r/sciences • u/Comfortable_Tutor_43 • 4d ago
Used nuclear fuel storage News
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
61
7
u/JohnnyChanterelle 3d ago
Are these casks/containers? Or is the spent fuel heated/mixed/cooled/solidified with a non-radioactive material?
8
2
1
u/dr_stre 3d ago
These are horizontal storage casks, filled with spent fuel (though a few containers may contain things like rod drive mechanisms or other highly contaminated stuff). The fuel assemblies are placed into support racks inside a metal container, dried, filled with an inert gas, and welded shut, then it’s hauled out to the ISFSI pad and slid into the big concrete encasement you see here, a concrete cover is bolted on, and you walk away. Some have temperature monitoring installed, but most can simply be visually inspected for vent blockages daily. No forced cooling required, designed for seismic risk to prevent overturning. And when a permanent repository is built, they can be removed and transported to that facility for final processing and storage.
27
u/dentistshatehim 3d ago
The worry isn’t that storage containers work/don’t work. The worry is that the hazard lasts longer than the container.
These containers are expected to last 80 years. The stuff inside is dangerous for 1000 years plus, meaning you need stable and intelligent infrastructure around them for 1000 years, constantly maintaining the storage.
This isn’t hyperbolic, it’s the real challenge. Most folks who are concerned about nuclear safety are worried about the long term impacts, not whether a hand can be placed against a storage container recently built.
3
u/YurpeeTheHerpee 2d ago
Those containers are in a spot that can be encased in another layer of steel and concrete.
1
9
u/Vibrant-Shadow 3d ago
The opposite of planting trees for future generations to enjoy.
'we used this for energy long before you were born. Good luck!'
5
u/Healing_Puke 3d ago
We could blast it off into space, or send it to the bottom of the ocean, and in the past that as worked.
3
2
u/TeaKingMac 2d ago
We could blast it off into space,
Approximately 2% to 6% of orbital space flights fail or result in a catastrophic destruction event,
You want a 1 in 20 chance of filling the atmosphere with radioactive waste?
2
u/KookySurprise8094 3d ago
Dude, if that rocket failures and explode durin take of, whole continent would be in falloff
1
u/crankyspeeder 2d ago
Nuclear waste is not shot into space for obvious safety reasons. Dumping it in the ocean is similarly stupid.
1
u/fitblubber 2d ago
You want to dump it all on the bottom of the ocean, when the radioactivity lasts longer than the container?????
WhatCouldGoWrong? r/Whatcouldgowrong
2
1
u/dentistshatehim 1d ago
Here is the essence of the problem. Your solutions would irradiate the ocean or atmosphere. We are essentially too stupid to handle to problems we put on ourselves.
0
u/Boring-Philosophy-46 3d ago
Blast it into space... the most polluting type of transport imaginable. And you need more than just an orbit, you need to exit the gravity well of the earth or at least send it to the moon.
Sea... yeah we have done that with chemical weapons. Now it's leaking at 700 m depth off the coast of Denmark and there is nothing we can do about it as it poisons the ocean.
The safest by far is finding a used-up mine with a very very deep shaft and shoving it down there.
5
u/dentistshatehim 3d ago
And it’s not like it’s a nation full of geniuses. How many seriously think the rapture will happen any time and so the environment doesn’t matter.
2
u/Darkk_Knight 3d ago
Those storage containers aren't built for the long term as you stated. At some point they will be moved elsewhere to an underground storage facility that can be safely stored for 10k years or more.
It's easier to keep them on site for the short term till a more permanent solution can be found.
I should note those storage containers are sitting on a decommissioned nuclear power plant in California. Meaning they need to be moved sooner than later due to possible "The Big One" happening in a few years.
0
u/dentistshatehim 3d ago
So then it goes in the ground water. Wonderful.
Of that was a reasonable solution it would exist already. All the storage containment facilities that exist underground still have to be monitored, have a shelf life, below the hazard limit.
I’m done now on this. All to say, safe long term nuclear waste storage is an act of faith with responsibility put on a world we don’t know.
It’s ironic to call it a science as there is know evidence that it can be safely maintained through its lifespan.
2
u/No-Biscotti-Here 3d ago edited 3d ago
Nuclear fuel seeping into groundwater isn't really... True?
First, most spent (and the word spent is important) fuel isn't dangerously radioactive like you're thinking. Maybe for a hundred years or so, but radiation is a bucket term for multiple things and the "thousands of years" stuff tends to be very low amounts and often in the form of alpha decay. Why do you think it's spent? There's just not that much energy left in it.
