Two points really stand out here. 1.) Nuclear waste can be handled by hand after 600 years. 2.) Coal plant: 3-6 Million tons of toxic ash in its operating life, not to mention 110 million tons of CO vs 1000 tons of nuclear waste.
Yes, after 600 years you can hold it in your hand for a brief moment without dying. You have to swallow, or be in contact 24/7.
But if you live in an area with contaminated air or water, you're going to swallow, and on a daily basis.
The difficulty of nuclear storage is not guarding highly radioactive stuff the first 100 years. It's the medium and low radioactive stuff that you need to keep out of the water and air the next 10,000.
Also, even if you don't drop dead straight away, if your life is shortened by 10 years, that sort of sucks too.
Of course, that means you need to concern yourself with the people will live then. And since we are already having great difficulty keeping our place in the universe habitable for our children...
Contrast this with the dangers to humanity inherent in other forms of power generation.
Hydropower has, thus far, proven far more dangerous. The collapse of the Banqiao dam in China led to between 26,000 to 240,000 estimated fatalities that impacted 30 cities.
> The collapse of the Banqiao dam in China led to between 26,000 to 240,000 estimated fatalities that impacted 30 cities
Not downplaying those deaths, but at least you can rebuild on the land right after. Seems way different than having some part of the world off limit for 10,000 years.
Thirty cities were hit by flood waters that were moving at 50 km/hr. This likely involved many, many industrial chemicals, solvents, waste, and other harmful elements that were generally disbursed.
I've read everything I can find on Banqiao, and have commented and posted on it several times. Repeating what I've written before:
[T]he failures largely accrued from institutional hubris, engineering insufficiency, lack of relevant domain knowledge (often deliberate ignorance or denial, see especially Vajont, also St. Francis), poor overall management, lack of disaster preparation, drilling, or readiness, limited resurces or capabilities (especially in developing countries), communications breakdown (see Banqiao's comms loss), and inadequate response in light of imminent or present threat.
None of these are domain-specific to hydraulic civil engineering or absent from nuclear engineering projects.
The specific failings at Banqiao were virtually all managerial and political, not technical; poor engineering, inadequate safety provisions, underestimated environmental and operational risks, poor contingency planning, unforeseen perfect storm (literally), severed communications, insufficient warnings, no community disaster preparation, inadequate rescue and recovery. None of these failures are specific to hydro, all apply to nuclear power, and as non-engineering problems there is no technical fix that makes them go away.
In Banqiao, about 25,000 people died in the immediate inundation. Another 150,000 died in the following weeks of starvation and disease. There's no great mystery as to how such deaths are avoided: floodwaters are mitigated by high ground and evacuation centres; starvation and disease by food, water, and medical stocks; and rescue & recovery by trained teams and equipment. Reestablishment of communications, transport, and utilities is critical.
China at the time was desperately poor, politically dysfunctional, and gambled hugely on risk and lost. Other major hydro disasters tend to share these traits.
The risks from Banqiao were short-term (acute), though profound. They could have been mitigated by planning, preparation, warnings, evacuation, and response. China at the time lacked the safety and civil defence maturity and mindsets, the political will, the engineering culture, and simply the capacity to respond appropriately given the magnitude of the disaster. The deaths were avoidable, and similar threats, say the 2017 Oroville Dam spillway failure. The engineering failure resulted in costs, but no loss of life, nor any significant damage to property other than the dam itself.
The U.S. still does see occasional dam failures, as with the Edenville and Sanford Dam failures of 19 May 2020. Here again poor engineering, construction, and operation created the risk, though again, preparedness and response prevented deaths, though in this case there was significant property damage.
Today, Chernobyl and Fukushima are exclusion zones, and they will be for centuries. The reactor cores themselves, for tens of thousands of years. This is far longer than the companies, countries, cultures, and even languages extant at the time of the disasters --- our capacity to address risks and management at this scale is utterly nonexistent. Banqiao is home to 17 million people who face no ongoing concerns from the incident.
Dam failures are short-lastting disasters, occurring over hours, days, or perhaps weeks.
Nuclear failures are long-lasting disasters, occurring over decades, centuries, and perhaps millennia.
Did you realise that Chornobyl will not be rebuilt in our lifetime?
Nuclear weapon is not equal to nuclear reactor. If Russians will blow up Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant, most of the people will be evacuated, but radiation will poison land and sea for hundreds or thousands of year.
