. Yeah horrible, we can't possible spare 1000 football fields full of parking lots.
Yeah, it is pretty terrible. For one reactor, you would have a point. For many reactors, it is x1000 time cost.
You make the wrong assumption that managing the geological storage and all the operations around it will be irrelevant and give those 10+ generations no work.
This isn't really the case. They will still have to do many of the same things, like monitoring, security and so on.
This isn't really the case. They will still have to do many of the same things, like monitoring, security and so on.
It reminds me of how "useless" gasoline used to be burnt off at oil wells to extract parrafin oil.
We are still unable to properly recycle plastic. Nuclear fuel is a very well known product carefully crafted, nuclear waste is a corrosive mix of very different things, mainly everything near the reactor that isn't fuel (pipes, concrete, clothes, machinery...) that gets contaminated and you can't do anything with it except store away in a radioactive landfill. The used nuclear fuel is already being processed and reused. But we can't do much with a contaminated piece of steel except turn it to small pieces and store the more contaminated in a concrete brick, no "gasoline" to extract there.
We have very poor understanding of Stonehenge, only build 5000 years ago.
Throughout history many advanced civilisations have been wiped out for one reason or the other, with only anedectotal stories left.
It is not unlikely the context around nuclear waste storage on the surface is lost within generations.
Throughout history many advanced civilisations have been wiped out for one reason or the other, with only anedectotal stories left.
It is not unlikely the context around nuclear waste storage on the surface is lost within generations.
Above ground? Terrorism/war seems like a problem. Imagine if Russia was motivated to invade Finland or something.
In the team managing the Fukushima plant there probably was someone absolutely sure of what we can manage, and of his ability to predict and therefore dislike spending money for some useless higher wall...
Yanosuke Hirai's ways seem more adequate to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20...
Yanosuke Hirai's ways seem more adequate to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20...
This is a natural solution for Finland because the country is full of bunkers of all shapes and sizes.
They do bunkers at scale.
It also has the benefit that in case of war with a nearby historically aggressive neighbour, the enemy can not bomb the repository to create a radiological disaster.
> This fuel can be managed just fine above ground. Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might have to move it, who cares.
The cost is quite high, and turns out that all the temporal or attempted permanent storages have undesired rottening containers or leakages much earlier.. is there a good reference for that claim?
The cost is quite high, and turns out that all the temporal or attempted permanent storages have undesired rottening containers or leakages much earlier.. is there a good reference for that claim?
Stewart Brand has an interesting take on this in Whole Earth Discipline (which is quite a read) - this is energy we don't know how to use yet. In 100 years, we'll be digging this stuff right up again, because there's energy in there. I'm not typically as utopian - techno or otherwise - as Brand, but I agree with him here - the nuclear industry is less than a century old, and we've already got a pretty good idea how to get enough energy from this fuel to not have a 100k year problem to begin with. Kicking the can down the road a couple decades might actually be the right thing to do here.
In 100 years we won't need it. In 100 years we'll be asking ourselves why we bothered with nuclear energy at all.
Look at the fundamentals. There's more than enough free energy all around us. In 100 years the world population will be declining, and we will already have mined and refined all the metal we'll ever need. The energy use per person is already falling and will continue to fall.
Solar will be vastly more cheap, efficient, and be part of a 100% circular economy. It'll cover most of the energy needs just by covering buildings or creating useful shades for parking, reservoars, irrigation channels and agrovoltaics.
Energy storage will essentially be solved. We have to. You can't run a car or a ferry directly on nuclear energy. We have to store and transform energy at a similar scale to what's needed to balance the grid to replace fossil fuels anyway. Think about how many days you could run your house on a modern BEV. 5-7 days in my case. And already, today, my car is helping balancing the grid by avoiding charging when prices are high. I'd be willing to do V2G too if it was supported.
In northern climates advanced geothermal will provide heat for district heating, and some extra electricity for the winter. Once you've built a well it provides all the benefits of nuclear with none of the downsides. It's just a matter of time before deep geothermal wells are cheap enough to drill. Could be decades, but not more than 100 years. With all the oil and gas engineers with nothing better to do in 20 years time.. I'm inclined to think we'll have some excellent solutions for advanced geothermal by 2050. We've already seen innovations from the oil/gas sector transferring over to geothermal in recent years.
There are some nuclear proponents that dream about everyone having megawatts of personal energy. Think of everything we could do if we had 10x the energy we have today! That's a terrible idea. If the entire world went all-in on nuclear and expanded its energy usage, the waste heat would be a problem and a barrier to getting the climate back to a cooler stable equilibrium.
Nuclear R&D is fantastic. We should continue to develop it. But mostly for future space use.
Helions fusion reactor might be a good idea if it works. It should have less problems with waste heat since it converts much of the energy directly to electricity rather than using heat exchange mechanisms.
If Helion succeeds fission is permanently dead, and we'll definitely want to bury the waste in 100k year storage so we don't burden our children with more debt and can stop thinking about the waste at all.
Look at the fundamentals. There's more than enough free energy all around us. In 100 years the world population will be declining, and we will already have mined and refined all the metal we'll ever need. The energy use per person is already falling and will continue to fall.
Solar will be vastly more cheap, efficient, and be part of a 100% circular economy. It'll cover most of the energy needs just by covering buildings or creating useful shades for parking, reservoars, irrigation channels and agrovoltaics.
Energy storage will essentially be solved. We have to. You can't run a car or a ferry directly on nuclear energy. We have to store and transform energy at a similar scale to what's needed to balance the grid to replace fossil fuels anyway. Think about how many days you could run your house on a modern BEV. 5-7 days in my case. And already, today, my car is helping balancing the grid by avoiding charging when prices are high. I'd be willing to do V2G too if it was supported.
In northern climates advanced geothermal will provide heat for district heating, and some extra electricity for the winter. Once you've built a well it provides all the benefits of nuclear with none of the downsides. It's just a matter of time before deep geothermal wells are cheap enough to drill. Could be decades, but not more than 100 years. With all the oil and gas engineers with nothing better to do in 20 years time.. I'm inclined to think we'll have some excellent solutions for advanced geothermal by 2050. We've already seen innovations from the oil/gas sector transferring over to geothermal in recent years.
There are some nuclear proponents that dream about everyone having megawatts of personal energy. Think of everything we could do if we had 10x the energy we have today! That's a terrible idea. If the entire world went all-in on nuclear and expanded its energy usage, the waste heat would be a problem and a barrier to getting the climate back to a cooler stable equilibrium.
Nuclear R&D is fantastic. We should continue to develop it. But mostly for future space use.
Helions fusion reactor might be a good idea if it works. It should have less problems with waste heat since it converts much of the energy directly to electricity rather than using heat exchange mechanisms.
If Helion succeeds fission is permanently dead, and we'll definitely want to bury the waste in 100k year storage so we don't burden our children with more debt and can stop thinking about the waste at all.
> The energy use per person is already falling and will continue to fall.
Source? I certainly wouldn't expect it to fall for the vast majority of the world's population.
Source? I certainly wouldn't expect it to fall for the vast majority of the world's population.
Fortunately, if we have these energy, waste heat is not a problem. the amount of energy from the sun/go back to space/ keep by green house gas are far more than waste heat!
do not forget this energy supply chain can reduce greenhouse gas emission to zero, who needs burning oil? we also have enough energy to capture greenhouse gas from atmosphere:)
Less common side of the argument a friend presented to me. We shouldn't use nuclear in mainstream use cases now because we don't harness enough of its power. We're basically depleting a future fuel supply before we even know how to use it properly. It has more value to us in the future when utilization is at higher %.
Personally not sure which side of the fence I sit on. It definitely has benefits now, but we also have capacity to make do with other shit. If we make do with other stuff will we forget about it and never get to that higher utilization point?
I found it an interesting point. Wouldn't be the first time humans have made something extinct/disappear/rare before the true value of the thing is understood.
Use now with low efficacy for mild gains. Save for future with bet on higher efficiency and increased gains.
