Comment by thoroughburro
2 days ago
> if you sidestep the issue of waste
If you do that, just sidestep the elephant, then nuclear is very attractive indeed!
2 days ago
> if you sidestep the issue of waste
If you do that, just sidestep the elephant, then nuclear is very attractive indeed!
The waste isn't even that bad. There's not that much of it and we have extremely safe storage solutions. We way over engineered the safety by orders of magnitude. Nuclear waste storage facilities can take a direct missile hit and still be safe.
However kitty litter will take them out https://practical.engineering/blog/2025/4/15/when-kitty-litt...
Hanford.
Reality likes to have a word with you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
> we have extremely safe storage solutions
This doesn't mean "we don't have unsafe storage solutions".
11 replies →
An interesting example of bad waste management in the 70's.
But hardly an argument for how safe nuclear energy can be. You wouldn't judge the safety of aviation based on the Wright brothers plane.
Also note that one of the problems on that mine is not only the radioactive waste, but also mercury, lead, arsenic, and other product not coming from nuclear facilities. That kind of waste is dangerous for basically ever compared to the radioactive atoms. Yet nobody talk about it.
Nuclear energy is not the only industry producing nuclear waste. You've got also significant radioactive waste produced by the medical, research, defence, mining, and other industries. And so we need safe waste storage regardless of the existence of nuclear power plants.
do you have a link with where all the gigatons of CO2 emitted annually are stored safely?
Nuclear waste is not released in the atmosphere. You cannot compare solid waste in canisters and what gets out of the smokestacks.
Not sure why you're down voted, but who cares. This is THE issue. I hope you're forgiven, in time, for stepping out of line in the cathedral of modern nuclear power.
It is not "THE" issue, it's barely even "an issue". The amount of radioactive material produced by a fission plant, and the form in which it comes, makes it trivial to store relatively safely - certainly much, much easier than the CO2 waste that most of our other energy generation solutions emit.
Also, the biggest issues with nuclear power are (1) the risk of catastrophic meltdowns, (2) the risk of using it as cover for nuclear armament, (3) the massive capital expenditure to create a plant, and (4) the amount of water needed for cooling and running the plant. All of these make the problem of taking some radioactive rocks and burying them trivial in comparison.
Do I remember correctly that modern thorium-based reactor designs mitigate at least #1 and #2?
3 replies →
The nuclear waste issue is such a non-issue that the overwhelming majority of nuclear waste, the actual spent fuel, is stored on site at the nuclear power plants.
Long lived nuclear waste just isn't that radioactive, and highly reactive nuclear waste products just aren't that long lived.
If the waste is vitrified (glassified) it becomes basically chemically non-reactive too.
This is an important point that a lot of people don't seem to understand. The longest live materials that are the hardest store are the least dangerous.
5 replies →