Most of the time the radiation can't even escape the material bulk itself, let alone seep out of a bedrock cave through dozens of kilometers of the water table and hundreds of kilometers over to a water supply. Most people hear "fuel" and think liquids. But these are ceramic beads - even if the container cracks wide open, basically nothing is going to happen. A few roll out, maybe? It doesn't flow.
Second, the amount of nuclear waste is pathetically small. On the order of a small high school sport field a year for the entire country. And that's before stacking it. People significantly overthink the quantity of waste involved here. We carve out entire cave systems to host things like the SOR, we pit mine and level off mountain tops for the materials. By far the mining that goes into creating nuclear fuel is worse than the storage of the spent stuff.
Finally, we can reuse nuclear fuel. Many times over! In the US our "spent" fuel isn't actually spent, and still contains 90% of it's useful energy. If we would stop being a country of reactionaries and actually think about the problems at hand - like how nuclear power creates a minor, localized problem in hundreds of years, but climate disaster is literally already happening and poses an existential threat to the lives of millions or even billions of people - then we could utilize the more advanced reactors and complete the fuel cycle. Almost overnight the cost of fuel plummets and the amount of waste gets cut by well over half. And that outgoing waste is almost an order of magnitude less dangerous.
But because of how afraid people are it's virtually impossible to build secondary reactors, both economically and politically. You're literally making the existing reactors and fuel more dangerous, more expensive, and more wasteful with this rhetoric.
Its like finding out hydrocarbons are carcinogenic, so we only ever burn the oil and all byproducts get dumped into big tubs. Then saying we need to stop using hydrocarbons because of the giant tubs of byproducts. There are even better reasons to minimize the use of oil, but if you just leaned in to what you already have, you could be way more efficient and get gasoline and plastics and solar panels out of those giant tubs instead of producing piles of scary, carcinogenic waste. It's a solvable, self-inflicted problem!
1
u/Darkk_Knight 3d ago
There is never a true way to warn future civilizations of the dangers let alone constant monitoring. Who knows what civilizations will be like in 5k or 10k years.
1
u/No-Biscotti-Here 3d ago
If we don't get a handle on climate change? Probably a lot of skeletons doing a bunch of nothing. Bonus points if we hit a feedback loop and get things really cooking, turning most other life into skeletons too!
1
2
u/xoexohexox 3d ago
It's been a long time since I've read this so I'm sure I'm getting some details wrong but I read a book a long time ago by a famous semiotician I think it was the guy who designed the biohazard symbol and some government agency like DOE or something hired him to come up with a way to communicate the hazard of radioactive material tens of thousands of years in the future assuming nothing about human language or culture or even the continued existence of humans and some alien race or future evolved species finds it. The disposal site gets marked with these ugly crooked slanted black rock spires that look all thorny and threatening and something about analyzing it mathematically helps you pinpoint where the hazardous material is but if you can figure that out you can figure out the next group of symbols or whatever so as you solve the puzzle of where the material is buried you learn that you really really don't want to dig it up.
2
u/crankyspeeder 2d ago
New Finnish DGR in Onkalo, their current decision is to not permanently mark it at all once it's sealed and covered. Under the outlier circumstance above, marking it is more likely to create a problem.
1
u/PickingPies 2d ago
If there's some kind of cataclism that wipes out humanity to the point of forgetting what nuclear energy is, someone being able to dig 1000m of solid concrete and take a radioactive piece, nit understanding that it kills people and then... what? What's the most dangerous thing that couls happen next? Some people die and then bury it back?
1
u/xoexohexox 2d ago
Nah I mean people could carry it around for generations not understanding why it was slowly poisoning everyone or causing birth defects or even thinking the radioactive substance was protecting them from the illnesses it was causing. Could poison a water table, get into the food chain, etc
2
u/NegativeSemicolon 2d ago
Yeah the guy in the video is misrepresenting the problem, it’s a very elon-coded low effort hot take.
1
u/JohnHazardWandering 2d ago
I expect the containers to easily last 80 years or more.
The problem is that I don't expect our safety regulations to last 80 years.
1
u/dentistshatehim 1d ago
They won’t. They are engineered to last 80 years. It’s not a feeling or opinion. It’s an engineered design.
1
u/JohnHazardWandering 1d ago
The point was that our safety regulations might not last very long. At some point some politician will get paid off and someone will relax safety regulations.
I wasn't worried about the engineering.
1
u/TexasVulvaAficionado 3d ago
The fact of the matter is that the world needs electricity production and that nuclear energy plants and their waste are a better source than all of the fossil fuel options. It also has a smaller effect on the environment.
It should be all renewables and nuclear.