Personally not sure which side of the fence I sit on. It definitely has benefits now, but we also have capacity to make do with other shit. If we make do with other stuff will we forget about it and never get to that higher utilization point?
I found it an interesting point. Wouldn't be the first time humans have made something extinct/disappear/rare before the true value of the thing is understood.
Use now with low efficacy for mild gains. Save for future with bet on higher efficiency and increased gains.
There's also the opportunity cost of not using nuclear fuel right now, instead burning fossil fuels and incurring all the irreversible long term damage that comes with it.
That doesn’t apply to fission power due to breeder reactors. We can wring more power and efficiency out of nuclear waste by just sticking it into a breeder reactor to absorb neutrons until the waste is up-converted back into fuel.
That’s where the increased efficiency and gains will come from in the future - better and better ways to convert big atoms into fissile atoms. It doesn’t matter if those big atoms come from nuclear waste or some other source (like thorium!)
That’s where the increased efficiency and gains will come from in the future - better and better ways to convert big atoms into fissile atoms. It doesn’t matter if those big atoms come from nuclear waste or some other source (like thorium!)
This is just a bad take. There is almost unimaginable amount Thorium and Uranium on the planet. We will never run out. In reality, volcanic activity keeps transporting thorium up, so it borderline renewable. We have energy for 100s or 1000s of years with nuclear, even used inefficiently.
Sure it fucking sucks we are only mostly U-235 and we are doing it inefficiently, but stopping progress because of that is just dumb.
Sure it fucking sucks we are only mostly U-235 and we are doing it inefficiently, but stopping progress because of that is just dumb.
> "It's amazing when you think of it," said Adell. His broad face had lines of weariness in it, and he stirred his drink slowly with a glass rod, watching the cubes of ice slur clumsily about. "All the energy we can possibly ever use for free. Enough energy, if we wanted to draw on it, to melt all Earth into a big drop of impure liquid iron, and still never miss the energy so used. All the energy we could ever use, forever and forever and forever."
> Lupov cocked his head sideways. He had a trick of doing that when he wanted to be contrary, and he wanted to be contrary now, partly because he had had to carry the ice and glassware. "Not forever," he said.
> "Oh, hell, just about forever. Till the sun runs down, Bert."
> "That's not forever."
> "All right, then. Billions and billions of years. Ten billion, maybe. Are you satisfied?"
> Lupov put his fingers through his thinning hair as though to reassure himself that some was still left and sipped gently at his own drink. "Ten billion years isn't forever."
> "Well, it will last our time, won't it?"
> "So would the coal and uranium."
> "All right, but now we can hook up each individual spaceship to the Solar Station, and it can go to Pluto and back a million times without ever worrying about fuel. You can't do that on coal and uranium. Ask Multivac, if you don't believe me.
> "I don't have to ask Multivac. I know that."
> "Then stop running down what Multivac's done for us," said Adell, blazing up, "It did all right."
> "Who says it didn't? What I say is that a sun won't last forever. That's all I'm saying. We're safe for ten billion years, but then what?" Lupow pointed a slightly shaky finger at the other. "And don't say we'll switch to another sun."
> There was silence for a while. Adell put his glass to his lips only occasionally, and Lupov's eyes slowly closed. They rested.
> Lupov cocked his head sideways. He had a trick of doing that when he wanted to be contrary, and he wanted to be contrary now, partly because he had had to carry the ice and glassware. "Not forever," he said.
> "Oh, hell, just about forever. Till the sun runs down, Bert."
> "That's not forever."
> "All right, then. Billions and billions of years. Ten billion, maybe. Are you satisfied?"
> Lupov put his fingers through his thinning hair as though to reassure himself that some was still left and sipped gently at his own drink. "Ten billion years isn't forever."
> "Well, it will last our time, won't it?"
> "So would the coal and uranium."
> "All right, but now we can hook up each individual spaceship to the Solar Station, and it can go to Pluto and back a million times without ever worrying about fuel. You can't do that on coal and uranium. Ask Multivac, if you don't believe me.
> "I don't have to ask Multivac. I know that."
> "Then stop running down what Multivac's done for us," said Adell, blazing up, "It did all right."
> "Who says it didn't? What I say is that a sun won't last forever. That's all I'm saying. We're safe for ten billion years, but then what?" Lupow pointed a slightly shaky finger at the other. "And don't say we'll switch to another sun."
> There was silence for a while. Adell put his glass to his lips only occasionally, and Lupov's eyes slowly closed. They rested.
> We have energy for 100s or 1000s of years with nuclear, even used inefficiently
Doesn't sound like a lot to me. I believe there must be something like Parkinson's law for energy (work expands to fill the allotted time)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law
Doesn't sound like a lot to me. I believe there must be something like Parkinson's law for energy (work expands to fill the allotted time)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law
Asteroid mining and new sources of energy could be developed in that time though.
‘No one will ever need more than 512kb of memory’
And calling something ‘a bad take’ because you have a differing opinion makes you an arrogant crass brute.
And calling something ‘a bad take’ because you have a differing opinion makes you an arrogant crass brute.
No one would ever come up with usecases for more than 512kb of memory without first having access to 512kb of memory.
You need to use stuff. Only then can you have better ideas.
You need to use stuff. Only then can you have better ideas.
That was a paraphrased quote, made by bill gates. I think we’ve somehow found usecases for >512kb of memory, which was my point.
Edit: I’ve conflated parent and grandparents points, I was in the middle of avoiding a social situation while posting.
Edit: I’ve conflated parent and grandparents points, I was in the middle of avoiding a social situation while posting.
In Australia, one government proposed and accepted to build the whole nations internet architecture on fibre. There was a government change, and the next government said "copper is good enough for anyone! No-one needs more than 1mb of internet".
To this day we're still trying to upgrade the infrastructure, and replace copper with fibre, and the cost so far is far above twice the initial estimate of cost.
To this day we're still trying to upgrade the infrastructure, and replace copper with fibre, and the cost so far is far above twice the initial estimate of cost.
> That was a paraphrased quote, made by bill gates
The quote was "640K", and Bill Gates probably didn't actually say it, at least not in a general context, vs "... to run MS-DOS and Visicalc" or similar.
The quote was "640K", and Bill Gates probably didn't actually say it, at least not in a general context, vs "... to run MS-DOS and Visicalc" or similar.
Not using a computer because you might need more then 512kb of memory would have been stupid. That's a simple fact and illustrates my point.
the problem that argument is that we learn how to increase efficiency as a result of using it and building a supply chain around that resource. Just look at gas engines. a modern gas engine uses a fraction of the fuel of a model T to transport more weight faster to their destinations. What you're suggestion would be akin to saying we should avoid the model T and wait till the prius is available. without a car industry, we wouldn't have ever gotten the R&D to have a prius in the first place.
I get your overall point, however it's the reverse: electric cars were around before gas-powered cars. And the first hybrid gas-electric car was made around 1898.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car
https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car
[deleted]
Seems the same argument could be applied to coal and oil, but at least the byproducts of nuclear reactors could be potentially useful. Not much hope for the remnants of burnt coal.
In the long term we'll have orbiting solar power stations collecting all the energy we could possibly use. Think of all the solar energy that misses the Earth and just flies off uselessly into space.
There's another enormous source of energy right under our feet - the geothermal heat of the Earth. It isn't that far down, either.
There's another enormous source of energy right under our feet - the geothermal heat of the Earth. It isn't that far down, either.
All we have to do is keep the spent fuel around, and feed it into fast reactors later.
Besides that, seawater extraction of uranium is already just five times more expensive than mining. With fast reactors getting a hundred times as much energy from the same amount of natural uranium, seawater extraction becomes easily economical. Uranium mining today is a small portion of nuclear cost.
With fast reactors fueled by seawater uranium, we'll have enough fuel for millions of years.
Besides that, seawater extraction of uranium is already just five times more expensive than mining. With fast reactors getting a hundred times as much energy from the same amount of natural uranium, seawater extraction becomes easily economical. Uranium mining today is a small portion of nuclear cost.
