The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

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.

You're right. Solving that problem will require pouring another concrete slab on which to place new storage casks, about once every few decades, at each power plant.

As the pouring of concrete foundation slabs is a very well understood and routine process, and as these sites already have far more space than their waste will require for several times the likely lifespan of the facilities, I am not convinced that this will be an insurmountable problem.

By the way, there are 92 nuclear power plants in the USA, so each site only needs room for just over 20 tonnes per year on average; That is half the load of a single semi-trailer. It's not a lot.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Here in Texas, we are shutting down our coal fired plants. Very few are left and their days are numbered. Coal is dirty and too expensive.

.....
The U.S. is on track to close half of its coal-fired generation capacity by 2026, just 15 years after it reached its peak in 2011.
.....

U.S. on track to close half of coal capacity by 2026

The U.S. is on track to close half of its coal-fired generation capacity by 2026, just 15 years after it reached its peak in 2011.

ieefa.org

 

[bilby]

I believe that would include the weight of the sub containers (barrels)!

Nuclear power plant waste has never been stored in barrels.

The popular image of rusty yellow 44gal steel barrels oozing green glowing goo is 100% pure propaganda; Reactor waste is stored in these:



They're made from concrete and steel, and are very tough indeed. You can walk up and lean against them; They are slightly warm to the touch. Nothing leaks out of them, and they employ people to inspect them regularly to ensure that that remains the case; The material inside is mixed-oxide pellets, which are already a heavy grey ceramic material when they come out of the reactor; it needs no "stablilisers". There's no goo; and no green glow.

That's at Diablo Canyon in California. At that site they have room on the concrete pad for a hundred and forty casks; The entire waste output of the facility has so far taken forty years to fill 58 such casks, so they won't need to pour a new slab for about a century.

 

[Elixir]

Nuclear power plant waste has never been stored in barrels.

The popular image of rusty yellow 44gal steel barrels oozing green glowing goo is 100% pure propaganda; Reactor waste is stored in these:

View attachment 43853

They're made from concrete and steel, and are very tough indeed. You can walk up and lean against them; They are slightly warm to the touch. Nothing leaks out of them, and they employ people to inspect them regularly to ensure that that remains the case; The material inside is mixed-oxide pellets, which are a heavy grey ceramic material. There's no goo; and no green glow.

That's at Diablo Canyon in California. At that site they have room on the concrete pad for a hundred and forty casks; The entire waste output of the facility has so far taken forty years to fill 58 such casks, so they won't need to pour a new slab for about a century.

Yeah, those are the "barrels" - they had similar at Rocky Flats. Do you know what the weight of the containment material is vs the weight of what is being contained?

 

[bilby]

Here in Texas, we are shutting down our coal fired plants. Very few are left and their days are numbered. Coal is dirty and too expensive.

.....
The U.S. is on track to close half of its coal-fired generation capacity by 2026, just 15 years after it reached its peak in 2011.
.....

U.S. on track to close half of coal capacity by 2026

The U.S. is on track to close half of its coal-fired generation capacity by 2026, just 15 years after it reached its peak in 2011.

ieefa.org

That's excellent.

You should replace it with nuclear plants, which are basically interchangeable with coal plants in terms of their electricity output. In fact, what engineers call the BoP (Balance of Plant - everything that doesn't generate steam, such as turbines, switchgear, etc.) is essentially identical.

Instead, we note, it's mostly being replaced by gas. Which is unacceptable, as there's no solution for the waste problem.

Of course, a small percentage is being replaced by wind or solar power. Which is also unacceptable, because there's no solution to the waste problem.

 

[bilby]

Do you know what the weight of the containment material is vs the weight of what is being contained?

The casks each mass about 150 tons, and hold about ten tons of spent fuel.

 

[Elixir]

Do you know what the weight of the containment material is vs the weight of what is being contained?

The casks each mass about 150 tons, and hold about ten tons of spent fuel.