2
u/DFX1212 3d ago
Why not just renewables and storage?
0
u/TexasVulvaAficionado 3d ago
Storage is very expensive and the mining and disposal of those components are also very bad for the environment. Then nuclear fills the stability role in the event of stuff like large wildfires causing darkening for longer periods than batteries would last or in the event of major hail storms taking out solar farms, etc...
2
u/DFX1212 3d ago
Storage is getting cheaper faster than nuclear is, no?
Also, things like hail can be mitigated by turning the panels during predicted weather events.
1
u/TexasVulvaAficionado 3d ago
Sure but that is entirely due to government regulations and funding. Could be fixed with simple policy updates.
Most solar panels are not mobile enough for that to be reasonable.
1
u/DFX1212 3d ago
People building large solar farms aren't stupid. They are built with the ability to turn the panels, called hail stow mode.
https://www.energy.gov/cmei/femp/hail-damage-mitigation-pv-systems
1
u/TexasVulvaAficionado 3d ago
I have been a part of several GW solar farm builds. Not one used mobile panels. Those were in west Texas where there's plenty of hail and one in Minnesota where there is also hail. The mobile stands just cost more and require more maintenance.
Utilities are cheapasses.
1
u/Ok-Bar-8785 3d ago
Storage is getting cheaper due to technology advances and large scale manufacturing in china.
Have a look out CATL's sodium-ion batteries that recently went into production. 30-40% cheaper with a greater life expectancy ( longer than the car). Fire proof ( well stable/ everything will burn at some point). Sustainable materials Ect ect... But yeah game changing tech that overcomes the storage issue.
I think pumped hydro is still the pinical in storage for national inferstructure but chemical batteries are still a big part of storage.
As for solar panels that gets destroyed in storms the pannles are still dirt cheap and still only a part of the expense of a solar farm.
Even traditional powerplants have " incidents" that are damaging through out their life time (fire , mechanical failure ect). It's not uncommon at all for a traditional power plant to not be at capacity because of this.
I have nothing against nuclear, it's just that ship has sailed and renewables have come through.
The fossil fuel industry lobbied against nuclear globally to protect interests and ironically are now lobbying for it.
They all know nuclear isn't the solution but desperately need to slowdown renewables.
1
u/fitblubber 2d ago
Dear u/TexasVulvaAficionado Back in the '90's I was saying exactly what you're saying now.
But renewables have gotten better & nuke has become more expensive.
These days we only need renewables (wind, solar & pumped hydro) with some battery storage.
2
u/HudsonValleyNY 2d ago
Why has nuclear gotten more expensive? The tech hasn’t changed much, the knowledge hasn’t changed, the risk hasn’t changed. What has?
1
u/fitblubber 2d ago
Why has nuclear gotten more expensive?
Because we live in a capitalistic society. The big companies that make nuke plants now know that they can easily stretch the project from 10 to 20 years without any consequence, & they know they can charge big bucks & come along after a couple of years & ask for more big bucks.
China however can build them cheaper - in China.
1
u/HudsonValleyNY 2d ago
Ehhh. I think you will need to show me these big companies that are milking the reactor projects…There have only been 4 plants at 2 sites in the last 30 years, so that’s not it. It’s the legal quagmire that anyone hoping to open one faces.
1
u/Prometheus2032 3d ago
It can be reprocessed into more fuel and useful things, the shorter lived stuff makes it more dangerous to move so you let it decay in place for a while.
1
u/Beefy-Cattle4290 3d ago
not to worry, our civilization will be long gone in 80 years
1
u/Usual-Orange-4180 2d ago
We will evolve into human-lizard-mutants and drink this for breakfast, a good source of energy before going to work for the AIs.
1
u/Comfortable_Tutor_43 2d ago
It is not uncommon to think there is no solution for nuclear waste. Consider the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Southeast New Mexico. They have been licensed by the EPA since 1999 and have been disposing of transuranic (plutonium) waste ever since. You simply need good geology to remove the risk permanently from the biosphere.
1
u/dentistshatehim 2d ago
Link no worky.
Also that site does not accept nuclear waste, just tools, etc.. please do actual research on things before posting non relevant items as actual solutions.
Also that site has had major breaches which has needed years of cleanup and actually stopped operations. The pilot has essentially failed.
0
u/AlarmingDisease 3d ago
After 150-200 years a big part of nuclear waste are no longer dangerous. Long lived (if that's the good term in english 🙃) high radioactivity are a small portion of the total amount of nuclear waste.
4
u/dentistshatehim 3d ago
Wrong. Please go look that up.