> Did you realise that Chornobyl will not be rebuilt in our lifetime?
What are you talking about exactly: the destroyed reactor #4 won't be rebuilt but I don't think it's relevant, but the other reactors were still functional a decade after the accident, and people have been working there since then.
And Pripyat won't ever be rebuilt mostly because it was never destroyed in the first place. In fact if Ukraine wasn't facing a chronic population shrinkage due to low natality, Pripyat could have been resettled long ago with only minor restrictions (and since the area is mostly a swamp, it's not like it had a big agricultural value before anyway).
> but radiation will poison land and sea for hundreds or thousands of year.
This is Nuclear risk misunderstanding number 1: “radiation” poison nothing except living thing receiving them in very high doses, radiation don't stay. What stays is the “radioactive material” which (unless at the epicenter of the accident) do emit a limited amount of radiations. What's harmful is eating or inhaling such material like any pollutants, and unlike other pollutants, radioactive material decays and only a fraction of it remains after a decade.
People are routinely exposed to environmental pollution that are as dangerous: if you had lived in Pripyat for the past 20 years, your risk of cancer would probably be lower than someone having lived in Kyiv, just because there's no car and the related air pollution in Pripyat.
a dam collapsing due to crappy engineering practice, isnt a property of hydro electric power, but the risk of such is perhaps 2nd or third order consequence of a dams existence, alongside orthagonal circumstances.
And nuclear waste getting out (which has to my knowledge never happened and caused harm) is also a result of crappy engineering practice and isn't a property of nuclear power. The risk of such is similarly a 2nd or third order consequence of a nuclear power plant's existence, alongside orthagonal circumstances.
Coal kills 25 people per TWh generated (vs 0.03 for Nuclear - somewhere between wind and solar). Coal deaths translate to about 5 Chernobyl's per year (assuming the UNSCEAR 4000 deaths number) in the United States alone. Unlike nuclear power, coal is also responsible for spreading nuclear waste around the countryside because coal contains uranium and thorium that's concentrated in the ash left over after it's burned. [1]
[edit] > Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. [1]
Waste from nuclear plants is nice and contained in neat little bundles that are monitored, safe and if you're worried, can be put into Yucca Mountain.
[edit] btw, Yucca Mountain is conveniently located next to the Nevada Test Site, where the US tested many nuclear weapons, mostly underground, from 1957 to 1992. NTS contains some of the most radioactive land areas in the world. So at least you can be confident knowing you're putting the new spicy rocks in with the rest of them. [2]
> Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. [1]
Cool. Now explain what happens in the ground water around Kadapa or Rossing or Kakadu. Nuclear waste is very much an issue, you're just trying to focus on the stuff you have a vague plan for rather than no plan.
Noone is suggesting more coal. They're suggesting renewables which are faster, cheaper, less centralized, less dependent on oligopolies and hostile foreign actors, more able to be deployed in unstable regions, just as safe, less polluting, produce less non-radioactive waste, and use fewer materials.
Cheaper is a non-goal for me. Better is the goal. And nuclear delivers consistent stable baseload that supplements renewables while having a lower carbon footprint than both wind and solar.
> less dependent on oligopolies and hostile foreign actors
Not sure what you mean. Plenty in Canada.
> more able to be deployed in unstable regions
Existing designs are already not a proliferation risk.
> less polluting
Nuclear is not polluting.
> produce less non-radioactive waste
A non-goal if appropriately sequestered.
> use fewer materials
Also, IMO, a non-goal.
> Nuclear waste is very much an issue....
[citation needed]
Renewables have to factor in the impact and cost of storage. That means today pumped hydro, and also battery storage. Batteries are not environmentally friendly, cheap or easy to make. Renewables require base load. Nuclear provides base load.
> Cheaper is a non-goal for me. Better is the goal. And nuclear delivers consistent stable baseload that supplements renewables while having a lower carbon footprint than both wind and solar.
Prove it. Show me an LCA for mass expansion of nuclear, including the new mines in lower concentration deposits that comes out at lower carbon than new renewables with hydrogen (or even gas) backup for the 5% needed to cover the gaps using current technology. Then after you exhaust known reserves in 10 years include whatever scifi scheme you have for getting more.
