[loopback_device]

And the cape is made out of run dry riverbeds of cooling water. Not to mention that waste handling is still not a solved problem, but sure, let's put all our eggs into a single danger-basket of extinction (again) - what could possibly go wrong?

[mnw21cam]

Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear.

Regarding the waste, I'd much rather have the very small amount of nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power station kept somewhere nice and safe than the humongous amount of waste that coal and gas produce and spew out into our atmosphere. A coal power station releases more radioactive waste than a nuclear one. Even the renewables produce quite an impressive waste stream compared to nuclear

[kennend3]

This!

People like the person you responded to seem to think nuclear power plants are producing tons of high level waste per day.

Fact is most of the used fuel for the operating reactors are safely stored ON SITE because there is actually very little "radioactive waste".

If not for NIMBY disposing the waste would be fairly straightforward. were i live (canada) we have the "canadian shield" which contains rocks as old as 4 billion years.

If we stored super-scary-plutonium there it would remain sealed long enough that all the plutonium would safely decay away.

But the NIMBY state - "it isn't stable, it isn't safe, how do you now it will remain stable". Where exactly is all that rock going? why would it suddenly do this when it has remained in place for a few billion years so far?

[loopback_device]

People like me don't think they produce massive amounts of waste. I am well aware how "little" waste material they produce. The issue is not the volume, but that you only need very little of it to completely deny a large area to living organisms like us for a very long time. Also, the on site storage facilities for spent fuel are only temporary holding pools until it goes off to a treatment facility, to then either be reprocessed for re-use or to be disposed of. Safety concerns with this stuff are not necessarily about the short term storage. Not that there aren't any risks associated with that – let's say, for example, a nuclear power plant being shot at with heavy artillery by a certain military? That'll certainly do.

There's this mind-boggling hubris that these materials can be kept safe and controlled under all circumstances, for all of their decay time. Sure, burying it under that mountain or in a salt mine is going to help, until you find that the containers have corroded, and you've now got it in your ground- and drinking-water. [1]

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-019-0579-x

EDIT: Missing link

[kennend3]

Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools?

How much energy was delivered to the cask when a rocket powered train hit it at 84 mph? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4

How much radioactive material was released?

Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? if you go back in time the amount of U235 increases. Go back far enough and you no longer need to "enrich" it to support a nuclear reactor.

Care to guess how far the radioactive byproducts from this reactor travelled?

Not sure about Ukraines designs, but here (Canada) our reactors can withstand the impact of a fully loaded jet slamming into them. Nothing is invincible, and i suppose if you it it enough you can open it up, but by then it would have been shutdown and had the fuel removed (a unique design of CANDU allows them to be refuled while operating, so you can remove the fuel this way too).

you can come up with all sorts of event and wonder if a reactor can survive them, perhaps a meteor strikes it? Perhaps military? Perhaps like Pickering it runs for its entire lifetime and very little happens?

There are also facts to consider, coal releases more radiation vs nuclear power plants. if you are concerned about radioactivity you should focus on that?

[loopback_device]

> Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools?

Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools. Not sure how the minuscule amount of time the rods spend in there during transport is relevant here?

> Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running?

Yes, also not sure how that's relevant here? It's not like we built them... Background radiation is a thing, and life has adapted to it. A nuclear accident that ends up high enough on the International Nuclear Event Scale however is something you're not going to adapt to.

> Not sure about Ukraines designs, [...]

I think we've all seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima that you don't need to breach the containment to have things go boom. The unshielded auxiliary buildings and systems are the cause of worry. You're always just one unexpected failure chain away from disaster – unless the reactors are fully shut down and without need for external cooling, there's a chance it's not going to go well.

> There are also facts to consider, coal releases more radiation vs nuclear power plants.

Sure, that doesn't somehow automatically make other things safe® though? Also, while I certainly do not like coal power plants either, that's not quite the topic.

[kennend3]

> Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools.

It is just a set of changing goalposts isnt it? what is wrong with storage pools? they are safe and secure inside the power plant. Most plants are protected by armed guards. The plant near me has signs on the fence warning that "deadly force is authorized to protect the plant". Is your new issue that the "pools" are dangerous because ...?