So actual waste weight, if total including casks, ceramics etc. is 2000 tons/yr, might be around 135 tons? That would be, as my friend calculated, one large (industrial) refrigerator (shirtcuff 4'x8'x8') size hunk of material.

 

[Tigers!]

Charging EVs with diesel generators (behind damn paywall)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Even if accepting that as true.... it doesn't make solar and wind viable full-time replacements for carbon sourced power. Nothing against nuclear power makes solar and wind issues with permanent intermittency go away. Solar and wind can help bridge the gap to nuclear, but it isn't the solution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Nope, I have in mind a civilian accident in Japan. They don't have a nuclear weapons industry at all. There was some pretty major disregard for safety, though. It's on Wikipedia.

 

[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.

Nope, I have in mind a civilian accident in Japan. They don't have a nuclear weapons industry at all. There was some pretty major disregard for safety, though. It's on Wikipedia.

<rushes off to read whole of Wikipedia>

 

[bilby]

I suspect you're thinking of the 1999 Tokaimura accident, which occurred in a small fuel preparation plant operated by JCO (formerly Japan Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co.), a subsidiary of Sumitomo Metal Mining Co.

The plant supplied various specialised research and experimental reactors and was not part of the electricity production fuel cycle.

Someone used an unauthorised and unapproved container to store uranyl nitrate solution, and the container was large enough to contain a critical mass of that solution.

It wasn't a nuclear power plant accident; It was a laboratory accident in a facility whose research focused on fuel production (not waste processing or management), for medical isotope production facilities, not electricity production facilities.

It certainly wasn't a nuclear waste accident.

So it certainly can't cause you to disagree with the claim I made:

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.

You seem to be thinking of a criticality accident that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with power plants, power plant waste, or even nuclear waste in the broader sense.

Unless I am misreading your detailed and specific link. Oh, wait, you still haven't provided one.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There are many projects underway to find cheap ways to store renewable energy other than using natural gas. It is a matter of engineering. Financing. And political will to long term, solve these issues. There are a large number of projects for industrial sized batteries not based on lithium. Texas projects to use salt caverns to store hydrogen. Hot storage systems. And sooner or later, it is going to be accomplished. Here in South Texas it used to be we used lignite, brown coal, but that is all but dead. There is and has always been change underway in the energy sector technology. Most importantly. MONEY. Those companies that can find a way to do the deed make the money. You can bet many involved in energy production know this. Those that don't get it, and fail long term to adapt are going to go out of business. Technological Darwinian evolution in action. Whether the next generation of small and cheap reactors play a major role in this remains to be seen. That might just be technologically possible but economically problematic. And there is no way now to know how that will work out 25 years from now.

 

[bilby]

There are many projects underway to find cheap ways to store renewable energy other than using natural gas. It is a matter of engineering. Financing. And political will to long term, solve these issues. There are a large number of projects for industrial sized batteries not based on lithium. Texas projects to use salt caverns to store hydrogen. Hot storage systems. And sooner or later, it is going to be accomplished. Here in South Texas it used to be we used lignite, brown coal, but that is all but dead. There is and has always been change underway in the energy sector technology. Most importantly. MONEY. Those companies that can find a way to do the deed make the money. You can bet many involved in energy production know this. Those that don't get it, and fail long term to adapt are going to go out of business. Technological Darwinian evolution in action. Whether the next generation of small and cheap reactors play a major role in this remains to be seen. That might just be technologically possible but economically problematic. And there is no way now to know how that will work out 25 years from now.

So, you concur that nuclear waste isn't a problem then?

Because if you are holding out for a better way than nuclear fission to make reliable, safe, non-polluting electricity, you're going to be waiting for centuries; And we really don't have that long.