With fast reactors fueled by seawater uranium, we'll have enough fuel for millions of years.
> With fast reactors getting a hundred times as much energy from the same amount of natural uranium, seawater extraction becomes easily economical
What fraction of the cost of nuclear comes from the uranium costs?
What fraction of the cost of nuclear comes from the uranium costs?
"Economics of new nuclear plants are heavily influenced by their capital cost, which accounts for at least 60% of their LCOE"[1] and "fuel costs account for about 28% of a nuclear plant's operating expenses."[2] So 28% of 40% gives about 10%.
A lot of that fuel cost is probably fabrication and enrichment, which aren't trivial. But let's say it's the raw ore cost, in which case five times raises total cost by 40% for conventional reactors.
But fast reactors use 1% as much uranium ore as conventional reactors, so it'd be 1% of 10%, times five means seawater extraction for fast reactor fuel would account for about half a percent of the cost of power.
[1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...
A lot of that fuel cost is probably fabrication and enrichment, which aren't trivial. But let's say it's the raw ore cost, in which case five times raises total cost by 40% for conventional reactors.
But fast reactors use 1% as much uranium ore as conventional reactors, so it'd be 1% of 10%, times five means seawater extraction for fast reactor fuel would account for about half a percent of the cost of power.
[1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...
Once we're that much more capable we'll be doing fusion which requires different elements for fuel anyway.
We know how to use it... France already had(has) a reprocessing plant and according to wiki about 32k tonnes were processed during operation
There is nice arty documentary film ”Into eternity” about Onkalo (made already 2010) https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ayLxB9fV2y4
There's also this Tom Scott video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50
One of the most mind stopping video I've seen in the recent decades. The linguistic problem is so simple yet so profound.
The mechanical container solution is top notch, but 99% of the safety is just geological stability and selecting right place. Over 2 billion year old granite with very few cracks far from any fault lines.
The worst possible scenario they calculated:
1) the nuclear canister would corrode in a thousand years instead of the calculated hundred thousand years,
2) and at the same time installed clay buffer surrounding canisters would inexplicably disappear.
3) In addition, the groundwater would magically flow upwards and
4) a city would be built on the site. A person who would live on the most polluted square meter from cradle to grave and would only eat food grown there and drink the most polluted water
Result: people would only receive three times the radiation dose compared to people currently living in a city of Tampere.
The worst possible scenario they calculated:
1) the nuclear canister would corrode in a thousand years instead of the calculated hundred thousand years,
2) and at the same time installed clay buffer surrounding canisters would inexplicably disappear.
3) In addition, the groundwater would magically flow upwards and
4) a city would be built on the site. A person who would live on the most polluted square meter from cradle to grave and would only eat food grown there and drink the most polluted water
Result: people would only receive three times the radiation dose compared to people currently living in a city of Tampere.
What I don't get is the following:
If your nuclear waste is that "hot" (highly radioactive), then you're not draining as much energy out of the material.
Ideally, the closer to lead you are, the more energy is drained out. And that's what I'd hope to see from the mining required for uranium. Instead, we seem to run it once and then go "whoop have to stop".
If your nuclear waste is that "hot" (highly radioactive), then you're not draining as much energy out of the material.
Ideally, the closer to lead you are, the more energy is drained out. And that's what I'd hope to see from the mining required for uranium. Instead, we seem to run it once and then go "whoop have to stop".
There are three issues with trying to get more energy out of hot 'spent' fuel rods
(1) the radiation levels increase, making it more dangerous for workers to do maintenance and safety operations (so overall reactor design would need to take this into account),
(2) some fission products and transuranics (plutonium etc.) act as neutron poisons (absorbing neutrons rather than generating energy-productive fission events), resulting in reduced reactor output and instability issues as the accumulate in the fuel rods.
(3) since you are actually transmuting elements, physical and chemical changes take place resulting in fuel rod corrosion and degradation, swelling and structural changes, etc. which could lead to catastrophic failure by clogging the reactor core and preventing coolant circulation.
[edit] note that reprocessing the spent fuel (plutonium recovery) for use in MOX reactors is possible, but since this is also how you run a nuclear weapons program, there are additional concerns and the costs are really high:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
(1) the radiation levels increase, making it more dangerous for workers to do maintenance and safety operations (so overall reactor design would need to take this into account),
(2) some fission products and transuranics (plutonium etc.) act as neutron poisons (absorbing neutrons rather than generating energy-productive fission events), resulting in reduced reactor output and instability issues as the accumulate in the fuel rods.
(3) since you are actually transmuting elements, physical and chemical changes take place resulting in fuel rod corrosion and degradation, swelling and structural changes, etc. which could lead to catastrophic failure by clogging the reactor core and preventing coolant circulation.
[edit] note that reprocessing the spent fuel (plutonium recovery) for use in MOX reactors is possible, but since this is also how you run a nuclear weapons program, there are additional concerns and the costs are really high:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
Not sure I'm following. Fission reactors split uranium into smaller atoms like barium and krypton. The remaining energy that comes out as afterglow heat in the repository is a small fraction of what already came out during fission. less than 1% remains an hour after fissioning.
You have the numbers reversed.
In spent nuclear fuel 96% of the mass is the remaining uranium is still usable. Spend nuclear fuel (=LEU) used in these reactors have almost all potential energy left.
You can use them if you close the nuclear fuel cycle with fast neutron reactors. The downside of it is that they FNR's are also good for making fuel for nuclear weapons.
In spent nuclear fuel 96% of the mass is the remaining uranium is still usable. Spend nuclear fuel (=LEU) used in these reactors have almost all potential energy left.
You can use them if you close the nuclear fuel cycle with fast neutron reactors. The downside of it is that they FNR's are also good for making fuel for nuclear weapons.
That 96% of the mass is 238U. It's usable in breeder reactors. It's not useful for today's burner reactors. We have far too much 238U for those already; enrichment is the process of stripping out 238U from natural uranium. It would be utterly pointless to recover more 238U for them. We already have great stockpiles of depleted U sitting around. The stuff is not worth very much right now.
Reprocessing can recover some plutonium, which can be reused (once more) in MOX fuel. Spent MOX fuel cannot be reprocessed further for use in today's thermal reactors, though.
Reprocessing can recover some plutonium, which can be reused (once more) in MOX fuel. Spent MOX fuel cannot be reprocessed further for use in today's thermal reactors, though.
Since it if just sitting around can I buy some? I would be happy to have a kilogram cube of DU
Yes.
Legality might depend which country you live in, and the stores I've seen sell only tiny quantities for high prices because they can (only collectors really want it and they will pay), but you can totally just buy some.
Legality might depend which country you live in, and the stores I've seen sell only tiny quantities for high prices because they can (only collectors really want it and they will pay), but you can totally just buy some.
I don't have the numbers reversed. I'm talking about when a single atom actually undergoes fission, it releases 93% of its energy promptly as fission product kinetic energy, gamma rays, and neutron kinetic energy. An hour later, another 6% of the energy goes out as delayed betas and gammas. After that, only 1% remains to emerge as heat in the repository.
What you're referring to is the fact that some reactors (aka breeder reactors, fast or thermal) can fission a much higher percentage of the total atoms loaded into the reactor, including most of the majority isotope (U-238) in addition to the minority (U-235).
I wrote a bit about breeding and recycling here: https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html
What you're referring to is the fact that some reactors (aka breeder reactors, fast or thermal) can fission a much higher percentage of the total atoms loaded into the reactor, including most of the majority isotope (U-238) in addition to the minority (U-235).
I wrote a bit about breeding and recycling here: https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html
>> don't have the numbers reversed. I'm talking about when a single atom actually undergoes fission...
Well then maybe you should talk about the problem at hand, which is the stuff people are considering "nuclear waste" and wanting to bury.
Well then maybe you should talk about the problem at hand, which is the stuff people are considering "nuclear waste" and wanting to bury.