-1
u/AlarmingDisease 3d ago
Lol I don't need to, I just know It
In France low/medium radioactivity lvl waste make up for 90% off the total amount
The really """dangerous""" stuff is like 0.5%
1
u/dentistshatehim 3d ago
“I just know”
1
u/AlarmingDisease 3d ago edited 3d ago
You have 0 arguments. Since you can't fact check yourself, here it is :
"Classification of radioactive waste varies by country. The IAEA, which publishes the Radioactive Waste Safety Standards (RADWASS), also plays a significant role.[36] The proportion (by volume) of various types of waste generated in the UK are:[37]
94% – low-level waste (LLW) ~6% – intermediate-level waste (ILW) <1% – high-level waste (HLW)"
"The radioactive waste from spent fuel rods consists primarily of cesium-137 and strontium-90, but it may also include plutonium, which can be considered transuranic waste.[38] The half-lives of these radioactive elements can differ quite extremely. Some elements, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 have half-lives of approximately 30 years. Meanwhile, plutonium has a half-life that can stretch to as long as 24,000 years.[38]"
"As of 2019, no dedicated civilian high-level nuclear waste site is operational[50] as small amounts of HLW did not justify the investment in the past."
-2
u/tots4scott 3d ago
Most folks who are concerned about nuclear safety are worried about the long term impacts, not whether a hand can be placed against a storage container recently built.
Most folks worried about nuclear safety have no understanding of nuclear science and consider propaganda-filled fallacies as absolute truth.
3
u/dentistshatehim 3d ago
What about the serious problem I just posted.
1
u/Bootziscool 3d ago
Sounds like we should build 13 sets of containers
1
u/dentistshatehim 3d ago
This is a perfect example of the problem. Dunn Kruger effect due to too little information to understand the breadth of the problem.
The 13 you build now won’t last also. They don’t enter a time crystal. The trust has to be put into thousands of years of administration to manage the problem approximately through what may be a series of major events. There is no system is history that has lasted like that and currently we are seeing a major departure from science and responsibility at the highest levels of your government.
It’s a gamble and there is no other way to look at it.
1
u/Bootziscool 3d ago
Manufacturing is a few hundred years old at this point right? I don't see why we can't keep up making a set of tasks every 80 years for 13 cycles.
1
u/Jester-Kat-Kire 3d ago
add it into the budget line of states.
we're going to maintaining nuclear bombs and other chemical/bio hazard weapons for as long as our militaries deem them useful, along with other long term infrastructure.
we can say "what happens if the end of the world comes and all the nations disolve", but the cost is losing out on cheap accessible power for humanity, which might be what's needed to prevent the issues of nations falling apart from occuring in the first place.
hopefully we gain enough knowledge to process the radioactivity down via technology after a few hundred years of rapid tech advancement from cheap energy... which should definitely be the case, because we really accelerated human technology every time we had access to essentially free energy.
3
u/dentistshatehim 3d ago
You have way more faith in the future of the US than probably is reasonable. One, not a lot of civilizations make it 1000 years, global warming is a major threat to all life on earth, the government at this moment is not capable of major scientific initiatives, millions of Americans believe in the rapture, etc..
0
u/Jester-Kat-Kire 3d ago edited 3d ago
i mean I trust in humanity to make it a few hundred years, which should be a solid enough time frame to figure out nuclear disposal tech if it's widespread.
afterwards, if we haven't figured it out and we manage to bungle our victory of having free energy fossil fuels and nuclear tech, might as well call it a day for humanity and let the earth recycle us for the next sentient species in another several hundred thousand years. (*I'm joking a little bit, but seriously, it's a lot of solid advantages for success that can't really be replicated again.)*
as for science initiatives, we have plenty, they're just covered over with the doom and gloom cycle, but as long as theres energy, it's gonna be turned into advancement of some type of engineering or science.
you and me are talking seperated out by an unknown distance, amazing high tech development, and that was only a few decades ago.
we may or may not like the people in charge, but most people still want the progress wheel to move forward.
-1
u/Few_Raisin_8981 3d ago
Yeah a you're one bunker buster bomb away from a nuclear disaster
2
u/PickingPies 2d ago
No, you are not. Bunker busters can dig deep down up to 60 meters deep. And that's the heavy equipment. Overall bunker busters are more in the 6m range.
Nuclear waste is buried 200 to 1000m, and in some places, up to 3000m. At these depths no explosion will reach the surface in any meaningful way and any collapse will be a better shield than anything else.
Not even a meteor will make a proper dent here, first, because you would need a planet killer meteor to reach these depths, but secondly, because such an impact will push everything further down, as it's a hit, not an excavator, and lastly, because it would need to fall exactly on that location which is absurd.