The current generation of large and reasonably priced reactors are already a complete solution to the problem. And are able to generate electricity at a cost to price ratio that's competitive with coal, gas, and hydroelectric power, despite being massively burdened by purely politically motivated and needless expenses - such as having to pay for the future deep geological repository for their waste, despite that repository being neither necessary nor even existent.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No, it is an ongoing problem. And will be a problem for those proposing to build lots of new reactors. The question to those persons will be, "And what do you propose to to with the inevitable nuclear waste?" The nuclear industry dosen't get its desert until it has eaten its vegetables. The nuclear waste problem won't just go away politically.

 

[bilby]

No, it is an ongoing problem. And will be a problem for those proposing to build lots of new reactors. The question to those persons will be, "And what do you propose to to with the inevitable nuclear waste?" The nuclear industry dosen't get its desert until it has eaten its vegetables. The nuclear waste problem won't just go away politically.

The proposal is to store the inevitable nuclear waste in dry casks at the generation site.

Now, do you have any further problems you need to be addressed regarding nuclear waste? Or are you now going to support our efforts to actually do something useful and effective about carbon dioxide emissions?

Is there something wrong with dry cask storage? If so, what? Be specific.

Last time I asked you this, all you seemed to be worried about was that there are a couple of thousand tonnes per annum that need storing; I think we have established that this is well within the storage capacity of the existing facilities, and I see no particular difficulty in building similar storage at any new sites - the waste storage for a century of operations takes up considerably less space than the reactor buildings and BoP.

The nuclear industry is literally the only electricity generation technology that has "eaten its vegetables", if by that you mean having a completely managed and contained waste stream with no environmental or human impacts.

Are you still withholding dessert for a reason, or are you just being foolishly stubborn now, at the considerable expense of ruining our environment?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Giant casks of nuclear waste sitting on some site forever and forever ain't gonna fly. That is a stupid idea.

 

[bilby]

Giant casks of nuclear waste sitting on some site forever and forever ain't gonna fly. That is a stupid idea.

How is it a stupider idea than dumping millions of times the amount of toxic and harmful wastes into the environment, with little or nothing done to mitigate the problems it causes?

Because that what happens if you generate electricity by literally ANY other means. Are you unaware of the waste produced by the wind and solar power industries? Every electricity generation technology has a waste problem, except nuclear fission.

What, exactly, is the problem with giant casks of waste sitting on a concrete slab at a power plant? Do you worry that they make the place look ugly? Why isn't this "gonna fly"? What's going to happen?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Maybe ship those giant casks of nuclear waste to Australia and let them sit on some Australian site forever and forever.

 

[bilby]

Maybe ship those giant casks of nuclear waste to Australia and let them sit on some Australian site forever and forever.

Sure, if you like. We have plenty of space.

They're full of very valuable fuel, so I wouldn't be keen to give them away if I were you.

Did you plan to actually answer any of the questions I asked in my last post? I seriously want an answer to them, and your failure to provide one is looking increasingly like you don't actually have any answers, or at least, not ones that don't cause you to question your bizarrely paradoxical position of simultaneously opposing nuclear power, and wanting to do something effective about carbon dioxide emissions.

If you genuinely want the latter, then the only rational thing is to genuinely want the former as well.

You appear to be basing your suggestion that these casks be shipped to Australia on the equally unfounded notion that I would not want nuclear waste stored near me. You couldn't be more wrong. But your religion seems to have this as a central tenet - it's like arguing with a Christian fundamentalist who expects me to be scared of going to hell.

Seriously, just tell me, what is the problem (or problems) you foresee that might occur if nuclear waste is stored indefinitely in dry casks on nuclear power plant sites; And how is that set of problems worse than the way we currently handle waste from other electricity generation technologies?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that statements of incredulity such as "Giant casks of nuclear waste sitting on some site forever and forever ain't gonna fly.", and suggestions that ignore the question, such as "Maybe ship those giant casks of nuclear waste to Australia", have been seen, understood, and given all the consideration they deserve, ie none, so they need not continue to get in the way of your provision of a substantive answer.