Yeah, you could reprocess spent fuel but one of the byproducts would be plutonium. So we'd rather bury everything than using the plutonium for other projects because of fear that we can't handle nuclear byproducts.
This was one of the advantages of Integral Fast Reactor. It had on site pyroprocessing, which doesn't have the same nuclear proliferation risks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#Pyroproce...
I see what you did there.
I don't get something so maybe somebody can explain. Afaik, France has nuclear reprocessing plant, basically they take used fuel, separate nonrecyclable parts and get new fuel to be used again in their reactors. Why other countries don't send their used fuel to France for reprocessing? Is it too expensive? Too dangerous to transport? limited capacity of the plant? Or that the produced fuel can't be used in reactors from other countries?
Also, why don't other countries build similar plants?
See the start of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site
Can't recycle anymore in Russia.
I was honestly surprised to learn how big of an issue nuclear waste management is. Up to the point where people are actually reinforced in popular opinion, that nuclear waste is a dirty and an unmanageable problem.
This isn't even really waste, there are lots of useful materials that you can extract or reprocess into other kinds of useful fuel for other types of reactor.
Except after Chernobyl, almost no one actually bothered with developing proper infrastructure and production chains for nuclear industry.
I was honestly surprised to learn how big of an issue nuclear waste management is. Up to the point where people are actually reinforced in popular opinion, that nuclear waste is a dirty and an unmanageable problem.
This isn't even really waste, there are lots of useful materials that you can extract or reprocess into other kinds of useful fuel for other types of reactor.
Except after Chernobyl, almost no one actually bothered with developing proper infrastructure and production chains for nuclear industry.
I'm excited that Onkalo will be coming onine soon, so we don't have to hear the myth that there's no solution for spent nuclear fuel anymore. The solution that enjoys a solid scientific consensus is the deep geologic repository.
Another thing that is weird to me is that everyone says nuclear waste is hazardous for a uniquely long time, but it become less hazardous over time. Many non-radioactive materials, like arsenic and mercury, are toxic forever.
In the US we have WIPP operating, but it stores weapons-related radioactive material rather than commercial spent fuel, so I guess it doesn't count.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
Another thing that is weird to me is that everyone says nuclear waste is hazardous for a uniquely long time, but it become less hazardous over time. Many non-radioactive materials, like arsenic and mercury, are toxic forever.
In the US we have WIPP operating, but it stores weapons-related radioactive material rather than commercial spent fuel, so I guess it doesn't count.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
What is even more interesting: At a given power rating, coal plants produce up to 3 times more radioactivity than nuclear power plants directly in leftover ash because coal contains large numbers of radioactive isotopes. It might not seem like much, but when you consider that a 1TWe coal plant burns 3.2Mt of coal a year compared to 27t of uranium for an equivalent nuclear power plant, this might become more apparent.
Most of that waste is captured in ash via particle filters and has to be treated like any highly toxic and radioactive waste, but as far as I know this waste it not destined for secured long term nuclear disposal where it would be kept safe from interacting with the environment. We don’t seem to have a problem with that…
Further, some low percentage (literature tends to point at .5%) of it is in gaseous form or cannot be filtered, so it gets vented into the atmosphere. That’s assuming modern and intact particle filters. And we aren’t even talking about CO2 here.
It’s somewhat absurd we have to have discussions about nuclear power plant waste in this reality.
Most of that waste is captured in ash via particle filters and has to be treated like any highly toxic and radioactive waste, but as far as I know this waste it not destined for secured long term nuclear disposal where it would be kept safe from interacting with the environment. We don’t seem to have a problem with that…
Further, some low percentage (literature tends to point at .5%) of it is in gaseous form or cannot be filtered, so it gets vented into the atmosphere. That’s assuming modern and intact particle filters. And we aren’t even talking about CO2 here.
It’s somewhat absurd we have to have discussions about nuclear power plant waste in this reality.
Nuclear power plants produce many many orders of magnitude more radioactivity than coal power plants for a given amount of energy produced. You are probably misinterpreting the famous 1978 study [1] where the radioactive emissions of nuclear and coal power plants were estimated to be roughly the same. This does not include the solid and liquid nuclear waste, only the radioactive gases that are inadvertently leaked from nuclear reactors. Coal ash is barely radioactive at all, and the radioactivity is completely negligible compared to the chemical toxicity.
[1] https://doi.org/10.1126/science.202.4372.1045
[1] https://doi.org/10.1126/science.202.4372.1045
Arsenic and mercury came out of the ground, originally. It's not like we can make those elements from scratch. Diluting them and putting them back where we got them is probably fine.
Nuclear waste is something new we are creating, but I'd rather have it deep underground in a geologically stable place, than sitting in casks on the surface.
Nuclear waste is something new we are creating, but I'd rather have it deep underground in a geologically stable place, than sitting in casks on the surface.
Uranium came out of the ground as well, and there were natural reactors.
Nuclear waste does not consist of Uranium, but of the much more radioactive fission products. The Okla natural reactor went critical for the last time around 2 billion years ago. Indeed, nuclear waste is not a problem if you can wait for 2 billion years.
Mining is not exactly a natural process. We can't dilute the toxic byproducts and putting them back where we got them, since that would require rebuilding the mountain. In cases of open mines, all that is left is a lake size hole where solid land once where.
What the mining industry do is to fence it up (including pools used for waste), put up a sign to warn people, and then let nature fill it up with water. The best we can hope for is that they did their research properly and made sure that it doesn't leak into the groundwater.
In the past there were people who tried diluting stuff like this by dumping it into the ocean, but that isn't the best idea.
What the mining industry do is to fence it up (including pools used for waste), put up a sign to warn people, and then let nature fill it up with water. The best we can hope for is that they did their research properly and made sure that it doesn't leak into the groundwater.
In the past there were people who tried diluting stuff like this by dumping it into the ocean, but that isn't the best idea.
There were some discussions about the safety of the encasing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBS-3#Criticism
Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.
Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement.
"The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program."
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am...
One thing that drives me craziest of all is when people simultaneously claim that nuclear waste is among the most hazardous things out there while also blocking any progress to get it safely out of the biosphere.
"The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program."
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am...
One thing that drives me craziest of all is when people simultaneously claim that nuclear waste is among the most hazardous things out there while also blocking any progress to get it safely out of the biosphere.
> by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program.
This claim is simply false. Many countries reprocess nuclear waste:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
This claim is simply false. Many countries reprocess nuclear waste:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
That list includes the US, which hasn't had commercial reprocessing in many decades.
The truth is that reprocessing is an economic loser at this point; even France admits it. Separated plutonium literally has negative value; you lose money trying to fabricate fuel elements from it instead of using freshly enriched natural uranium. France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that expensive compared to the cost of just building and operating nuclear reactors, so the boondoggle is not that big.
The truth is that reprocessing is an economic loser at this point; even France admits it. Separated plutonium literally has negative value; you lose money trying to fabricate fuel elements from it instead of using freshly enriched natural uranium. France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that expensive compared to the cost of just building and operating nuclear reactors, so the boondoggle is not that big.
> That list includes the US, which hasn't had commercial reprocessing in many decades.
But it also includes many countries that reprocess currently.
The US has not reprocessed fuel in many decades, and never on any significant scale, because the Carter Administration outlawed it based on mistaken concerns about proliferation, and it's been a political pariah ever since. It has nothing to do with any rational technical assessment.
But it also includes many countries that reprocess currently.
The US has not reprocessed fuel in many decades, and never on any significant scale, because the Carter Administration outlawed it based on mistaken concerns about proliferation, and it's been a political pariah ever since. It has nothing to do with any rational technical assessment.
Pakistan and India do it for their nuclear weapons programs. You don't want to be making that argument.
The UK, France, Japan, and Italy don't reprocess anymore (I'm not sure Italy ever did on any substantial scale).