Here's a mix for somewhere in the arctic to get you started before you start concern trolling about winter:
> Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague
Nuclear accidents are polluting, but steady state certainly is not.
But what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? There's no evidence to think so.
On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. Battery storage requires huge quantities of lithium. A single Tesla battery pack generates as much CO2 in production as an entire ICE car does in manufacture.
There is of course more than enough uranium. There's billions of tons dissolved in seawater, enough for 100,000 years of current electric capacity. In fact a new gel was just discovered to make extraction much more efficient. [2] That 4 billion tons is actually replenished as it's extracted from geological processes. There is plenty of Uranium for conventional fission reactors. By most measures, existing nuclear power schemes are renewable.
Then, breeder reactors require some 100x less uranium, and CANDU reactors can already operate on thorium cycle.
There is no perfect solution, and meeting our energy needs at minimum CO2 requires a variety of energy sources. I'm not opposed to renewables at all. By all means, build away.
> Ok, but what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward?
The fact that it's an issue right now? The fact that it's not an accident but standard operating procedure?
> On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly.
Where are the rare earths? Enercon even got rid of the copper.
> And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries.
It's made of sand with traces of silver and lead all encased in glass. It has mandatory recycling laws in civilised countries, you're welcome to implement them (or just wait until the recycling supply chains make used panels valuable enough that it happens anyway). And there and an order of magnitude less of it than the uranium leaching fluid that gets left in unsealed dams in kadapa, or dams with no flood mitigation in Husab, or pumped directly into the ground water in Inkai or Kakadu.
With your sea mining scifi you know you need to make 1-2kg of polymer and put it in the ocean for 6 months per MWh all to get around the same amount of energy per unit of water as lifting it 70 metres, right?
So not a lie, but thank you for new information. Don't worry mining in general, but copper in particular, is an environmental nightmare too. [1] Copper mining can actually contaminate groundwater with uranium and thorium. I believe this came up in an Odd Lots episode on the copper market recently.
> Where are the rare earths?
In every other turbine?
> It's made of sand with traces of silver and lead all encased in glass.
Don't worry we're running out of the sand to make glass too, and it's also an environmental nightmare. [2]
Basically any extractive industry is. That's why we have to do a bunch of different things, each according to what they're good at, and weigh the pros and cons.
That's why I'm in favor of solar, wind and nuclear, in spite of the fact each has their own drawbacks.
> And there and an order of magnitude less of it than the uranium leaching fluid that gets left in unsealed dams in kadapa, or dams with no flood mitigation in Husab, or pumped directly into the ground water in Inkai or Kakadu.
[citation needed].
> With your sea mining scifi you know you need to make 1-2kg of polymer and put it in the ocean for 6 months per MWh all to get around the same amount of energy per unit of water as lifting it 70 metres, right?
It's not my sea mining, I was responding to your false statement that we're anywhere close to running out of uranium. There's plenty on shore for hundreds of years, and by then I'm sure we'll have a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem, either removing it from the sea, or moving to breeder reactors, or the thorium cycle. Put on your problem solving hat my friend.
You were presenting it as necessary. It's neither necessary nor particularly prevalent for onshore wind. Enercon use none, Vestas' smaller turbines use none. Other DFIG and EESG turbines use none. Smaller offshore turbines overlapwith onshore ones. The larger offshore turbines are experimenting with iron nitride which is better but unproven. Some designs (like the e126 and family) already use negligible copper. The rest of the industry is reducing it.
> Don't worry we're running out of the sand to make glass too, and it's also an environmental nightmare. [2]
That's the kind of sand you need in much larger quantities for the concrete in a nuclear reactor. It doesn't matter if glass sand is smooth so you can get it from a desert.
1kg of natural uranium produces about 1kW for 3-6 years.
1kg of PV including glass but not the frame produces about 5W net for 30-50 years.
The sulfuric acid quantity is larger in an ISL mine, and the crushed ore slurry quantity is orders of magnitude larger.
> It's not my sea mining, I was responding to your false statement that we're anywhere close to running out of uranium. There's plenty on shore for hundreds of years, and by then I'm sure we'll have a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem, either removing it from the sea, or moving to breeder reactors, or the thorium cycle. Put on your problem solving hat my friend.
It's your scifi scenario. There is only enough for the current fleet (about 2% of world primary energy) for 100 or so years. Expanding it enough to make a difference reduces this to a couple of decades. Sea mining for a burner reactor is a ridiculous proposition if you look at the actual numbers.