> Yes, also not sure how that's relevant here? It's not like we built them... Background radiation is a thing, and life has adapted to it. A nuclear accident that ends up high enough on the International Nuclear Event Scale however is something you're not going to adapt to.

This makes little sense. First, who is taking about "background radiation"? Next, it is extremely relevant. your position is the long-term storage of the radioactive waste is a problem.

So, when earth created its own U235 + Moderator nuclear fission reactor, where is the waste from this? All over the earth? within 10CM of where it was created?

Earths "natural reactor" ran on the same principle as modern reactors.. Enrich U235 + water (US design) or unenriched U235 + "heavy water" (Canadian design).

Enrichment is needed because there is too little U235 left these days. As i said, if you go back in time the amount of U235 increases and it reached the point enrichment is no longer needed.

Both result in the fission of U235 and create radioactive byproducts which need to be stored.

It seems "mother nature" was capable of storing "radioactive waste" all on its own, yet we cant do this because ...?

"fukushima" and "Chernobyl".. Everyone loves these as the textbook case study in reactor design? what about the millions of hours of run time from all the other reactors? Darlington Nuclear won an award for 1,000 days without interruption. Solar going to run 24x7 for 1,000 days? Wind?

if we shutdown all reactors, what will you us to power whatever device you are currently using? Wind? Solar? you cant seriously propose these sources can supply enough power can you?

[hammyhavoc]

American-style anxiety in action: the "miniscule" amount of time JFK was in a car was enough time for something to happen, likewise for AA Flight 11 on 9/11.

Not an American, but the missus and her family are, and what consistently shocks me is the anxiety over terrorism. The goal of terrorism is fear, and my god, it seems to work.

[EricE]

again, the reason that stuff is so dangerous is because it's packed with delicious and useful energy (that can be utilized by plenty of reactor designs that were fleshed out in the 50's!) That we are still talking about burying useful fuel as if we are being rational is the real issue here!

[loopback_device]

In case the theoretical point of containment corrosion doesn't quite deliver, consider the practical one [1] from Brunsbüttel in Germany. The solution? If one rusts through, just put it into a bigger one!

I'm sure that's going to work just fine until the end of time.

[1]: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/rost-nagt-an-atommuell-f...

[Spooky23]

Indian Point power station in New York has >1500 tons of waste in holding pools, which need to be maintained for hundreds of years, or until another storage method is devised, or until a permanent facility is built.

[imtringued]

>Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear.

The vast majority of nuclear power plants are absolutely huge compared to their fossil fuel counterparts. Their thermal cooling needs exceed the ability of local rivers because they are so big. This has resulted in some countries building their nuclear power plants near the ocean even though the coast is tsunami prone.

The standard coal plant generates 500 MW or around 6 NuScale reactors. The average nuclear power plant generates 1GW and that is equivalent to 12 NuScale reactors.

[melling]

After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong.

Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait.

Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change.

https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate-adapta...

[loopback_device]

Where does this idea that the anti-nuclear movement advocated for fossil fuels come from?

That's never been the case, as anyone who lived at the time of the early protests can tell you (or anyone who's parents did). Even Wikipedia has a whole section on that topic [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Nuclear-...

[jjk166]

The members of the anti-nuclear movement didn't intend to advocate for fossil fuels, but in practice that's exactly what they did. When the choice is between a nuclear plant and a coal plant, being anti nuclear is being pro coal. That's why many organizations opposing nuclear power received substantial donations from the fossil fuel industry - because they wanted their opponents to fight amongst themselves.

[throwawayffffas]

I don't think anyone thinks the activists are pro fossil fuels, but by stopping the development of nuclear projects they essentially served the fossil fuels industry interests. It's not an accident for example that Friends of the Earth was founded by money from an oil magnate. From the groups wikipedia page:

> stopped more than 150 destructive dams and water projects worldwide

While I empathize with the desire to preserve waterways, you can be sure that for each one of these dams that didn't get built a coal or gas plant didn't shutdown.