Carter stopped reprocessing by executive order, but Reagan quickly reversed that order. No reprocessing then occurred, because reprocessing made no economic sense. It turned out Carter's order isn't what killed reprocessing in the US; cold hard economics did. It did provide a convenient excuse for those who wish to ignore that reality.
The UK, France, Japan, and Italy don't reprocess anymore (I'm not sure Italy ever did on any substantial scale).
Carter stopped reprocessing by executive order, but Reagan quickly reversed that order. No reprocessing then occurred, because reprocessing made no economic sense. It turned out Carter's order isn't what killed reprocessing in the US; cold hard economics did. It did provide a convenient excuse for those who wish to ignore that reality.
> Carter's order isn't what killed reprocessing in the US; cold hard economics did.
No, "cold, hard economics" would say, if you are correct that it's not even cost effective to do any reprocessing now, that the spent fuel should be stored for 100 years or so and then reprocessed, when it's economically cost effective.
But US policy has been that spent fuel has to be stored in a facility that's good for 100,000 years. That makes no sense if the waste is going to be reprocessed 100 years from now. It makes sense only as part of a political scheme to kill nuclear power altogether. Which is exactly what it was, even if on paper reprocessing was "allowed" after the Reagan administration.
No, "cold, hard economics" would say, if you are correct that it's not even cost effective to do any reprocessing now, that the spent fuel should be stored for 100 years or so and then reprocessed, when it's economically cost effective.
But US policy has been that spent fuel has to be stored in a facility that's good for 100,000 years. That makes no sense if the waste is going to be reprocessed 100 years from now. It makes sense only as part of a political scheme to kill nuclear power altogether. Which is exactly what it was, even if on paper reprocessing was "allowed" after the Reagan administration.
You do raise a good question: why was there this idea that burying waste now was a good idea? I can think of two reasons:
First, it may have been thought that opposition to nuclear energy is due to waste, and that burying it would remove the opposition. I consider this ill-founded, both because those predisposed to oppose nuclear use waste only as one of many arguments, and because the actual objective argument (economics) as nothing to do with waste.
Second, it may have been thought in the height of the Cold War that spent fuel at the surface would be a tempting target for ground burst H-bombs, where it would then contribute to long term fallout (each 1 GW(e)-year of spent fuel has about the same long lived fission products as a 20 MT bomb.) This is not an argument the government would have been pushing publicly, of course.
First, it may have been thought that opposition to nuclear energy is due to waste, and that burying it would remove the opposition. I consider this ill-founded, both because those predisposed to oppose nuclear use waste only as one of many arguments, and because the actual objective argument (economics) as nothing to do with waste.
Second, it may have been thought in the height of the Cold War that spent fuel at the surface would be a tempting target for ground burst H-bombs, where it would then contribute to long term fallout (each 1 GW(e)-year of spent fuel has about the same long lived fission products as a 20 MT bomb.) This is not an argument the government would have been pushing publicly, of course.
> why was there this idea that burying waste now was a good idea?
I've already answered that: nobody actually thought it was a good idea. It was imposed as a policy because the actual (though of course not publicly admitted) purpose of the policy was to kill nuclear power by imposing unreasonable requirements on it. (It's possible, I suppose, that the Cold War rationale you give played a role, but I don't think it's very likely; that objective could have been met without requiring anything like 100,000 year storage.)
I've already answered that: nobody actually thought it was a good idea. It was imposed as a policy because the actual (though of course not publicly admitted) purpose of the policy was to kill nuclear power by imposing unreasonable requirements on it. (It's possible, I suppose, that the Cold War rationale you give played a role, but I don't think it's very likely; that objective could have been met without requiring anything like 100,000 year storage.)
> reprocessing is an economic loser at this point
Not on a time scale of 100 years or so, let alone the 100,000 years that are being imposed as a requirement on geologic storage. On that time scale recovering unburned fuel from reprocessing will be cheaper than mining and refining fuel.
> France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that expensive
Yes, particularly when you factor in that reprocessing gives you a source of additional fuel (most of the "spent" fuel removed from reactors is actually not spent, and reprocessing recovers it for future use) that, as noted above, is expected to be cheaper than mining it in the not too distant future.
> the boondoggle
It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above. It's certainly much more rational than requiring spent fuel to be stored for 100,000 years as if that was the only possible thing that could be done with it.
Not on a time scale of 100 years or so, let alone the 100,000 years that are being imposed as a requirement on geologic storage. On that time scale recovering unburned fuel from reprocessing will be cheaper than mining and refining fuel.
> France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that expensive
Yes, particularly when you factor in that reprocessing gives you a source of additional fuel (most of the "spent" fuel removed from reactors is actually not spent, and reprocessing recovers it for future use) that, as noted above, is expected to be cheaper than mining it in the not too distant future.
> the boondoggle
It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above. It's certainly much more rational than requiring spent fuel to be stored for 100,000 years as if that was the only possible thing that could be done with it.
> Not on a time scale of 100 years or so
AT THIS MOMENT it's an economic loser. If you need reprocessed fuel in 100 years, by the miracle of nonzero interest rates you save money by doing it closer to then instead of right now. The cost of storing the fuel until then is low enough that this works out.
> It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above.
No, it's a waste of money to do it right now.
AT THIS MOMENT it's an economic loser. If you need reprocessed fuel in 100 years, by the miracle of nonzero interest rates you save money by doing it closer to then instead of right now. The cost of storing the fuel until then is low enough that this works out.
> It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above.
No, it's a waste of money to do it right now.
> it's a waste of money to do it right now
If you're allowed to store the current waste in a facility that's only good for 100 years or so, then yes. But not if you're required to store any waste you don't reprocess for 100,000 years.
If you're allowed to store the current waste in a facility that's only good for 100 years or so, then yes. But not if you're required to store any waste you don't reprocess for 100,000 years.
Where does that requirement come from, though? If society is going to collapse in 100 years, I suggest the money be better spent preparing for the consequences of that, not worrying about whether the documentation on dry casks will satisfy some licensing requirement.
> Where does that requirement come from, though?
I've answered that already in another subthread we're having.
> If society is going to collapse in 100 years
Where was that kind of thinking involved in this at all?
I've answered that already in another subthread we're having.
> If society is going to collapse in 100 years
Where was that kind of thinking involved in this at all?
Countries that reprocess nuclear waste still need a deep geologic repository for the fission products and minor actinides due to process losses. Reprocessing reduces the number of repositories you need for a given fleet size, but you still need a repository.
> Countries that reprocess nuclear waste still need a deep geologic repository
That's possible, but even if it's done, it's only necessary for hundreds of years (because the radioactive isotopes left over have much shorter half-lives), not 100,000 years. Big difference.
That's possible, but even if it's done, it's only necessary for hundreds of years (because the radioactive isotopes left over have much shorter half-lives), not 100,000 years. Big difference.
Radiotoxicity does indeed drop to ore levels in 300-500 years but even then there are a few problem actors. Partitioning and transmutation can help with these, probably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product
I consider the elements containing those isotopes to be prime candidates for space disposal, not burial.
The thing is, that to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. But still it is not a solution.
A solution would be to make it non-hazardous. But there is no viable way to do it right now.
A solution would be to make it non-hazardous. But there is no viable way to do it right now.
> to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation.
No, it's not. See comments elsewhere in the thread about reprocessing.
No, it's not. See comments elsewhere in the thread about reprocessing.
highly recommended to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
How about we reprocess it and use it as nuclear fuel. IIRC France is the only country that does this. We just don't like the kind of reactor needed.
> IIRC France is the only country that does this
No, many countries do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
No, many countries do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
>The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach
The parent post didn't say that burying the waste wasn't the scientifically preferred approach. Disposal is only needed if you create it in the first place.
The parent post didn't say that burying the waste wasn't the scientifically preferred approach. Disposal is only needed if you create it in the first place.
I think the people you're referring to want us to stop producing nuclear waste in the first place.
This approach of geological sequestration, while being the scientifically preferred solution, still has potential very negative consequences for some future generation many years in the future. By some people calling this safe, it enables the nuclear proponents to leverage that to say there is no issue with the waste so it's fine to create more.