Breeder reactors don't exist. No power generating reactor has ever run on fissile fuel bred using an equal or smaller amount of fissile fuel. Even if a commercial design is made, most of the world will never be allowed to operate one, and it won't be developed on any timescale to make a difference.
The problem solving hat is on, and the solution doesn't involve nuclear. It can't solve more than a tiny fraction of the problem, and it can't even do that well or quickly. There's no reason to deal with the downsides.
A lie is defined as an intentionally false statement. You were accusing me of intentionally misleading. I was doing no such thing. You taught me something, which I found interesting but ultimately not super relevant. Consider alternatives to avoid inflammatory language.
> It's your scifi scenario. There is only enough for the current fleet (about 2% of world primary energy) for 100 or so years.
One hundred years is more than enough time to figure out how to extract it practically from sea water, which is recognized as a viable solution [0]. In fact it's already only 2x as expensive as mining - and the cost of uranium is today is $0.0015/kWh. The reason we haven't done it is because we don't need to.
> Breeder reactors don't exist.
Yes they do. However, we didn't pursue commercialization because we don't need to - because there's a ton of fissile material for conventional reactors. To quote wikipedia "interest declined after the 1960s as more uranium reserves were found."
And further, thorium is also super abundant (2 million tons of reserves as of 2011, and the USA has the largest) and again, CANDU reactors can already operate on natural uranium, thorium - or on plutonium - without enrichment, mitigating the proliferation risk you identified earlier. [1] Note that thorium is about 3X as abundant as uranium, and spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and used as fuel for other reactors, albeit in a process with its own trade-offs.
There is no shortage of fissile material. Objectively. Move on.
> The problem solving hat is on, and the solution doesn't involve nuclear.
Agree to disagree. I'm ending this conversation here.
You're conflating fissile and fertile again. A CANDU cannot run on thorium as thorium doesn't fission. It can run on U233 or U235 or plutonium at low concentration, and it can theoretically breed U233 over unity, but noone has tried. Just as noone has run a breeder reactor on fuel bred in a breeder reactor and extracted. Neither can be done without reprocessing capable of at least temporarily extracting weapons grade material.
Expansion of nuclear power to more than an insignificant amount will reduce those 100 years to a decade or two.
Nuclear is irrelevant to decarbonization on a world scale, any effort spent building burner reactors is a waste of resources that could do twice as much elsewhere.
There have always been rare earth metals outside of China, but the reason they're mined in China is only China has been willing to pay the environmental cost associated with their extraction, processing and refinement. As the peer comment pointed out you can have copper-only turbines but copper mining is an equally brutal process. [1, 2]
Fun fact: copper is frequently co-located with uranium, radium and thorium. In-situ leaching can transport uranium and thorium into groundwater or surface water at the processing site. [2]
I did not, in fact, just point out you could have copper only turbines. I pointed out that there were also purely aluminum wound ones.
Additionally trying to scare about the effects of copper ISL when nuclear needs the copper and then also leaching (in situ or above) vastly higher quantities of ore which transports far more of those doesn't really help your point.
> The propensity to consider that the technologies under development – hydrogen as an energy vector, smart-grids – can be, in a climate emergency, technologies to be deployed massively, in the moment, testifies to a profound ignorance of development deadlines.
Quote from someone you probably don't like: a previous french High Commissioner for Atomic Energy.
You're right. Instead of using things which exist and are currently scaling up we should instead go all in on technologies with insurmountable resource limits and technologies that are much less developed like breeders and sea mining.
I'm not saying this won't work this time, but again, I ask you how sanely can you propose a fully renewable model when countries with a lot more sun struggle to do the same ?
I wonder how can you be so sure of the solution you are "selling".
No, the battery powered bus, charged with low carbon, nuclear energy has the lowest carbon footprint: https://imgur.com/a/fx5MiMp , because here, next to the Air Liquide Innovation pole, hydrogen is still made from hydrocarbons.
Also these one were not paid with europe money, but the region.
Isn't your miracle solution to storing energy, electrolysers ? I don't see how that unrelated.
> So germany massively scaled back their renewable rollout and this is bad because they built renewables?
Ah yes, of course the issue is they have gone fully with your idea it would had worked for sure!
