[74B5]

And then eventually, water seeps in. Like in the german Asse II mine, that is planned to be evacuated, which will be a major challenge.

https://www.bge.de/en/asse/short-information/history-of-the-...

It might be true that nuclear power produces less waste but we have to consider the scales of global energy demand, multiply it by the time scales of nuclear waste to reach what threshold exactly? When and how would nuclear waste become a problem. Would it take ~200 years like the industrial revolution with CO2? Would it be okay if it where 300 years? or 500? What do we do, when background radiation is rising from ground water and soil? Switch back to natural instead of green energy, hoping the next millenias will be fine?

I dont think nuclear power is a solution. It can be step in an energy transition strategy, but no solution.

[throw0101a]

> And then eventually, water seeps in.

Not if it's below non-porous rock…

* https://www.nwmo.ca/who-we-are/how-were-governed/peer-review...

* https://www.nwmo.ca/Site-selection/Steps-in-the-site-selecti...

…below the water table…

* https://www.nwmo.ca/canadas-plan/canadas-deep-geological-rep...

…packed in non-porous soil/clay:

* https://www.nwmo.ca/-/media/Reports-MASTER/Technical-reports...

* https://www.nwmo.ca/Canadas-plan/Multiple-barrier-system

> When and how would nuclear waste become a problem.

Never. If there is ever "too much" of it we reprocess it as per OP article to remove the "non-usable" stuff and burn up the rest. It seems that there's an order of magnitude reduce by recycling (96% is usable fuel, so 4% is left over):

* https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...

[natmaka]

Among specialists the consensus is that "Internationally, it is understood that there is no reliable scientific basis for predicting the process or likelihood of inadvertent human intrusion." Source: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/201...

Plate tectonic and sismotectonic are also sources of concern: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10706-005-1148-4 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971...

[throw0101a]

Getting smacked with an asteroid like with the dinosaurs is also a source of concern.

This endless list of nit picky objections that go on and on and on and on and on, that are brought up no matter how low the probability, is why we can't have nice things (like cheap, reliable, zero-emission electricity available 24/7).

More people will die from plane crashes—which is amongst the safest ways to travel—than from nuclear waste radiation in the next few hundred years.

Geraldine Thomas, the co-founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, says there are more worrisome things than radiation:

* https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas

I personally live about 50km nuclear reactor and don't think about it at all.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_Nuclear_Generating_S...

[natmaka]

> Getting smacked with an asteroid

There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear.

> cheap

Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewables', and the gap is widening. Source: LCOE (the gold standard) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

> reliable

A continental fleet of a renewables's mix is at least as reliable.

> zero-emission

No, the total lifecycle emissions of nuclear (industrial PWR) is low (10-15 g eqCO2/KWH) but not zero.

> electricity available 24/7

A continental fleet of a renewables's mix with storage (vehicle batteries thru V2Gn, green hydrogen, hydro...).

In order to generate electricity even France burns non-negligible amounts of fossil fuel since the inception of its nuclear fleet: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?Metric=Share+of+...

> More people will die from plane crashes

One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane. A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future.

Note: my own brother was killed during a jetliner crash (Swissair SR111, 1998).

[throw0101d]

>> Getting smacked with an asteroid

> There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear.

Sure there is (with enough warning); it's just physics:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Redirect_Mission

> Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewables', and the gap is widening. Source: LCOE (the gold standard)

I live in Ontario, Canada, and renewables are much more expensive than nuclear (Table 2):

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2024...

In previous years nuclear was cheaper than (natural/methane) gas:

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023...

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2022...

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2021...

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2020...

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2019...

To date, nuclear energy has cost the province $58B and has generated 3300 TWh, while our renewable experiment with the Green Energy Act will cost several billion per year over the life of the twenty year contacts and generate 200 TWh.

> In order to generate electricity even France burns non-negligible amounts of fossil fuel since the inception of its nuclear fleet:

Perhaps they should get more nuclear so they burn less fossil fuels. Ontario's mix:

* https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply

There are currently plans to expand the nuclear fleet.

> One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane. A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future.

It threatens the people who live >500m underneath the ground once it is buried.

[natmaka]

> asteroid

We cannot cancel this risk, and we can cancel the risk of nuclear accident by not exploiting nuclear reactor (this is now possible thanks to renewables).

> To date, nuclear energy has > while our renewable experiment

The LCOE is the gold standard.

Comparing an existing fleet of reactors with many hidden costs (indirectly paid for by the taxpayer or the consumer) with the full cost of renewables, and neglecting the cost of any nuclear mishap (accident, waste, decommission...) is a classic trick. In France some even compare the official production cost of the amortized fleet (w/o the investment) to the complete cost of renewables. Yay!

> once it is buried

Who will bury an industrial nuclear reactor during a major accident, and how will they do it? Where is this even only a plan?

Or is it about building it underground, and what about skyrocketing inspection and maintenance costs? Where is this even only a plan? Do your really believe that a broken nuclear reactor vessel vomiting corium will be safe underground, and in such a case why are waste long-term repositories (way less 'active') so difficult and expensive to design and build (as already stated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517316 )?

[fastball]

It is actually not that hard to make something water-tight if you have no intention of opening it again.

> I dont think nuclear power is a solution. It can be step in an energy transition strategy, but no solution.

Do you mean nuclear fission specifically? Because I can't imagine anything being a long term solution except nuclear power (fusion).

[ViewTrick1002]

Over thousands of years?

[fastball]

Sure.

[somanyphotons]

Ok lets send it on a rocket to a graveyard orbit

[greenavocado]

What happens when the rocket explodes on the launchpad or at several thousand feet ASL?