This approach of geological sequestration, while being the scientifically preferred solution, still has potential very negative consequences for some future generation many years in the future. By some people calling this safe, it enables the nuclear proponents to leverage that to say there is no issue with the waste so it's fine to create more.
> By some people calling this safe, it enables the nuclear proponents to leverage that to say there is no issue with the waste so it's fine to create more.
Unfortunately those who believe nuclear energy generation is necessary often refuse to acknowledge the very real risks and costs associated with it. The fact is that there is no panacea when it comes to energy generation. All known methods come with risks, rewards and downside. It is fine to argue that nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest way to generate energy, but not that it is completely safe or without risk.
Unfortunately those who believe nuclear energy generation is necessary often refuse to acknowledge the very real risks and costs associated with it. The fact is that there is no panacea when it comes to energy generation. All known methods come with risks, rewards and downside. It is fine to argue that nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest way to generate energy, but not that it is completely safe or without risk.
As Ostrich policy is ignoring the problem -- specifically not looking at the problem. Burying the Geiger counters would be an Ostrich policy
Exactly.
It is exactly that. We are putting it deep into the ground and ignoring the problem.
My guniea pigs hide from predators by burying themselves in hay. It's fairly effective.
That's not what as Ostrich does. An Ostrich leaves itself exposed and just closes its eyes.
Mankinds attitude to all sorts of threats is an ostrich policy, but burying nuclear waste is not one of those. Leaving it in a barrel and saying "nothing to see here" would be.
That's not what as Ostrich does. An Ostrich leaves itself exposed and just closes its eyes.
Mankinds attitude to all sorts of threats is an ostrich policy, but burying nuclear waste is not one of those. Leaving it in a barrel and saying "nothing to see here" would be.
If it doesn’t cause any problems when it’s underground then that’s just called solving the problem
Yeah exactly like us not worrying about all the CO2 30 years ago "because the atmosphere is so big mankind couldn't possibly make a change"
We should balance ourselves with nature now instead of dumping it on the future.
This way we're solving the CO2 problem the way a gambler solves their debt by borrowing more money to pay off loans.
We should balance ourselves with nature now instead of dumping it on the future.
This way we're solving the CO2 problem the way a gambler solves their debt by borrowing more money to pay off loans.
burying is absolutely a solution, especially when nuclear fuel is so dense you can store all the waste of humanity's power needs in a relatively small area
Do you prefer venting it to the atmosphere? That's the alternative for producing substantial amounts of energy reliably.
Why not? What specific problems does it not solve?
Burying things securely until a better solution can be found is a better than letting them sit onsite in storage pools...
"Securely" being the key term here. Something that is buried securely today may not be buried securely tomorrow, or in 100 or a 1000 years, because the geology of the planet is not static. This can become even more of a problem if the knowledge should be lost what was buried where.
The subterranean geology of granitic shield provinces doesn't change much over the course of ...human-accessible timescales.
I agree to in way that this is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. But it is not a solution.
"Live in Idaho" isn't THE solution to deaths from tropical diseases; but let's not pretend that it isn't A solution...
But may not be better than shutting it all down.
Sorry, I like reliable electricity, I don't live near a hydro plant, and I'd prefer not to burn coal. Nuclear does what I want, and if the desire for a perfect solution for waste handling gets in the way of a good method for keeping the lights on while we work towards improving the isolation and transmutation of waste-that desire needs to be set aside.
I mean we could treat it like a coal power plant and just dilute the radioactive material into the air instead.
Better in the ground that the air.
How interesting, I was just reading about this in the context of nuclear semiotics and how to pass down warnings about the danger of nuclear waste. (This is a really interesting topic without much in the way of clear answers, depending on what you're optimising for. Highly recommend reading the Wikipedia page[0] at a minimum.)
There's apparently a documentary on this project, "Into Eternity," released in 2010, which has been on my list since earlier this morning (i.e., since I read about its existence).
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
There's apparently a documentary on this project, "Into Eternity," released in 2010, which has been on my list since earlier this morning (i.e., since I read about its existence).
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
Since the fuel will be encased in copper, and copper is quite valuable, I see a future, some centuries or millenia from now, where people will try to steal it, without realizing the dangers associated. With bad side effects as consequence.
So a few copper thieves get radiation poisoning? How bad is that, really?
It seems like all nuclear waste doomerism is based on the same assumption that at some point in the future all of humanity is reduced to 100 individuals and all of them decide to dig into the same mine shaft.
It seems like all nuclear waste doomerism is based on the same assumption that at some point in the future all of humanity is reduced to 100 individuals and all of them decide to dig into the same mine shaft.
> How bad is that, really?
They wouldn't die outright, see Goiânia accident.
But honestly, if the future mankind would lose it knowledge about such place and it's dangers and would get a lesson... then it would get a lesson.
They wouldn't die outright, see Goiânia accident.
But honestly, if the future mankind would lose it knowledge about such place and it's dangers and would get a lesson... then it would get a lesson.
It is not an argument to not do it. But it is an argument that it is not only geological forces the storage must contend with.
And how exactly will they know where to steal it from? Are they going to start digging random holes through bedrock just because they might hit treasure?
I plan on passing the location down to my descendents. Each generation is to warn the next to not disclose the location, and to be patient as this is a long term plan. In a thousands years or so my clan will start digging at the exact location. They will venerate me and build temples to my memory.
It may not be hard at all. Knowledge may be preserved because civilization has preserved it in books and/or memory.
Eh, assumes copper will be valuable in that time frame. Unknowable.
You are looking too far, we just need more reprocessing plants like France have so we could recycle the waste and reuse about 95% of material back as fuel
Millenia? The radiation would have half-lifed away.
If we're burying spent fuel, that's a tacit admission that nuclear will not be powering the world, because a once-through fuel cycle with thermal reactors (like the ones used in Finland) powering the world runs out of cheap uranium very quickly.
In any case, the lack of a geological repository for commercial high level waste in the US is mostly because there's no stakeholder who really needs it. Storing spent fuel in dry casks is a perfectly cromulent solution -- and that waste could be buried or reprocessed later (more easily, after it cools more) so this doesn't rule out any other solution.
In any case, the lack of a geological repository for commercial high level waste in the US is mostly because there's no stakeholder who really needs it. Storing spent fuel in dry casks is a perfectly cromulent solution -- and that waste could be buried or reprocessed later (more easily, after it cools more) so this doesn't rule out any other solution.
> the world runs out of cheap uranium very quickly.
Citations ?
Citations ?
World uranium resource information is readily available. For example:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
gives a resource, as of 2017, of 8 million tonnes. Note that the recent expansion in uranium exploration didn't increase the resource very much.
A 3000 MW(th) thermal burner reactor uses about 250 tonnes of natural uranium per year.
https://material-properties.org/what-is-natural-uranium-cons...
To "power the world" (by which I mean provide, as heat, the 18 TW of current world primary energy consumption) would therefore require 6000 x 250 or 1.5 million tonnes of natural U per year.
It has long (like, since shortly after WW2) been known that powering the world with fission will require some kind of breeding, which implies some kind of reprocessing. If you are committed to that, burying spent fuel as is makes no sense.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
gives a resource, as of 2017, of 8 million tonnes. Note that the recent expansion in uranium exploration didn't increase the resource very much.
A 3000 MW(th) thermal burner reactor uses about 250 tonnes of natural uranium per year.
https://material-properties.org/what-is-natural-uranium-cons...
To "power the world" (by which I mean provide, as heat, the 18 TW of current world primary energy consumption) would therefore require 6000 x 250 or 1.5 million tonnes of natural U per year.
It has long (like, since shortly after WW2) been known that powering the world with fission will require some kind of breeding, which implies some kind of reprocessing. If you are committed to that, burying spent fuel as is makes no sense.
"Known resources" is always a misleading thing. Time and again we used this logic and concluded that the world has only 20 years left of oil, for example.
