16 ms·

> Nuclear waste would be the other large remaining issue, but again - society chose to create that problem and not solve it. It's not technical in nature. Care

> Nuclear waste would be the other large remaining issue, but again - society chose to create that problem and not solve it. It's not technical in nature. Care to explain, I've never seen a genuine solution that goes beyond hand waving, bad faith arguing, and aggressiveness.

zdragnar 3mo ago
For one thing, nuclear power plants produce much less waste than most people imagine. Waste can also be reprocessed into new fuel, further reducing it. In the US, we have a suitable site that has been authorized and cancelled for 20 some years now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... The reasons it keeps being cancelled, and the waste is stored on-site at nuclear plants instead, is purely political and nothing to do with the technological or safety aspects, according to the GAO.
- awesome_dude 3mo ago
  I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible and asking to increase the number of plants surely increases the waste. Reprocessing, isn't infinite. There's going to be waste to deal with. You've not presented any technical solutions, instead you made it political by claiming that's the only problem. Do you have an actual understanding of the problems or are you just pushing nuclear because it's aligning with you politically Edit: it's clear from the down votes i am getting that this is political, not technical. If you're down voting with no technical understanding you're political.
  - fc417fc802 3mo ago
    I think it is you who hasn't bothered to do basic research before forming an opinion. I suggest at least skimming the wikipedia page on radioactive waste. [0] There's also a page documenting the various national management plans. [1] > I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible ... It just needs to be little enough that the cost of constructing long term storage space isn't cost prohibitive. The amount produced is something like 25 to 30 tons per GW per year before reprocessing; after reprocessing it's something like ~5% of that. Unfortunately I couldn't readily find numbers for the dilution rate when vitrifying the waste for geological disposal. Regardless, that amount is almost nothing when considered in terms of volume. A full size shipping container is somewhere between 75 and 108 cubic meters depending on which standard you prefer. To give a rough idea that equates to ~180 (US) tons of borosilicate glass (one of the materials commonly used to vitrify high level waste) on the low end (assuming I got the math right). There are also alternative disposal methods to consider such as breeder reactors (rather expensive at present) or horizontal drillholes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management#National_management_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...
    - awesome_dude 3mo ago
      You're repeating the problem - You're saying that there is less waste to deal with which magically means it's safe. You do understand that don't you?
      - fc417fc802 3mo ago
        You appear to be reiterating an irrational position. I provided links to overviews of the topic; I strongly suggest at least skimming them. The quantity of unavoidable high level waste would appear to be sufficiently small that geological disposal is a cost effective solution. The high level waste in question is not magically safe. Rather the various reprocessing and disposal methods have been extensively engineered and deliberated. At this point there is no cause to believe deep geological disposal in crystalline bedrock to be unsafe.
        awesome_dude 3mo ago
        I said from the start that the argument you presented was fallacious, and all you did was present it, now, because you have no other argument, you're working on aggressive attacks. You're on your own now. Bye.
        fc417fc802 3mo ago
        Do please explain how it's fallacious? I've made the claims that one, there is a sufficiently low volume of waste produced per unit of generation that geologic disposal is affordable and scalable and that two, said geological disposal is in fact safe. Where's the fallacy? It appears to me that you are attached to a position that you aren't capable of defending.
        roenxi 3mo ago