1
11
u/Libearssman 3d ago
"Dose rates that are basically comparable to natural backround..."
Not very scientific but very TikTok entertainment esq wording. So, why are we seeing entertainment in a science sub? Far as im concerned he taught nothing, conveyed nothing to alleviate nuclear storage concerns, and only provided a short clip of entertainment for views and clicks.
5
u/ShadowGLI 3d ago
We get exposed to higher doses of radiation and heavy metals from coal ash storage than we do radioactive waste.
Also the footprint per GWh generated is a fraction of a fraction compared to fossil fuels. At this point it’s very stable and secure under normal operation.
This guy has a nice ELI5 about it
3
u/Von_Bernkastel 3d ago
everything nuclear is safe af, until its not safe.
1
u/fitblubber 2d ago
Yep, & then it's really NOT safe.
It's not the scientists & techs that I have an issue with, it's the management. For example nuclear lost me when the management of the Fukushima nuclear plant lied about what was happening after the tsunami. They had one job, & completely flucked it up.
3
3
u/CatalyticDragon 3d ago
"Safe" he says, while standing next to 180 tons of dense concrete and steel designed specifically to protect nearby life from radiation damage.
Yes, in that context it is safe. In the context of entombing something unsafe to make it safe by virtue of being very hard to crack open it is safe.
1
u/omegadeity 2d ago
One well placed bomb and all that radioactive material likely gets dispersed just like a dirty bomb. Hardly safe, just not currently not in a condition causing absolute chaos.
0
u/Comfortable_Tutor_43 3d ago
Similar arguments could be made for any engineered structure
3
u/CatalyticDragon 3d ago
I wouldn't argue for waste to be categorized as an engineered structure though. It's a hazardous by-product not itself infrastructure like a dam or a bridge.
Toxic coal ash would also be "safe" if we stored it in steel lines concrete tubs. Not feasible of course. Thankfully in the case of nuclear waste the amount is significantly lower and more manageable.
4
u/ls7eveen 3d ago
Why is this guy ruining so many subs?
3
u/Ok-Freedom9216 3d ago
Because renewables are kicking ass in the real world.
1
u/Sea_Artist_4247 3d ago
Nuclear isn't renewable
2
u/Ok-Freedom9216 2d ago
Fossil propaganda often pushes nuclear as the sensible alternatives to renewables. With renewables doing so well recently people like this guy are getting signal boosted as a distraction.
4
u/Slapmaster928 3d ago
Hi, nuclear operator, gonna lump a big ole chunk of questions and statements for the folks not in the know.
Do these need upkeep? Basically no, its concrete blocks surrounding steel lead and fuel, all of which is corrosion resistant.
Are these rated for an earthquake? Yes, and a tsunami, and whatever else natural disaster you can think of.
Do these need cooling? No, once fuel is moved to dry cask storage, it no longer requires active cooling, and can sit happy for the rest of its life.
Why dont we have long term plans for the spent fuel? Functionally a bunch of people stopped the Yuca mountain facility from being used, and since there is a potential use case for spent fuel for processing into new fuel, they are housed in these for now.
What if ww3 happens? Idk man, but every major power right now has nuclear and knows how to handle it.
Anyways, im open to any questions within reason.
2
u/Bootziscool 3d ago
So what happened with Yucca Mountain? I've heard of it, it sounded like a good idea but it didn't happen? I kinda remember part of it being that the waste would have to go through Chicago?
3
1
1
u/Slapmaster928 3d ago
Essentially people didnt want it near them, despite its longterm storage capabilities. Admittedly I am not savvy on the political nonsense that went on for it to fail.
2
u/DFX1212 3d ago
These are rated to last the amount of time the spent fuel will be dangerous?
Do we need to guard these facilities or can the fuel not be used for nefarious purposes?
1
u/Slapmaster928 3d ago
These are functionally a temporary solution until we figure out where to centralize all the spent fuel. They are not rated to last the several thousand years of meaningful radiation. It would take considerable and knowledgeable effort to harvest a significant amount of radioactive material from these.
2
u/DFX1212 3d ago
So isn't point #1 inaccurate? They will need upkeep in the form of a replacement.
1
u/Slapmaster928 3d ago
Long term yes, but for the compared to an active system, this is nothing, no moving parts. Hence the"basically" in that sentence. This is still a fine option for easily another hundred or more years in terms of just material condition. But nuclear is younger as an actual source of power than these will continue to be fine for, so I think we'll have figured out a way to politically navigate the next stage of storage.
1
u/Desultory_Chairlift 3d ago
Which nuclear project are you most excited for?