Finding and proving reserves is costly. People don't just randomly decide to invest money to find new resources of Uranium. If there are 8 million tons of economically recoverable Uranium, and the world consumes less than 80k tons per year, that covers us for 100 years. If we were to double the uranium use for whatever reason, mining companies would invest more money into exploration, and the proven reserves will increase by a factor of 2.
We are not going to run out of Uranium under any scenario in the next few hundred years.
Finding and proving reserves is costly. People don't just randomly decide to invest money to find new resources of Uranium. If there are 8 million tons of economically recoverable Uranium, and the world consumes less than 80k tons per year, that covers us for 100 years. If we were to double the uranium use for whatever reason, mining companies would invest more money into exploration, and the proven reserves will increase by a factor of 2.
We are not going to run out of Uranium under any scenario in the next few hundred years.
There's a question of how cheap "cheap" has to be. But saying "uranium cost doesn't matter because capital cost of the power plants is so much larger" is a left-handed argument.
Thanks for the references, I was always under the impression that uranium was a relatively abundant material.
I tend to agree with @credit_guy in that we always tend to find more of the natural resources when the need presents itself. However according to your link, the grow of stock/newly discovered uranium is quite slow... kinda concerning
It’s a great milestone to establish a complete & safe lifecycle for nuclear fuel.
From what I understood of current technology, recycling used nuclear fuel is too expensive and impractical today, so it makes economic sense to invest in long-term waste storage.
But I do wonder if in 30-50 years, the main way to deal with nuclear waste would be recycling. I saw an interesting interview of experts about this last month: https://youtu.be/IzQ3gFRj0Bc
From what I understood of current technology, recycling used nuclear fuel is too expensive and impractical today, so it makes economic sense to invest in long-term waste storage.
But I do wonder if in 30-50 years, the main way to deal with nuclear waste would be recycling. I saw an interesting interview of experts about this last month: https://youtu.be/IzQ3gFRj0Bc
The half-life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years. All living things are composed partially of carbon 14. But nobody worries about the radiation from it.
Anything with a long half-life is emitting very, very little radiation.
Anything with a short half-life isn't going to last long.
Anything with a long half-life is emitting very, very little radiation.
Anything with a short half-life isn't going to last long.
You are forgetting concentration. C14 isn't a significant issue because only one in every trillion carbon atoms is C14 - the rest is stable.
Meanwhile, high-level nuclear waste is a densely concentrated soup of spicy elements, all neatly packed together to provide a really bad day to anyone stumbling onto it.
Meanwhile, high-level nuclear waste is a densely concentrated soup of spicy elements, all neatly packed together to provide a really bad day to anyone stumbling onto it.
If it's densely concentrated, it can be spread out. If it's concentrated enough, it's still a source of usable energy.
With an unfortunate chasm between the two: the "immediate coma, you don't wake up before you bleed to death everywhere inside and out" level of radiation is an absorbed dose of a mere few tens of joules of ionising radiation per kilogram of body mass.
The sun deposits over a thousand joules every second onto every square meter.
I put the words "ionising radiation" in specifically to avoid this kind of well, actually.
Almost none of the sunlight that gets through the air is ionising, and yet despite the biological defences aimed specifically at what remains, sunlight still gives us cancers in the exposed areas.
Almost none of the sunlight that gets through the air is ionising, and yet despite the biological defences aimed specifically at what remains, sunlight still gives us cancers in the exposed areas.
“ The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view”
I’m a little surprised that the emissions are so high per page view. I’ve never looked at co2 emission calculations for web pages before, but this seems a little high.
I’m a little surprised that the emissions are so high per page view. I’ve never looked at co2 emission calculations for web pages before, but this seems a little high.
napkin math on https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11
0.855 pounds/0.38kg of CO2 per kWh.
or 0.38g per Wh
so 3.6g would be ~9.4 Wh, let's assume 10Wh
Site takes ~700ms to render, . So it would need to consume the equivalent of over 5kW of compute for a second to get that amount of CO2 per view.
That assuming it would be 100% load, and not just "waiting on various network RTTs"
I think it's safe to assume it's pure bullshit, even including every device along the way
0.855 pounds/0.38kg of CO2 per kWh.
or 0.38g per Wh
so 3.6g would be ~9.4 Wh, let's assume 10Wh
Site takes ~700ms to render, . So it would need to consume the equivalent of over 5kW of compute for a second to get that amount of CO2 per view.
That assuming it would be 100% load, and not just "waiting on various network RTTs"
I think it's safe to assume it's pure bullshit, even including every device along the way
I don’t think that metric is just the power usage of the servers, it’s more likely that it also includes the other energy costs of the company and its employees, and how much effort went in to working on the article itself.
It's including the amount used by your machine while viewing the page, so if you're using a desktop with a 500W PSU (and you're using all 500W, which is probably an overestimate) and you spend a minute reading the article, that's 30kJ, which is roughly 1/2 a gram of methane[1], so roughly a gram of CO2 (more if it's coal, more if you take into account the fact that generators don't capture all the energy as electricity).
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Combustion
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Combustion
It's insane to estimate 500W average load for reading a webpage.
I do think the borehole plan (3km deep, rather than 400m deep) is better, although it is more speculative and this proposal has the overwhelming advantage that it’s being enacted.
Agreed; perfect is the enemy of the good in this arena. We just need someone to do something first, to make it easier for the second group, and the third, who can then offer some improvement to the process without having to overcome the same level of NIMBY challenges.
NIMBY may not be the right acronym. Not In My Very Remote, Geologically Stable Bunker System.
NIMBY may not be the right acronym. Not In My Very Remote, Geologically Stable Bunker System.
A friend coined a useful sibling acronym for when NIMBY doesn’t quite fit - NOME, Not On My Earth. I quite like how it highlights the claim being laid to the whole planet (one can of course view climate change as a justification for this claim).
The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc
The US once had a similar plan. In addition to Yucca Mountain, there was to be an east coast depository, somewhere in a hard-rock mountain. Vermont was suggested.
There are many hard rock mountains in the world where the geology hasn't done much in millions of years. This really isn't that hard to do.
There are many hard rock mountains in the world where the geology hasn't done much in millions of years. This really isn't that hard to do.
What happens when we've filled every nook and cranny of the earth with our poison?
Is this the gift we are leaving for posterity?
What about "do no harm" instead? Looking for advancements in authentically environmentally friendly technologies.
The dissonance of I'm driving a Tesla and I'm saving the world! Instead of filling the air with poison, we're filling the bedrock with it.
Is this the gift we are leaving for posterity?
What about "do no harm" instead? Looking for advancements in authentically environmentally friendly technologies.
The dissonance of I'm driving a Tesla and I'm saving the world! Instead of filling the air with poison, we're filling the bedrock with it.
The ancient Egyptians couldn’t bury their royalty for 10K years, but I applaud this engineering project and hope it goes well for Finland.
100k years. Reality is that in 50 years the fuel will start leaking and then the cost of securing the vicinity/repairs will be too high for anyone to bear. Govt will try to ignore scientific warnings while some politicians will criticize the govt for not doing anything while others will say it's a waste of money. After some pressure, the govt will start repair work but in a few years the cost of repairs will be 3-10x the original estimates and with no signs of leakage stopping. After another 5-10 years, the govt will decide to pull the plug and a blame game will begin.
So, to summarize, we are not the species that can really plan for 100k years and have the conviction of maintaining those plans.
So, to summarize, we are not the species that can really plan for 100k years and have the conviction of maintaining those plans.
We have some projects that have been continuously running for tens of thousands of years, like plant and animal breeding for example. Dogs for example originated tens of thousands of years ago.
Compare this to running nuclear power plants and operating radioactive waste storage facilities. That we haven't done for even a single century. Already now we know way better how to build nuclear power plants than 40 years ago, and our knowledge is only improving.
Personally I think we shouldn't bury any highly contaminant waste for the next 300 years, until we gain experience from the medium to low contaminant storage sites.