        Also worth seeing that less has to be fundamentally safe at some point, otherwise background radiation would be a threat. If examined on its own without considering the surrounding inert volume, one decaying particle is presumably quite radioactive. So since less->magically safer is true some point, the argument can't be made fallacious by asserting it is true. The worst the argument can be is unpersuasive (although it is persuasive - from a practical perspective there is a tiny volume of toxic waste, it isn't a reason to block progress).
  - zdragnar 3mo ago
    I actually did produce a technical solution: stick it deep in yucca mountain and forget about it. It's safe, and there's more than enough room for the little waste that can't be turned back into fuel.
    - awesome_dude 3mo ago
      It's not. The time frame we are talking about invalidates the "safety" because the earth's crust moves and warps, which allows water to access that sort of storage
      - protocolture 3mo ago
        Why dont you suggest what "safe" looks like, and we can discuss your understanding of safety. Its clear to me that the issue is your standards and not actual waste disposal.
        awesome_dude 3mo ago
        My understanding is that this material remains toxic to life for thousands, to tens of thousands of years. Safe means that it's stored such that there's no harm to the environment for that lifetime. In all "bury it" scenarios, the place where the waste is buried will be subject to change resulting in water, air, able to interact with that waste when normal tectonic and erosion processes do their thing.
        anonymous_user9 3mo ago
        Tectonic and erosion processes take place over millions of years, so they aren't an issue for waste that's only dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
        protocolture 3mo ago
        I keep coming back to this to reply but I cant really figure out how to tackle it. Theres so much of a particular view of the world in each statement. How do you think spent uranium interacts with the environment? There's an estimated 4.5 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater. Naturally occurring. I honestly think we missed a trick when we outlawed dumping in the ocean, there's basically no way for human generated nuclear waste to even move the needle on ocean sources. Lets say I take you completely at face value. Every notion of yours comes to pass. We cask it, and leave it in an underground vault. 9999 years later, a cask fails. Whats the issue? Are you using that vault as a busy thoroughfare? Its still in a big hole in the ground. Maybe theres an earthquake? And the vault shears a little. What is the radiation now doing in your mind that makes it dangerous? TBH we shouldnt leave signs warning people to stay away, we should leave a concrete recipe behind on all the signage. There's life thriving in Pripyat just past the big concrete dome. There's a war going on there.
- amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
  Most waste isn't spent fuel, it's contaminated other things. You aren't reprocessing any of that.
  - j16sdiz 3mo ago
    I thought contaminated clothing are low level waste. They are quite safe after 30-ish years, but rated to store for 100 years
- qlte 3mo ago
  Political constraints are extremely important in the real world if the goal is to actually get things done. Yucca Mountain isn't actually a viable solution because, despite the technical arguments in favor, it lacks the support to implement. Similar problem if local communities fight new nuclear plants tooth and nail, dragging out the timelines/increasing costs. Having the "correct" argument based on objective facts doesn't really matter if people/elected officials who have veto or dilatory powers aren't buying it.
  - fc417fc802 3mo ago
    Thankfully a handful of countries have managed to approve and begun building out permanent geologic disposal sites at this point so as long as at least one of them is willing to sell disposal services the problem is now globally solved. At least provided a given country has the political will to pay to export their waste but that seems like a much lower barrier to overcome.
- leonidasrup 3mo ago
  The US has operating Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, a deep geological repository licensed to store transuranic radioactive waste for 10,000 years. But it's only used to store military nuclear waste, not civilian nuclear waste.
NuclearPM 3mo ago
Nuclear waste isn’t an issue.