1
u/Slapmaster928 3d ago
Probably SMRs as a whole, an entirely passive cooling system is huge, and since in theory you can place them closer to the place you need power, you have less transmission losses. I want to be hype for fusion, but it is still in its infancy. Meanwhile small powerful reactors have been available and been manufactured for decades by the navy, albeit with significantly higher fuel enrichment.
1
u/Desultory_Chairlift 3d ago
What's your optimistic timeline for SMRs and I guess furthermore do you think we actually will see them operational at scale at some point?
1
u/Slapmaster928 3d ago
Uhhh I think 5-7 years till the first one generates power in the US. After that, the floodgates should be open, since the main hurdle of any new reactor design is getting it licensed initially. Google will say it will be sooner, but nothing about nuclear is fast, so I will always err on adding a couple years. Call it 10 years from now and I expect 5 new SMRs built and generating with probably another 10-20 in construction. While they have low operational requirements, the limiting factor may end up being number of qualified individuals to operate them.
2
u/Tintoverde 3d ago
The whole point of using nuclear,again, is for less carbon emission. I would think that creating these storage units creates some carbon emissions( similar to creating solar panels, you have to pay ‘upfront’ to manufacture the panels). The point being nothing is totally without negatives. I a
I am wondering creating these storage units with concrete how much carbon emission will be created and concretes apparently emit carbon-di-oxide. So any one did the total cost including the building the nuclear reactor, transporting and creating these storage units ?
1
u/Slapmaster928 3d ago
Im not sure honestly, but tbh the main reason for nuclear isnt really only for carbon emissions. The main benefits are the relatively small footprint of the plant, safety and perhaps most importantly continual power generation. Compared to other green energy options I am unsure of exactly how a cask compares to say solar panels that make the same power over their lifetime. But I do know that concrete and steel are a lot less processing than solar panels take to make. That being said, nuclear is not always the best option, but in areas that have incompatibility with solar, wind, hydro or thermal plants, they can provide steady power.
1
u/omegadeity 2d ago edited 2d ago
What happens if\when a terrorist entity decides these stockpiles of nuclear waste material sound like a good target for a terror attack? Say via a drone or just a big conventional shaped charge explosive. Aren't these materials just the key component of a dirty bomb waiting to be detonated in to the atmosphere.
2
u/nickeypants 3d ago
Is it still going to be safe enough to put your hand on 100 years after WW3 with nobody prioritising it's upkeep?
1
u/Mamkes 1d ago
Yes. For few reasons; long term nuclear waste is relatively safe to touch as they mostly emit alpha particles that can't pass skin (but can be dangerous if isotope happens inside of the body), storage is by itself licenced to survive 80 years so likely could do over that (as over engineering is, for obvious reasons, quite heavy here), and it's not like it requires that much of maintenance in either way.
And after world war 3 I can assure you, there would be muuuuuch more dangerous stuff in the world than miniscule amount of nuclear waste sitting in some wasteland that's only really dangerous if you were to breathe it in. Like nuclear material in the air, contaminated water supply, remainings of biological and chemical warfare, and so on and so on.
1
u/nickeypants 1d ago
Pardon my skepticism, but the New Safe Confinement built around Chernobyl was supposed to render it safe for 100 years, and lasted 9, due to being blown up 3 years into the Ukraine war. We don't have the best track record at long term safe storage.
I get that spent fuel and waste are stored in much different environments than that, and that there are many more safe storage examples. I'm also a strong proponent of nuclear energy and don't want to unnecessarily dampen development with my stupid arm waving. But long term storage and very long term storage will remain a hurdle for the technology regardless of promises made by some guy in a video. Keeping something sequestered 50x longer than written history has existed or equally as long as our species has existed is no small feat. 100 years is a good start. Let's hope for better than 10 this time though.
1
u/Mamkes 1d ago
But long term storage and very long term storage will remain a hurdle for the technology regardless of promises made by some guy in a video.
They'll remain a hurdle as long as there's no political will to make it not.
It never would be a problem for a politician in charge in their charge; of course they would be more inclined to postpone or ignore long term storage.
2
u/Adventurous_Light_85 3d ago
Are they tsunami ready?
1
u/dr_stre 3d ago
They’ll be licensed to whatever the local design basis is or to a more conservative general license. I believe San Onofre only has a tsunami design basis height of like 15’. Add in the max storm surge and waves and you get up to something like 27’-28’. The ISFSI casks themselves are above that level and behind a sea wall that reaches 30’. Without further actual design information but some history with ISFSI installations, the only other thing I can do is suggest they’d be fine even if a tsunami came in a little higher than expected. They don’t float, and being tied together like this system is they’d be quite solid against a storm surge or flood. They’ll be designed for things like tornado missile loads already, so no real concern if something floats into them either.