[ttfkam]

Everyone wants the lights and heat to stay on. If that isn't coming from nuclear, it has to come from somewhere, and for the first several decades, it couldn't come from solar and wind.

Coal was the inevitable base load power source given a lack of alternatives. If you focus on limiting nuclear with far greater zeal than coal, this is the result.

See: perfect is the enemy of good.

[EricE]

It still can't come from solar or wind. Even if we waved a magic wand and had infinite and free energy storage, scaling solar and wind for sustained base load support is still a pipe dream. We are struggling to recycle the minuscule waste stream for solar and wind right now. Heck for wind turbine blades we aren't even really doing anything meaningful - meanwhile they are stacking up.

Without nuclear we are not getting off of fossil fuels - period.

[ncmncm]

After 60 years perhaps the nuke-boosters can admit that nukes were never a good idea. They have always depended on massive public subsidy to appear competitive.

Now nukes are radically more expensive than alternatives even neglecting the massive subsidies.

Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.

[kennend3]

Time will tell... My province (Ontario) use to have one of the largest coal plants in the world (Nanticoke 3964 MW).

It was finally shutdown and now most of our power is "green" 59% from nuclear, 24% from hydroelectricity, 8% from wind, and 1% from solar.

Curious.. if "solar" and "wind" are so great why is Nuclear producing 59% of our energy? Perhaps because our climate isnt great for solar (dark winters)?

No matter the energy source, NIMBY will be there to protest.

when we built wind farms the protesters claimed it "made them sick"?? "Wind turbines making us sick: Protesters"

When we built solar, they protested that too: "Solar project demonstration in Tay Township"

Everyone LOVES the convenience of power, as long as the generation is not near them?

I live within 10KM of a rather large (3,100 MW) nuclear plant, i have no issues with it as it is cleaner vs most sources and delivers reliable power.

[ncmncm]

It costs more to operate nukes than renewables, even neglecting the staggering capital expenditure nukes cost. As a result, existing nukes will be mothballed as they become unable to sell power at a price that enables them to continue operating. Financing to build new ones is already prohibitive, except under government coercion.

[kennend3]

Odd.. because this is NOT what took place here (Ontario) where our government pushed us to near-bankruptcy debt by signing long-term contracts to build "green energy". it cost them an election, and many years later the party responsible for those decisions (among others) have yet to gain "party status".

Can you show us any "renewables" that were not government subsidized as well?

https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/2021-commercial-....

Seems "renweables" love the government subsidy bandagon as well?

Speaking of "government coercion" - this is exactly how Ontario got green energy in the first place.

First they mandated it, then they forced people to accept the wind farms despite their numerous protests.

take a read: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-wind-power-opponents-prot...

As i posted above, no matter the power source, you can be 100% confident NIMBY will be there to protest it.

In Ontario, the cost to generate power is :

- Hydroelectric (5cents)

- Wind (8.6 cents)

- Solar (15.7 cents)

- Nuclear (16.5 cents).

Added bonus, nuclear produces power 24x7, when it is raining or cloudy, when we have a heat wave and zero winds.. in the cold dark winter nights...

If renewables are such a good deal, why is there so little of it?

As i posted, Ontario gets 59% of its power from nuclear, 5% from wind and 1% from solar...

[EricE]

>It costs more to operate nukes than renewables

Citation needed.

Also most of the prohibitive costs surrounding nuclear are artificial - bureaucratic overhead vs. real costs governed by implementing the technology.

[ncmncm]

Really, that is the hill you will die on? Nukes depend on running steam through monster turbines, which need frequent expensive maintenance. Fuel must be replaced periodically. You need highly-skilled operators and security guards at all times. You need periodic deep inspection and refurbishment of operation and safety systems.

Renewables incur no such expenses.

I didn't even count disaster insurance, which is always provided free by taxpayers because no nuke could pay it and compete.

[jjk166]

It's almost like a concerted effort over the past several decades to put up so many obstacles to nuclear construction that the cost of clearing such political hurdles can't be justified has worked.