Or maybe their issue is a lack of cheap magical energy storage?
Also, where do the energy come from, in your magical energy mix, for this month, for Germany? How many installed capacity do they need ?
Storing energy in hydrogen definitely involves steam reformation. Well done. Very nice good faith response.
Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built. Very nice non-cherry-picked example.
> Also, where do the energy come from, in your magical energy mix, for this month, for Germany? How many installed capacity do they need ?
To bring the locally consumed fossil fuels down to the same level as france's local fossil fuels + those imported from germany in this cherry picked unrepresentative month? About another 200-400GW nameplate at current calacity factors with a few hundred GWh of thermal storage, or roughly where they'd be if they hadn't had their rollout torpedoed in the early 2010s.
> Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built. Very nice non-cherry-picked example.
You should be the last one speaking about cherry picking, or bad faith.
Germany is ramping up coal while their renewable struggle to meet demand, currently running at 31GW of coal.
France have less than 2GW of coal ?!?
Today at midday, solar+wind load factor is about 6%.
Your 400GW of installed solar+wind doesn't cover half of what coal+gas currently produce, which is 42GW.
Again there is a basic math issues in the solution you are proposing.
> Then there's room for at least another 30% with no added storage.
It was midday, the added capacity you proposed doesn't cover half of what coal provide in the middle of the day, you wouldn't have spare energy to store. And the carbon footprint is still higher.
> A fifth of that coal and gas is being exported to france.
A tenth, see you speak about good faith and double numbers in your favor.
> And you carefully avoided mentioning their gas
You mentioned coal usage that was a lie, so I replied the real coal usage in France, which didn't have even the installed capacity to use the coal as you said.
About 10GW was used when I wrote my comment, which make the carbon intensity at 165 egCO2 per kWh.
It's 696 egCO2 per kWh for Germany.
You seems to endorse using fossil as a backup source for renewable.
> Very nice good faith discussion. You're definitely living in reality.
> Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built.
I don't know if you can make such statement when the reality you spew out is so far from what you even admit in your later comments.
You keep saying I don't live in reality, have bad faith, or lie, but you are the one who double numbers, or even invent them in this conversation.
You also are the one who have brough exactly 0 external sources through this conversation to backup your claims, well I understand it's complicated to do when you invent numbers as you go, but at least, show where your "reality" come from if it's not only in your head.
Faced by your own lies you keep attacking me personally, curious how you don't even try to deny you lied on purpose.
No I'm not getting paid. I'm just a software engineer working in logistics unrelated to the energy sector.
I just showed that renewable is more important to you than reducing carbon emissions which shows who cares more about the future here in the conversation.
Being able to find a handful of hours in an exceptional month where adding the amount I said would merely bring the two countries' net fossil fuel consumption roughly equal (using the motivated assumption it would all be much lower height than new projects) rather than bringing Germany's below doesn't prove you right, it proves you're using anything you can find to attack renewables and aren't remotely interested in truth.
It was the time I wrote the comment, but it looks like it was "an exceptional month", and "cherrypicked".
Of course, today is also cherry picked.
You could take today, load factors of renewables are about 8%. Ah sorry, it's an exceptional month ?
What about last year ?
Well, solar load factor had even lower load factor than this month, with a load factor of 1.5% over the month of december.
Wind energy was, opposingly, great and worked with a 50% load factor.
The solution you proposed, 400GW of solar, would not have helped.
> it proves you're using anything you can find to attack renewables and aren't remotely interested in truth.
Arent you bored to take my argument, ignoring it, and repeating it back to me ?
At least you could have proposed less stupid solution than 400GW of solar, like 400GW of wind energy, which at least produce useful output in winter.
But that would mean you would be informed and we wouldn't had this sad looking discussion.
I finding it amusing how wind and solar proponents cite this as a postive. It's actually a liability: energy demand is centralized in population centers but low density energy sources muse be decentralized by necessity. This means more transmission infrastructure needs to be built and maintained. This explains more: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ScJ_FwaZk
Yet another lie and attempt to derail from the point.
Political centralisation, not physical. You can build a 1GW renewable plant and connect it to a transmission line just fine, but much more importantly anyone can build one.
There's no way 50% of the world will be allowed their own enrichment or reprocessing facilities. And even in the ones that are allowed, the process is necessarily under extreme regulatory capture and is controlled by a cartel that makes oil look like a free market.
