Advanced Nuclear Reactors

[Ziggurat]

That's not what the media calls "nuclear waste".

But it is. The media is largely clueless about these issues, short term low level waste and long term high level waste is all "nuclear waste". And to a significant degree they don't want to draw these technical distinctions even when they understand. It doesn't boost readership.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If the container leaks, then ocean water can spread the stuff around, which we don't want. And long term, ocean water isn't the best environment for making sure containers don't leak.

Well that matters little if it's sunk deep enough. And there is no better shielding than lots of water, and no better way to dilute than all the oceans.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well that matters little if it's sunk deep enough.

Depth isn't relevant when material dissolves.

And there is no better shielding than lots of water, and no better way to dilute than all the oceans.

People don't want to just dilute nuclear waste in the ocean. And that's not a scalable solution.

 

[theprestige]

I find it almost precocious how little concern proponents of more nuclear power have that we will deal with nuclear waste, given that we have not really found a way to deal with the waste we have already accumulated.

It's like saying that the next cats I adopt will be so much cleaner than the hundreds of cats that are already ******** and pissing all over my house.

We've totally found a way to deal with nuclear waste. We just haven't found a way to deal with jackass nuclear naysayers who cockblock cromulent nuclear waste storage solutions out of an overabundance of scientific and sociopolitical woo.

And obviously the next cat you should adopt is a ray cat.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

We've totally found a way to deal with nuclear waste. We just haven't found a way to deal with jackass nuclear naysayers who cockblock cromulent nuclear waste storage solutions out of an overabundance of scientific and sociopolitical woo.

And obviously the next cat you should adopt is a ray cat.

There is an obvious solution to this: pay the communities in question a shitton of money from your revenue.
If you can't find a way around NIMBY, then I guess you can't have your waste site.

Stop blaming citizens for the shortcomings of companies.

 

[ahhell]

On Ocean storage, it might work, a lot of waste is stored by encasing it in molten glass. Glass can survive millennia in ocean water. And as we used to say in the Navy nuc program, dilution is the solution to pollution. On the other hand, its not necessary and likely not politically feasible.

 

[Ziggurat]

On Ocean storage, it might work, a lot of waste is stored by encasing it in molten glass. Glass can survive millennia in ocean water. And as we used to say in the Navy nuc program, dilution is the solution to pollution. On the other hand, its not necessary and likely not politically feasible.

I'm skeptical. Glass is chemically very stable, so sea water is probably not going to hurt it. But radiation damage may be a problem. Sufficient radiation damage over time may cause the glass to crumble and expose the contents. That's not so much a problem with dry storage on land, because contents can be loose in their containers so that contents and containers have room to flex with age. But under ocean pressures, your contents can't be loose inside a glass container, so flexing isn't much of an option.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is an obvious solution to this: pay the communities in question a shitton of money from your revenue.

That's exactly what Yucca Mountain was trying to do.

If you can't find a way around NIMBY, then I guess you can't have your waste site.

Stop blaming citizens for the shortcomings of companies.

I don't think you understand the politics of the problem. Federal law puts responsibility for long-term storage on the federal government. Utilities are supposed to pay the federal government for that storage, but the feds are the ones who have to actually make it happen, not the companies themselves. That's a choice the federal government made, not those companies.

And the local residents of the actual county where Yucca Mountain is located actually wanted the facility. They were happy with the arrangement, they wanted the money and jobs it would bring. Opposition wasn't primarily from locals, it's mostly just a proxy war for anti-nuclear activists.

 

[theprestige]

There is an obvious solution to this: pay the communities in question a shitton of money from your revenue.
If you can't find a way around NIMBY, then I guess you can't have your waste site.

Stop blaming citizens for the shortcomings of companies.

Citizens want cheap, abundant power, and they want someone else to be responsible for the externalities. This is absolutely a citizen problem.

 

[ahhell]

I'm skeptical. Glass is chemically very stable, so sea water is probably not going to hurt it. But radiation damage may be a problem. Sufficient radiation damage over time may cause the glass to crumble and expose the contents. That's not so much a problem with dry storage on land, because contents can be loose in their containers so that contents and containers have room to flex with age. But under ocean pressures, your contents can't be loose inside a glass container, so flexing isn't much of an option.

All possibly or probably true, I tend to think the politics are more insurmountable than the technical problems though and its unnecessary.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Citizens want cheap, abundant power, and they want someone else to be responsible for the externalities. This is absolutely a citizen problem.

