The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

The attitude that nuclear waste is an imaginary problem we need not worry about is why many people do not trust the nuclear industry that is not taking care of that exact issue.

If it's not an imaginary problem, why are you not specifying what the problem is, rather than berating people for failing to agree with your empty claim?

I'm more than happy to believe that there's a problem here in need of a solution; All you need to do is to tell me what that problem (or even just what the single largest problem) is.

I know it's not the number of injuries or deaths caused by nuclear waste, because that number is zero. So what, specifically, IS the problem?

Why would you not trust someone who doesn't blindly accept empty claims? If you demand action from someone while refusing to specify what it is you actually want them to do, then surely that's grounds for them to distrust you. Or at least to dismiss you as a crank.

Nuclear waste is a material. It has some hazardous properties, and to prevent people from being at risk, steps are currently taken to contain the material - specifically in dry cask storage, typically at the sites where it's generated. What is the problem with that, and why do you believe it is a problem that needs to be addressed, beyond what has already been implemented?

Molten steel is a hazardous material, and can instantly kill anyone who stands too close to it. Do you demand that no steelworks be built, until there's "a solution to the molten steel problem"? If not, why not?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We have large amounts of nuclear waste accumulating at nuclear reactor sites.
That is not an imaginary problem. No real effort is being made to deal with the issue. That is not an imaginary problem. Many Americas do not find this tolerable. That is not imaginary either. The nuclear power industry is not trusted because of crap like this. That is not imaginary either.

Sadly, the nuclear power industry is too stupid to realize their who cares attitude will make more problems for them, and will make nuclear power unpopular. That is not going to be imaginary either.

Especially with Generation Z and other coming young generations who will see this kick the can down the road BS gifting them with expensive problems to deal with that have accumulated for decades.

 

[bigfield]

We have large amounts of nuclear waste accumulating at nuclear reactor sites.

What is the problem with that? It's contained, it isn't puttimg anyone in danger, and the amount of waste is growing slowly, which means it can continue to be managed safely. Compared to most waste management it's an incredible success.

 

[bilby]

We have large amounts of nuclear waste accumulating at nuclear reactor sites.
That is not an imaginary problem.

Correct. It's not a problem at all. Those sites aren't running out of space.

No real effort is being made to deal with the issue. That is not an imaginary problem.

With what issue? That does appear to be an imaginary problem.

Many Americas do not find this tolerable.

Don't find what tolerable??

That is not imaginary either.

It appears to be. Certainly, you appear unable to articulate it.

Or are you seriously aghast that large sites might not have room for small numbers of dry casks?

The nuclear power industry is not trusted because of crap like this. That is not imaginary either.

Like WHAT??

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that you described a problem; But so far, you haven't.

Apparently everyone is worried. What are they worried about??

Sadly, the nuclear power industry is too stupid to realize their who cares attitude will make more problems for them, and will make nuclear power unpopular. That is not going to be imaginary either.

Especially with Generation Z and other coming young generations who will see this kick the can down the road BS gifting them with expensive problems to deal with that have accumulated for decades.

So you're saying that the nuclear power industry should be able to work out what it is that you are worried about, and should act to mitigate your concern, despite your inability to articulate what that concern actually IS.

That's insane.

 

[James Brown]

Twenty people have died from the effects of nitrous oxide, aka 'laughing gas'. Right now that's a bigger danger than the byproducts of powering our civilization.

I think for some people the problem is a matter of scale. Here we have a dangerous substance (among many others) that remains dangerous for a long time (unlike, say, molten steel, which quickly cools off to non-dangerous levels). Right now, there isn't a lot of the dangerous substance in play. Theoretically, when all the world wakes up and powers itself with nuclear, we could be awash in the stuff. And between human nature and the second law of thermodynamics, something is going to go wrong somewhere. Yes, if conscientious people always do the right thing, then the risk is minimal--and when has that scenario ever lasted very long?

It would be like me saying, "my gas-powered automobile has zero effect on the climate." And that's true, except I'm not the only one driving these days.

Don't at me, bilby. You've helped turn me around on nuclear power, so I'm in favor of it. But having recently been a member of the opposing camp, I can sympathize with some of their views, even if I no longer agree with them.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Too many people giving bad excuses as to why the nuclear waste problem does not need to dealt with competently.

 

[bilby]

Too many people giving bad excuses as to why the nuclear waste problem does not need to dealt with competently.