Rosatom had to be exempted from sanctions because the fuel and waste processing supply chains are so centralised that over half of Europe's nuclear fleet would have shut down if they didn't do businessnwith Russia.
Highlighting the (potential) benefits of political decentralization does not detract from the downsides of geographic decentralization.
Regardless, plenty of smaller countries manage to get along with nuclear power just fine. Slovakia, Korea, Canada, the Czech republic, Argentina. Nuclear power has spread to every content, and dozens of countries. Centralizing reprocessing may help with nuclear weapons proliferation, but most countries have a regional hegemon that already have nuclear weapons that they're fine importing from.
How big was the business with Rosatom compared with Germany importing gas from Gazprom because they invested in an intermittent power source? China accounts for nearly 80% of the world's battery supply chain [1]. And over 80% for solar panels [2]. There's a strong case to be made that renewable are more centralized: besides wind it's just one country dominating the whole market. The enriched uranium supply is actually much more diverse: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1147358/leading-enriched...
"What about Gazprom" falls flat when Gazprom was sanctioned and Rosatom was not. No-one is claiming gas is better. I'm claiming we should do the thing which reduces the total amount of gas needed most quickly. Which is wind and solar.
As to China, the barriers to developing a renewable industry are vastly smaller than building a nuclear industry (as evidenced by Europe not sanctioning Rosatom but building new solar production, wind, and battery capacity).
Whether or not it's necessary, it remains true that when some countries try building their own infrastructure, they get it blown up by state sponsored terrorists https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
Chernobyl is basically a wildlife preserve now that humans don't live there. The dangers of nuclear accidents have been somewhat overstated. They don't create radioactive hellholes where nothing lives for thousands of years. That's simply false. It's just that humans don't wish to risk the higher cancer rates and birth defects. Nature though can manage that.
Did you read about Red Forest near to Chornobyl? A nuclear station has enough material for a continent-wide Red Forest. Luckily, Chornobyl accident was steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion, so very small portion of nuclear fuel was leaked.
This isn't correct. Chernobyl was a steam explosion but it's literally not possible for any nuclear power plant to ever have a true nuclear bomb type explosion. That's a trope straight out of the Simpsons. Chernobyl was just about the worst case scenario in terms of reactor stability combining a positive void coefficient, moderator tipped control rods, a Xenon saturated reactor core, almost all control rods removed, and no containment structure to top it all off. As far as "a very small portion of nuclear fuel" being leaked, that steam explosion completely removed the reactor hall above it. It's not like it was just the lid that flew off, the remains of the fuel bundles and graphite moderators were scattered for miles. The graphite left in the crater where the reactor used to be was all burning for days spreading any fission products contained inside up with the smoke.
Chernobyl was the worst case disaster. Even before Chernobyl happened nuclear power plants outside of the USSR were already using much much safer designs. Ultimately Chernobyl has killed more people due to fears around nuclear power than even the highest realistic death toll from the accident itself.
I wasn't talking about chernobyl. I was talking about the wastelands created by mining ore that is around the same energy density as coal and leaving the toxic leaching fluid lying around or pumping it into ground water.
In this line of reasoning a collapsing dam serves as a warning, but a meltdown is a once (oops, twice) in a lifetime anomaly that will never happen again!
Nuclear has yet to kill 240,000 people as well. Fossil and biofuel normal-operation particulates kill a high-ball long-term Chernobyl worth of people every 8 hours.
Emm, these people are killed by cancer, every year. Unless we will find cure for cancer very soon, Chornobyl kills dozens of thousands per year right now.
That's outrageously inconsistent with all scientific studies.
"Among the residents of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated."
> The difficulty of nuclear storage is not guarding highly radioactive stuff the first 100 years. It's the medium and low radioactive stuff that you need to keep out of the water and air the next 10,000.
You don't have to deal with the latter if you reprocess the "waste". Which, well before 10,000 years, you're going to do anyway, because on that time scale there will be significant economic value in retrieving usable fuel from it. The only reason reprocessing is not done now in the US is politics; other countries have been doing it for decades with no problems. And as it gets more expensive to mine more fuel, reprocessing becomes more and more of an economic advantage.