The fact that nuclear costs only skyrocketed in the US while they stayed relatively constant or decreased in other countries suggests quite strongly the issue is political, not technical. In countries like South Korea, the LCOE of nuclear is less than half that of solar.

[bogantech]

Yeah thank god we went with the cheaper option that instead will make large parts of the planet uninhabitable /s

[monkaiju]

?

[exabrial]

For FUCKS SAKE: Nuclear waste is a non issue.

You dedicate once, EXACTLY ONE, swimming pool to store spent fuel for an entire country.

The lie of nuclear waste has been repeated so many time by uneducated fossil fuel lovers we’ve missed hundreds of opportunities to provide clean sustainable power for generations.

There are some logistic and construction problems that need optimization, but waste is the least of them.

[loopback_device]

Not sure how regarding nuclear fission as reasonably dangerous automatically makes you a "fossil fuel lover", but okay. It's not like there aren't any other options out there. They just haven't received much investment in the past decades (except for a few places, i.e. geothermal in Iceland).

I'd like to be educated about that radioactive waste lie – I've not seen it work (meaning no-maintenance, safe, long-term or permanent storage) yet anywhere. And yet, supposedly a solved problem. Waste processing & storage has a long history of irradiating, or even leaking into the environment – one that immediately comes to mind is Sellafield [1], which is a repeat offender. Gorleben [2], another more recent example of how the "solved problem" turned out to be mainly money in other people's pockets. In the US, they recently had an issue with waste stored on the surface [3]. The list is long, and growing – yet not a single storage facility exists that is deemed permanently safe? I also don't know of any such facility currently under construction.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome [3]: https://nypost.com/2021/04/03/leak-of-radioactive-wastewater...

[GekkePrutser]

Finally someone with a realistic view on the waste problem.

To me it just seems we're exchanging the results of not tackling one long-term problem (climate change) with another even longer term problem. Externalizing to the future. We don't seem to have any other ideas.

[ceph_]

You are vastly over simplifying this problem. If it was that simple why did yucca mountain fail? It's not. Realistically every nuclear facility is gonna be a waste storage site for thousands of years. That's not being factored into the cost.

Having one nuclear waste dump site per country means transporting nuclear waste to that site by truck or train. Good luck when there's an accident.

[kennend3]

Good thing the people designing the transport casks never thought of that.. you should join their team.. Oh wait.. they did in 1972, and tested the designs?

How much energy was delivered to the cask when a rocket powered train hit it at 84 mph? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4

How much radioactive material was released?

What sort of accident do you propose would deliver more energy vs a train strike at 84mph?

[EricE]

Yucca mountain failed due to politics.

Whats even more nuts is we should be burning what we erroneously call "waste", not burying it. Why is it dangerous? Because it's packed full of energy! Energy that could be put to use, instead of burying in the ground. It's beyond idiotic.

[rekabis]

>waste handling is still not a solved problem

Yes, yes it is.

1. There are a number of sites that have the geological stability and impermeability for long term storage.

2. Thorium reactors can take nuclear waste products and re-process them down (along side their standard thorium fuel) into “radioactive waste” that only needs a century or two of minimal safe storage before it’s harmless.

3. Modern _non-breeder_ reactors produce very little of the severe waste that needs billions of years of storage. Problem is, many current reactors in the States are breeder reactors that are _meant_ to help build nuclear weapons, and so are optimized to produce massive amounts of highly radioactive waste.

[loopback_device]

> 1. There are a number of sites that have the geological stability and impermeability for long term storage.

And yet, not one of them has been developed into a storage facility so far. Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32471115 – having prospective storage sites that look nice and stable is great and all, just not the current reality, and likely also not a near-future reality.

> 2. Thorium reactors can take nuclear waste products and re-process them down

Would be good to have them, not a single one commercially operating at the moment though. China has apparently built a test reactor recently – curious to see how that develops.

[EricE]

Better hope China doesn't do more than build a test reactor. Cheap and abundant energy is what built the west. China is poised to severely lap the rest of the world while we continue to point fingers and argue :p

[EricE]

Waste handling? Burn it in newer, modern designs instead of (stupidly) burying it.