Compare this to running nuclear power plants and operating radioactive waste storage facilities. That we haven't done for even a single century. Already now we know way better how to build nuclear power plants than 40 years ago, and our knowledge is only improving.
Personally I think we shouldn't bury any highly contaminant waste for the next 300 years, until we gain experience from the medium to low contaminant storage sites.
> the fuel will start leaking
Do you believe the Simpsons view of radioactive waste being glowing, liquid goo?
Do you believe the Simpsons view of radioactive waste being glowing, liquid goo?
This is the start of every awesome horror film. Can't wait for the sequel!
Nuclear Waste is a lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc
Yes, I am wondering why other countries are not exploring this.
Personally I'm rooting for the future where a fleet of falcon 9's launch escape velocity stage 2's that head straight for the sun.
Underground is nice until you get radioactive groundwater. The time cost of 100k years of maintaining safety seems more than the financial cost of maintaining a F9 fleet and disposing of second stages.
Underground is nice until you get radioactive groundwater. The time cost of 100k years of maintaining safety seems more than the financial cost of maintaining a F9 fleet and disposing of second stages.
"...it's surprisingly hard to actually go to the Sun: It takes 55 times more energy to go to the Sun than it does to go to Mars.
Why is it so difficult? The answer lies in the same fact that keeps Earth from plunging into the Sun: Our planet is traveling very fast — about 67,000 miles per hour — almost entirely sideways relative to the Sun. The only way to get to the Sun is to cancel that sideways motion."
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/its-surprisingly-h...
Why is it so difficult? The answer lies in the same fact that keeps Earth from plunging into the Sun: Our planet is traveling very fast — about 67,000 miles per hour — almost entirely sideways relative to the Sun. The only way to get to the Sun is to cancel that sideways motion."
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/its-surprisingly-h...
I dunno about 55 times more...
Earth escape velocity is 11.2 km/s or 25,000 mph in your preferred units.
And you don't have to go backwards relative to earths orbit and cancel it out, you can maintain earths' solar orbit and degrade it.
You only need enough energy to reach L1 and since human time scales are irrelevant you can do that as efficiently as you like. After you reach slightly past L1, the sun will do the rest of the work.
At closest approach, Mars is 54 million km away. L1 is typically 1.5 million km away. Even ignoring the fact that human timescales are irrelevant, it is a significantly easier journey.
You are probably thinking of speeds required to orbitally maneuver near the sun, as we typically do with instruments...
A trip straight into the sun is substantially easier than mars.
Earth escape velocity is 11.2 km/s or 25,000 mph in your preferred units.
And you don't have to go backwards relative to earths orbit and cancel it out, you can maintain earths' solar orbit and degrade it.
You only need enough energy to reach L1 and since human time scales are irrelevant you can do that as efficiently as you like. After you reach slightly past L1, the sun will do the rest of the work.
At closest approach, Mars is 54 million km away. L1 is typically 1.5 million km away. Even ignoring the fact that human timescales are irrelevant, it is a significantly easier journey.
You are probably thinking of speeds required to orbitally maneuver near the sun, as we typically do with instruments...
A trip straight into the sun is substantially easier than mars.
use solar sail to break into the sun ?
How would this ever be acceptable, given that rockets have a failure rate that’s not zero?
Everyone suggests throwing it into the sun until they think about this fact. Stable geologic formations are far preferable, by orders of magnitude, for this reason.
The impossibility of getting an insurance policy to cover this downside probably makes it dead in the water unless a state starts doing it
If there were sea launch platforms its perfectly acceptable I would thin.
And governments don't need insurance.
And governments don't need insurance.
How is a sea launch going to help with a late first stage, or 2nd stage malfunction leading to RUD?
Nuclear waste falling into the sea isn't optimal but it also isn't a huge issue. Nuclear waste falling onto a city or exploding on the launch pad would be an issue.
The 2nd stage flight can be planned not to go over populated land.
But anyways, I don't think its a good solution but it would be possible.
The 2nd stage flight can be planned not to go over populated land.
But anyways, I don't think its a good solution but it would be possible.
Didn’t stop us from using fission for energy production. But weapons production might have played a relevant role here.
My engineering students explored this idea for a project. It turns out that sending something into the sun is really difficult. You have to overcome the velocity of planet earth orbiting the sun, which means you need a delta-V of 8.8 km/s to get the waste into a high orbit above the sun, followed by another burn to reduce its velocity to zero at that orbit.
That’s the same delta-V as going to Jupiter. You would need a lot of rockets.
That’s the same delta-V as going to Jupiter. You would need a lot of rockets.
Kurzgesagt: "Why Don't We Shoot Nuclear Waste Into Space?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us2Z-WC9rao
Bad idea, it boils down to 1) too much of it (yes really, in an almost definitive sense) 2) exploding rockets + nuclear fuel is bad
Bad idea, it boils down to 1) too much of it (yes really, in an almost definitive sense) 2) exploding rockets + nuclear fuel is bad
An Atlas V can get 400kg to the nearest star (well any star) by launching on a solar escape velocity -- see New Horizons. An expended F9 has a similar payload I think.
You'd have to construct a container that would survive a failure - so an explosion of the rocket (on the pad or during launch), or a failure in LEO where it would have reentry. That container would then need to be able to be recovered no matter where it landed on that failure -- so things like floating would be important, and some form of control over landing so it didn't crash onto someones house. Or in an inconvenient country. Obviously it has to stay in one piece.
Now sure, much of that shielding doesn't need to go beyond LEO, but it leaves very little room for the actual payload.
You'd have to construct a container that would survive a failure - so an explosion of the rocket (on the pad or during launch), or a failure in LEO where it would have reentry. That container would then need to be able to be recovered no matter where it landed on that failure -- so things like floating would be important, and some form of control over landing so it didn't crash onto someones house. Or in an inconvenient country. Obviously it has to stay in one piece.
Now sure, much of that shielding doesn't need to go beyond LEO, but it leaves very little room for the actual payload.
Falcon 9s are still too expensive, especially if you want to armor the spent fuel in case of launch failure.
Disposal of troublesome fission products and actinides, on the other hand, could be much easier. There are seven fission products with troublingly long half lives that would be difficult to retain in geological repositories. Extraction and space disposal of the elements of those isotopes could make sense.
In any case, space disposal can wait until launchers are mature and the technology has stopped improving. We have centuries before spent fuel stops being self-protecting against diversion due to its radioactivity, so stick the stuff in dry casks and wait.
Disposal of troublesome fission products and actinides, on the other hand, could be much easier. There are seven fission products with troublingly long half lives that would be difficult to retain in geological repositories. Extraction and space disposal of the elements of those isotopes could make sense.
In any case, space disposal can wait until launchers are mature and the technology has stopped improving. We have centuries before spent fuel stops being self-protecting against diversion due to its radioactivity, so stick the stuff in dry casks and wait.
Until one of them fails to launch or reach orbit
How many falcon 9's would that require?
Why throw goldmine into the sun? France already knows how to convert 95% of the 'waste' into new fuel, why just don't copy their approach and multiply by a factor of 10?
Also, this is not 'waste' there are interesting and unique materials there that might be relevant in the next 100+ years. Not to mention that there is still lots of energy that can be extracted.
These projects are all huge waste of money and the nuclear waste buggyman is mostly just the biggest anti-nuclear marketing project. And a sadly successful one.
In the US nuclear companies have spent money for waste disposal for 50 years, with lots of money hanging out in an account. But instead of doing things to actually process this waste, like advanced GenIV reactors they instead just stalemate politically over the idiotic Yucca Mountain and don't do anything. Billions blocked from making progress on technology.
Canada, the only western country with half way non insane nuclear policies is finally actually slowly moving. Together with a company called Moltex Energy they are working on reprocessing CANDU fuel to be used in the SSR Reactor.
If countries just worked together on this stuff instead of each country being tricked into digging a big unnecessary hole we could actually make clean energy, reduce the actual nuclear 'waste' to a incredibly tiny amount that can be easily managed.