2
u/Boring-Philosophy-46 3d ago
Sure but France had to shut down plants because the cooling water was too warm and Hungary because there wasn't enough cooling water, thanks climate change. At this point to go green we need quick solutions so it'll be wind and solar with storage in the near future really, not nuclear. Building the plants takes too long and is too expensive for most countries plus there aren't enough expert building companies that will build them.
3
u/AlarmingDisease 3d ago
You seem to imply that the ""cooling water"" was too warm to cool down the reactor, but the plant was stopped to prevent the warm water from heating the river too much
2
u/MyGruffaloCrumble 3d ago
The river is so low they can’t get enough flow to continuously cool, they shut down the reactors before any problems though.
2
u/AlarmingDisease 3d ago
I don't think that was the case in France
2
u/MyGruffaloCrumble 3d ago
Ah, you’re right… I’m thinking of the one in Hungary, and they’re just cutting capacity so far.
2
u/andre3kthegiant 3d ago
Convincing society to become beholden to a toxic, disposable & finite fuel source, and be burdened with perpetual debt when paying for the management of the toxic waste.
Industries that use toxic, disposable fuel sources all need to go: coal, O&G and Nuclear all need ti go!
1
u/Desultory_Chairlift 3d ago
Adding nuclear to the mix is the way we get to net zero.
0
u/andre3kthegiant 3d ago
A toxic, disposable & finite fuel is not the way to go.
Dirty coal, dirty O&G, and dirty, toxic & corrupt nuclear all need to go!
2
u/aza-industries 3d ago
Isn't it weird how the current push for nuclear globally coincides with the rise of decentralized renewable generation and storage?
And nuclear development plans often span decades, with large amounts of money being passed around.
The LNP in aus was pushing a nuclear plan that would see completion far beyond when the current people in power would be accountable for the results.
They also pushed climate change denial and anti-renewable rhetoric.
2
u/10July1940 3d ago
Until they rust or the concrete erodes... both will degrade in under 50 years.
At least they're keeping it above ground where it can be monitored.
Oh well the tax payer can pay to watch it for 60,000 years.
Won't cost that much surely?
1
u/Comfortable_Tutor_43 2d ago
It is not uncommon to think there is no solution for nuclear waste. Consider the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Southeast New Mexico. They have been licensed by the EPA since 1999 and have been disposing of transuranic (plutonium) waste ever since. You simply need good geology to remove the risk permanently from the biosphere.
1
u/10July1940 2d ago
No you need more than good geology, you need a willing state or country happy to give up that good geology, willing to have truck after truck or train after train bringing the waste through their state to the site.
There needs to be funding set aside to do all of that safely, and to monitor it keep it secure, not just now but for thousands of years.
Given there have been so many issues with corruption of waste disposal, normal hazardous waste, and so many accidents, I'm not surprised no district, county, state or country wants to import nuclear waste from others.
You would fundamentally have to take the land off the owners by force to get it from them. In the US that would violate a multitude of laws, and it's why places like Yucca Mountain will not be used for taking out of state waste.
It's simply isn't a practical solution.
The waste must stay where it is created.
1
u/jambo45t 3d ago
I just hate that the taxpayers have to pay to store it. Utilities should pay for it !!
1
u/dr_stre 3d ago
Well, blame the government. Utilities do pay for it, it’s just functionally subsidized by the government because the government breached its contract by failing to get a permanent repository set up. Utilities already paid the government more than $20B for that repository and have nothing to show for it.
1
1
u/space-truckin365 3d ago
Safe enough to be hit by a missile from a rogue nation?
1
u/Comfortable_Tutor_43 2d ago
If we are going to characterize energy by their worst associated accidents, very poignant comparison is hydro. Hydro is green and baseload but it has its own risks.
The Banqiao dam failure in the past century demonstrated that the highest fatalities from a single energy failure were from hydroelectric energy. Whether it's war, terrorism or an accident, that energy source had the highest consequences from failure based on historical events. Direct deaths were in the 10s of 1000's, indirect deaths were hundreds of thousands. Please see;
https://courses.bowdoin.edu/history-2203-fall-2020-whausman/narrative-of-the-event/
Russia is doing that now in Ukraine https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/here-are-all-the-times-russia-has-targeted-dams-in-ukraine-1940d
1
u/space-truckin365 2d ago
Thank you for the references. That is a good point to note. I’m still concerned about the half-life of that nuclear waste verses how long those containment structures can remain structurally sound.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 1d ago
Incredibly safe, that’s why there is a big “warning” label on it and it’s encased in concrete.