zdragnar 3mo ago

For one thing, nuclear power plants produce much less waste than most people imagine. Waste can also be reprocessed into new fuel, further reducing it. In the US, we have a suitable site that has been authorized and cancelled for 20 some years now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... The reasons it keeps being cancelled, and the waste is stored on-site at nuclear plants instead, is purely political and nothing to do with the technological or safety aspects, according to the GAO.

awesome_dude 3mo ago
I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible and asking to increase the number of plants surely increases the waste. Reprocessing, isn't infinite. There's going to be waste to deal with. You've not presented any technical solutions, instead you made it political by claiming that's the only problem. Do you have an actual understanding of the problems or are you just pushing nuclear because it's aligning with you politically Edit: it's clear from the down votes i am getting that this is political, not technical. If you're down voting with no technical understanding you're political.
- fc417fc802 3mo ago
  I think it is you who hasn't bothered to do basic research before forming an opinion. I suggest at least skimming the wikipedia page on radioactive waste. [0] There's also a page documenting the various national management plans. [1] > I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible ... It just needs to be little enough that the cost of constructing long term storage space isn't cost prohibitive. The amount produced is something like 25 to 30 tons per GW per year before reprocessing; after reprocessing it's something like ~5% of that. Unfortunately I couldn't readily find numbers for the dilution rate when vitrifying the waste for geological disposal. Regardless, that amount is almost nothing when considered in terms of volume. A full size shipping container is somewhere between 75 and 108 cubic meters depending on which standard you prefer. To give a rough idea that equates to ~180 (US) tons of borosilicate glass (one of the materials commonly used to vitrify high level waste) on the low end (assuming I got the math right). There are also alternative disposal methods to consider such as breeder reactors (rather expensive at present) or horizontal drillholes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management#National_management_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...
  - awesome_dude 3mo ago
    You're repeating the problem - You're saying that there is less waste to deal with which magically means it's safe. You do understand that don't you?
    - fc417fc802 3mo ago
      You appear to be reiterating an irrational position. I provided links to overviews of the topic; I strongly suggest at least skimming them. The quantity of unavoidable high level waste would appear to be sufficiently small that geological disposal is a cost effective solution. The high level waste in question is not magically safe. Rather the various reprocessing and disposal methods have been extensively engineered and deliberated. At this point there is no cause to believe deep geological disposal in crystalline bedrock to be unsafe.
      - awesome_dude 3mo ago
        I said from the start that the argument you presented was fallacious, and all you did was present it, now, because you have no other argument, you're working on aggressive attacks. You're on your own now. Bye.
        fc417fc802 3mo ago
        Do please explain how it's fallacious? I've made the claims that one, there is a sufficiently low volume of waste produced per unit of generation that geologic disposal is affordable and scalable and that two, said geological disposal is in fact safe. Where's the fallacy? It appears to me that you are attached to a position that you aren't capable of defending.
        roenxi 3mo ago
        Also worth seeing that less has to be fundamentally safe at some point, otherwise background radiation would be a threat. If examined on its own without considering the surrounding inert volume, one decaying particle is presumably quite radioactive. So since less->magically safer is true some point, the argument can't be made fallacious by asserting it is true. The worst the argument can be is unpersuasive (although it is persuasive - from a practical perspective there is a tiny volume of toxic waste, it isn't a reason to block progress).
- zdragnar 3mo ago
  I actually did produce a technical solution: stick it deep in yucca mountain and forget about it. It's safe, and there's more than enough room for the little waste that can't be turned back into fuel.
  - awesome_dude 3mo ago
    It's not. The time frame we are talking about invalidates the "safety" because the earth's crust moves and warps, which allows water to access that sort of storage
    - protocolture 3mo ago
      Why dont you suggest what "safe" looks like, and we can discuss your understanding of safety. Its clear to me that the issue is your standards and not actual waste disposal.
      - awesome_dude 3mo ago
        My understanding is that this material remains toxic to life for thousands, to tens of thousands of years. Safe means that it's stored such that there's no harm to the environment for that lifetime. In all "bury it" scenarios, the place where the waste is buried will be subject to change resulting in water, air, able to interact with that waste when normal tectonic and erosion processes do their thing.
        anonymous_user9 3mo ago
        Tectonic and erosion processes take place over millions of years, so they aren't an issue for waste that's only dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
        protocolture 3mo ago
        I keep coming back to this to reply but I cant really figure out how to tackle it. Theres so much of a particular view of the world in each statement. How do you think spent uranium interacts with the environment? There's an estimated 4.5 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater. Naturally occurring. I honestly think we missed a trick when we outlawed dumping in the ocean, there's basically no way for human generated nuclear waste to even move the needle on ocean sources. Lets say I take you completely at face value. Every notion of yours comes to pass. We cask it, and leave it in an underground vault. 9999 years later, a cask fails. Whats the issue? Are you using that vault as a busy thoroughfare? Its still in a big hole in the ground. Maybe theres an earthquake? And the vault shears a little. What is the radiation now doing in your mind that makes it dangerous? TBH we shouldnt leave signs warning people to stay away, we should leave a concrete recipe behind on all the signage. There's life thriving in Pripyat just past the big concrete dome. There's a war going on there.
amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
Most waste isn't spent fuel, it's contaminated other things. You aren't reprocessing any of that.
- j16sdiz 3mo ago
  I thought contaminated clothing are low level waste. They are quite safe after 30-ish years, but rated to store for 100 years
qlte 3mo ago
Political constraints are extremely important in the real world if the goal is to actually get things done. Yucca Mountain isn't actually a viable solution because, despite the technical arguments in favor, it lacks the support to implement. Similar problem if local communities fight new nuclear plants tooth and nail, dragging out the timelines/increasing costs. Having the "correct" argument based on objective facts doesn't really matter if people/elected officials who have veto or dilatory powers aren't buying it.
- fc417fc802 3mo ago
  Thankfully a handful of countries have managed to approve and begun building out permanent geologic disposal sites at this point so as long as at least one of them is willing to sell disposal services the problem is now globally solved. At least provided a given country has the political will to pay to export their waste but that seems like a much lower barrier to overcome.
leonidasrup 3mo ago
The US has operating Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, a deep geological repository licensed to store transuranic radioactive waste for 10,000 years. But it's only used to store military nuclear waste, not civilian nuclear waste.

NuclearPM 3mo ago

Nuclear waste isn’t an issue.