Then nuclear power is not the solution.
Simple as that.

Solar is cheaper, faster to build, slightly less radioactive.

 

[wobs]

I find it almost precocious how little concern proponents of more nuclear power have that we will deal with nuclear waste, given that we have not really found a way to deal with the waste we have already accumulated.

It's like saying that the next cats I adopt will be so much cleaner than the hundreds of cats that are already ******** and pissing all over my house.

You mean apart from where its actually happening.
Finland is building a full scale one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository

Other countries have trial facilities:
https://nagra.ch/en/knowledge-centre/mont-terri-rock-laboratory/
https://skb.com/research-and-technology/laboratories/the-aspo-hard-rock-laboratory/

Among others.
Yucca Mountain of course, and WIPP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

Basically, we know how to dispose of it. There has been a great deal of research into this, and I had a paper on the Swiss site, showing it to be up to the job. The Finnish site is set to open in a few year, and why they want to use it so soon is a bit crazy, when they could be reprocessing the fuel, where it would end up being re-used and ultimately better for disposal long term.

 

[wobs]

Then nuclear power is not the solution.
Simple as that.

Solar is cheaper, faster to build, slightly less radioactive.

Apart from the fact that the Green party objects to solar farms in the UK.

And the cost goes up on intermittent sources the greater the storage you need.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then nuclear power is not the solution.
Simple as that.

Solar is cheaper, faster to build, slightly less radioactive.

Solar cannot provide reliable base load. It is not a substitute for nuclear.

 

[Ziggurat]

All possibly or probably true, I tend to think the politics are more insurmountable than the technical problems though and its unnecessary.

That is correct. Yucca Mountain is technically a great solution.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Apart from the fact that the Green party objects to solar farms in the UK.

And the cost goes up on intermittent sources the greater the storage you need.

Solar cannot provide reliable base load. It is not a substitute for nuclear.

that's why we have an exponential rise in the amount of, quality of, reduction in price and rarity of materials of energy storage systems.

If Nuclear was anyone's idea of providing reliable energy, we would see PRIVATE companies trying to get in on the game.
But Nuclear power has arguably NEVER been profitable on its own, depending on government support at almost every stage.

 

[ahhell]

Then nuclear power is not the solution.
Simple as that.

Solar is cheaper, faster to build, slightly less radioactive.

Its not but solar maybe cheaper and faster to build but it's still got the storage problem, location problem, and nuclear is part of the solution for the foreseeable future.

 

[Segnosaur]

Then nuclear power is not the solution.
Simple as that.

Solar is cheaper, faster to build, slightly less radioactive.

I am not necessarily against solar. It should definitely be part of the "energy mix". But there are issues... solar panels can contain heavy metals (a problem when disposing of landfills), its not always practical in some environments, and as others have said, storage can be a problem.

As for nuclear being more expensive... one of the problems we have had with nuclear power is that the design process has been... stagnant. Things like small modular reactors (where mass production can better be utilized) and molten salt designs could potentially reduce costs.

And even if solar is slightly cheaper/faster to produce, I think the need to get off fossil fuels is so important that we need to use a combination of "green energy" (including solar, wind and nuclear) rather than just fixate on a single technology.

 

[Ziggurat]

that's why we have an exponential rise in the amount of, quality of, reduction in price and rarity of materials of energy storage systems.

Unless you mean "exponential" as just hyperbole for improvements, no, we do not. They are improving, sure, but not actually exponential.

If Nuclear was anyone's idea of providing reliable energy, we would see PRIVATE companies trying to get in on the game.

This is a very peculiar claim, because private companies are doing exactly that.

But Nuclear power has arguably NEVER been profitable on its own, depending on government support at almost every stage.

Yes, they need government support, because government made their support required. Nevertheless, nuclear power can provide abundant and reliable energy. Solar cannot.

And it's more than a bit ironic to complain about government support if you're pushing for solar, given how much that depends on government subsidies.

 

[novaphile]

Australia has the same problem. You would think that with our much lower population density, there would be somewhere that would be the official nuclear waste dump. After many decades of the Government trying to shove Eastern States' waste into South Australia, that place has yet to be commissioned.

FTFY.

Guess what? We don't want to be the waste dump.

My proposal?

Proponents of nuclear power must be prepared to house the waste in their bedrooms, and the bedrooms of their descendants for all eternity.

And, nuclear power stations should be built in the richest suburbs in the richest cities in every State.

After all, it's good enough for the people who don't get the profits, so it's good enough for the profit makers eh?