Too many people declaring that a problem exists, without actually being able to say what it is that is problematic.

The nuclear waste problem has been dealt with competently. Past tense.

It's literally the only waste stream in the history of human industry that has been completely and appropriately managed.

 

[bilby]

Theoretically, when all the world wakes up and powers itself with nuclear, we could be awash in the stuff.

Yeah, nah.



Even if everything was powered by nuclear fission, there still wouldn't be very much waste.

 

[James Brown]

I recall that xkcd comic and was impressed by it. But it shows the available energy in uranium, not the waste created from the extraction of that energy. What would that column of paper look like?

Has anyone calculated how much nuclear waste would be generated if all the world used nuclear power rather than fossil fuels?

 

[bilby]

But it shows the available energy in uranium, not the waste created from the extraction of that energy.

The volume of waste is in inverse proportion to the (usable) energy density of any fuel. More energy per kg of fuel, less kg of waste per unit of energy.

Right now, most of the energy available in uranium isn't even extracted. But still, the volume of waste generated in producing all the electricity a typical American uses in their entire lifetime is about the size of a standard soft drink can.

If the spent fuel were fully reprocessed, or used in fast-spectrum reactors, that waste volume would fall to roughly the size of three m&m's.

It's really, really, small. Onsite storage is not going to run out of space, even if we went 100% nuclear.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I recall that xkcd comic and was impressed by it. But it shows the available energy in uranium, not the waste created from the extraction of that energy. What would that column of paper look like?

Has anyone calculated how much nuclear waste would be generated if all the world used nuclear power rather than fossil fuels?

....
About 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors remain stranded at reactor sites, and this number is increasing by some 2,000 metric tons each year. These 77 sites are in 35 states and threaten to become de facto permanent disposal facilities.Mar 6, 2023
....

From Scientific American. This is just nuclear plant waste. Not including uraniam mining tailings, and from refining et al.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The attitude that nuclear waste is an imaginary problem we need not worry about is why many people do not trust the nuclear industry that is not taking care of that exact issue.

We are not saying it's an imaginary problem. We are saying it's a solved problem--it's just being used by the anti-nuke forces to muddy the waters. It requires handling with care--but so does an awful lot of things in life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know it's not the number of injuries or deaths caused by nuclear waste, because that number is zero. So what, specifically, IS the problem?

Disagree--I'm thinking of a criticality accident in reprocessing said waste. 2 dead. They were radiation workers, though, not simply people in the area.

I'm sure more have died from the waste streams of other sources of power, though.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The attitude that nuclear waste is an imaginary problem we need not worry about is why many people do not trust the nuclear industry that is not taking care of that exact issue.

We are not saying it's an imaginary problem. We are saying it's a solved problem--it's just being used by the anti-nuke forces to muddy the waters. It requires handling with care--but so does an awful lot of things in life.

We are adding 2000 metric tons of nuclear waste to these onsite temporary storage areas a year. That is obviously not solving the long term storage problem. And some people want more nuclear plants? With no long term storage problem solution in sight?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I recall that xkcd comic and was impressed by it. But it shows the available energy in uranium, not the waste created from the extraction of that energy. What would that column of paper look like?

Has anyone calculated how much nuclear waste would be generated if all the world used nuclear power rather than fossil fuels?

I've seen numbers but I don't recall them off the top of my head. It's small. Instead, let's present a comparison.

In the left corner we have coal. A big-ass coal plant producing 10GW. In the right corner we have a big-ass nuclear plant producing 10GW. Generate!

Ok, a year has gone by, we need to deal with the waste that's built up.

Coal goes and digs a hole for the fly ash. It needs to be sealed from groundwater due to a high concentration of heavy metals and covered.

Nuke goes and digs a matching hole. They reprocess their waste removing the unused fuel, the metal of the packaging (the fuel is sealed away from the reactor coolant, the containers come out with the fuel) and the commercially useful isotopes. What's left is packed up and put in the hole.

Another year, Generate!

Coal has to go dig a new hole. Nuke doesn't, there's still plenty of space in their hole.

Year after year goes by, coal keeps digging more holes. Finally, ten millennia down the road nuke finally fills it's hole.

Another year, Generate!

Coal once again digs a hole. Nuke goes back to their existing hole and removes the stuff they put there back in year 1--and throws it in the trash as it is no hotter than ambient (and probably not as hot as the other trash as low level radioactives do end up in the trash stream.)