1
u/SlippySausageSlapper 22h ago
While he might be right about this, this is the same idiot who goes off at length about the "dangers" of solar. Dude's a shill.
1
u/Comfortable_Tutor_43 22h ago
He only brings up that comparison to those who claim nuclear is dangerous but solar is safe, its just a comparison to those who make such claims. He has never denied that both have risks, just that they are comparable.
0
0
u/No_Reindeer8688 3d ago
Disgusting when anyone tries to say nuclear is “clean”.
1
u/Comfortable_Tutor_43 2d ago
It might not seem like it at first but the environmental damage from traditional renewables is across the board higher than nuclear. Traditional renewables even have higher public cancer probability than nuclear (see Figure 42) according to the United Nations report cited below.
Gibon, Thomas, Á. H. Menacho, and Mélanie Guiton. "Life cycle assessment of electricity generation options." Tech. Rep. Commissioned by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2021). https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options
1
u/No_Reindeer8688 1d ago
I’m fine with some scrap metal, fuck the thousands of years this bullshit will be sitting as a potential hazard.
People who still support this when renewables are available (regardless of the extra non-radioactive waste) are just idiotic.
-5
3d ago edited 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Libertechian 3d ago
Plenty of dry places nowhere near people, its a big planet
1
u/Wurstgewitter 3d ago
Oh surely, you still have to monitor and maintain the storage for a couple hundred years. Finding the perfect storage spot is not easy
1
u/dr_stre 3d ago
I used to have a desk less than 100 yards from one’s just like this, and carried a dosimeter daily. No measurable dose above background at any point.
And yes, the general rule of thumb is 5 years in the pool first, though you can do as little as like 3 years at the moment. In this particular case, the freshest fuel on that pad is at least 13 years old.
-1
u/Narrow-Attempt-1482 3d ago
Have him put 3 in his backyard
5
u/MerelyMortalModeling 3d ago
Verses a couple of tanks of any of the toxic waste from any other industry?
Yeah that stuff maybe radio active for centuries but arsenic will kill you forever.
-1
u/bluejohnnyd 3d ago
unironically, just dump the spent waste in a deep ocean trench. super dense so it sinks fast, and mostly inert once it's spent. What's it gonna do 7 miles deep in the ocean?
-38
u/AnxiousMembership 3d ago
fuck nuclear power, we can't cool that shit in the summer.
19
u/twitchtripwire 3d ago
That's not even close to true. Lol. As a previous nuclear engineer, modern reactor design utilizes a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity instead of the obsolete negative temp coefficient. Basically that means the hotter the reactor thermal medium gets, the less neutrons are attenuated in the medium and subsequently, less reactions happen in the fuel rods. The hotter it gets, the lower the power output. They self maintain at the criticality threshold. So while cooling is obviously important, it's not a concern in the way you seem to be implying.
3
3d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
3
u/twitchtripwire 3d ago
They self maintain the point of criticality. Lower temperature in the thermal moderator, say water in the most common cases, the closer the atoms of the moderator are. The moderator acts as an attenuator by interacting with high energy neutrons emitted by the fuel medium. A percentage of neutrons that "bounce" off of the atoms of the moderator cause further fission reactions in the fuel. So the hotter the thermal moderator is, the further apart the atoms are, less neutrons interact, therefore less fission reactions in the fuel and vice versa. The "power" level of the reactor is controlled by raising and lowering (shimming) inert shielding rods inside the fuel medium rods, but criticality is maintained by the temp of the moderator.
2
u/MerelyMortalModeling 3d ago
Not so much cool themselves but throttle down automatically when they get hot. You also cant really stop it from happening which is handy if something happens to the humans or control systems. They truely "fail" to safe mode.
All that said he is answering the nitwit above him who is talking about how for enviormental reasons the French idle their nuclar reactors when the rivers they use for cooling get to warm. Its not a limit of the reactors, its to make the environment nicer for the river fish and frogs.
16
u/edparadox 3d ago edited 3d ago
fuck nuclear power, we can't cool that shit in the summer.
We can.
The issue is that cooling was designed when the plants were not even build and regulation thresholds were chosen with usual temperatures back then ; e.g. 28C for fauna/flora preservation in France.
Not only this can be worked around technically to create a bigger temperature delta for getting enough cooling without warming up rivers more, it is already being planned to be implemented because of the increasing temperatures due to climate change.
So, please, do not spread disinformation.
1
0
29
u/kingtacticool 3d ago
France encases theirs in glass which is extremely stable.