End result, nuke never digs a new hole. Nor is their hole any more complex than the one that coal used.

The fundamental problem with nuclear is regulatory--we have taken as gospel the standard that exposure should be as low as reasonably achieveable. The result is an awful lot of stuff gets handled with far higher standards than the threat level warrants. It would be like donning hazmat level A gear to go deal with the bottle of concentrated sulfuric acid that's in the garage. In practice I would simply use long, chemical resistant gloves and decades ago in chemistry lab we didn't even do that.

 

[Elixir]

Charlie, I believe that would include the weight of the sub containers (barrels)!and ceramic or whatever stabilizers. Regardless, 2000 tons might sound like it would take the Great Pyramid to contain it. But a ton of uranium is only about a 14” cube. (specific gravity is almost 19).

Did you know there’s a reactor that has been running uncontrolled on earths surface for over 2 billion years, and it hasn’t wiped out life on earth or rendered it uninhabitable because of its spent fuel?

Meet Oklo, the Earth’s Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor

Physicist Francis Perrin sat at a nuclearfuel-processing plant down in the south of France, thinking to himself: “This cannot be possible.” It was 1972.

www.iaea.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I recall that xkcd comic and was impressed by it. But it shows the available energy in uranium, not the waste created from the extraction of that energy. What would that column of paper look like?

Has anyone calculated how much nuclear waste would be generated if all the world used nuclear power rather than fossil fuels?

....
About 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors remain stranded at reactor sites, and this number is increasing by some 2,000 metric tons each year. These 77 sites are in 35 states and threaten to become de facto permanent disposal facilities.Mar 6, 2023
....

From Scientific American. This is just nuclear plant waste. Not including uraniam mining tailings, and from refining et al.

Because we are not reprocessing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Charlie, I believe that would include the weight of the sub containers (barrels)!and ceramic or whatever stabilizers.

I think so--and note the containers are heavy. Dry cask storage is heavy enough that you're at ambient standing right next to them. If we were reprocessing properly that wouldn't even be needed--AFIAK all the gamma emitters are useful and wouldn't end up in the waste pile in the first place. Neutron emitters don't last long enough to be a factor at all--they will have decayed during wet storage. Thus you're dealing with alpha and beta--the mechanical requirements to hold it far exceed the radiation shielding requirements.

 

[bilby]

About 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors remain stranded at reactor sites, and this number is increasing by some 2,000 metric tons each year.

In case anyone thinks that's a lot of waste, note that a single 1GW coal power plant produces 1,000 metric tonnes of CO₂ alone in an hour. A similar amount of electricity generated by a gas plant produces 500 metric tonnes an hour.

And that's just the carbon dioxide pollution; These plants also create other waste materials, such as sulphur dioxide, various oxides of nitrogen, and in the case of coal, tonnes and tonnes of fly ash.

Coal power plants in the USA generate about 828,000,000 metric tonnes just of CO₂ per annum. And it's sadly not "stranded" at the power plant sites; It's dumped directly into the atmosphere, with zero attempt to contain it or manage it in any way.

Gas power plants generate another 845,000,000 metric tonnes of this waste (they generate more than twice as much electricity in the process as their coal burning counterparts though).

Nuclear power generates about the same amount (93%) of electricity as coal does in the USA, while producing less than a millionth of the waste.

2,000 tonnes is about 7g per American citizen. That's a quarter of an ounce, for those watching in black and white. Your share of the Carbon dioxide just from coal is a tonne and a half. Coal and gas produce more waste just as Carbon Dioxide per person per year than the entire waste produced by the entire US nuclear power industry.

Every electricity generation technology has a waste problem.

Only the nuclear industry has solved that problem.

 

[bilby]

Disagree--I'm thinking of a criticality accident in reprocessing said waste. 2 dead.

You can think of anything you like. I'm thinking of a man who can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

But as I'm not providing any evidence of this, you probably can't assess the value (if any) of my thought.

My guess would be that this was a military accident - something that occurred in the nuclear weapons industry, and not the nuclear power industry. The military are pretty careless in general, and anti-nuclear folks do love to conflate these two separate industries; I liken it to opposing the use of cars, because someone was killed when the munitions in their armoured vehicle were improperly secured.

I base this on the fact that I haven't heard about it, despite taking a close interest in the nuclear power industry; Of course I might have missed it, but your vague musings aren't sufficient for me to even begin to try to find out whether they have the slightest basis in fact.