Two things that are glossed over are "Others can be processed into excellent nuclear fuel, although currently this is not quite economic, in part because the fission product decay makes handling the used fuel so difficult." So we don't know how to do this yet, and processing spent fuel rods also produces a lot of toxic and radioactive byproducts that are also difficult to handle, take a look at this Superfund site:
The other thing the article does not even mention is meltdowns of operating plants and attacks on or natural disasters affecting dry cask storage and reprocessing plants. Sure, you have to eat or breath the material for it to be dangerous after 600 years, but if a plant melts down or an idiot blows up the spent fuel then it gets into water, food, soil and the air and everyone ingests it, for a very long time thereafter, BEFORE the 600 years is up. Also, keeping something safe for 600 years is something nobody has ever done. Most societies don't even last 600 years. Look at what a mess we made of it just 50 years ago:
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine is currently being shelled. Again. So it seems world peace is a prerequisite, I'd like to see the plan for that. After we've achieved world peace then the 600 year containment experiments can start and we can figure out how to get our engineering to 99.99999% reliability.
Smaller, less dangerous, and inherently safer reactor designs are being tried, maybe one of those will work well enough to be able to ramp up nuclear power, but the technology in current use is not good enough.
Aqueous reprocessing of nuclear fuel is a technology that's been mastered by many nations. Fabricating quality MOX that be fed back into reactors is something that France and Russia have succeeded at and the US and UK have failed at.
That said, there might be some other way to make MOX, or some other fuel formulation based on molten salts, metal fuel, nitrides, carbides, etc.
As for economics a big problem is that the LWR works at low temperatures and requires a huge steam turbine and huge heat exchangers. This is apart from the problem that large LWR construction projects frequently go over schedule and budget by a large margin. There is some hope that a smaller reactor like China's ACP-100 can find some simplification at small scale that makes up for the diseconomies of small scale and avoids the project management problems but it will take some kind of water-free reactor that operates at higher temperatures for nuclear to be competitive with natural gas.
> Fabricating quality MOX that be fed back into reactors
MOX can be fed back only once. After that too much Pu-240 accumulates, and that's a non-fissile element that absorbs a lot of neutrons, so it's a neutron poison (see [1]). Pu-240 can't be separated from Pu-239, except using the same methods to separate U-235 from U-238 (but more difficult, since the relative atomic mass difference is much smaller). If you get into the business of isotope separation, you might as well enrich Uranium.
With a fast reactor you can keep the cycle going. Russia is recycling MOX with the BN-800 fast reactor. The U.S. did it too with the FFTF but the FFTF dumped the heat to the air without trying to produce power. Oddly, this makes the FFTF look more like a future fast reactor because the heat exchanger for the FFTF looks more like the heat exchanger for a low capital cost closed cycle gas turbine.
> Russia is recycling MOX with the BN-800 fast reactor
Source? I was aware it was using MOX, but did not see any discussion over whether it was weapons derived, PWR SNF, from the breeding blanket, or twice used MOX
Something that the article didn't mention is that coal plants also produce radiation, and because of the lack of protection against it, the average dose of yearly radiation you get living near a coal plant is actually higher than living near a nuclear plant. That said, the repercussions of a major disaster are a lot lower with a coal plant than with a nuclear plant.
This factoid about coal power plants is often repeated, but I have my doubts about the accuracy. It seems to be based on a 44 year old paper [1] which comes to the conclusion that the radiation dose you get from living near a coal plant is on the same order of magnitude as the one from living near a BWR or PWR (Table 5 in the reference). However, emissions regulations for power plants (fossil or nuclear) are surely very different in 2022 than they were in 1978.
My understanding is that radioactive waste volumes & activity differ based on reactor type. Light-water reactors (PWR/ BWR) only burn 3% of the fuel energy hence leaving large energies as mid- and high-level radioactive waste.
Heavy-water reactors such as CANDU can achieve greater burn-up, can avoid enrichment, and even reportedly burn waste from PWRs as fuel. There are downsides but to my mind they seem small.
Breeder reactors do not actually exist and never have. Hitting some fertile material with fast or heavy water moderated neutrons is the easy part. Reprocessing reactor grade plutonium is the hard part and every program that has attempted it on a commercial scale has failed spectacularly. The french reprocessing facilities for ex weapons MOX are filthy, release more radiation than TMI and Fukushima combined in normal operation, and are horrifically expensive, and the others are all kept secret.
The BN800 is closest as it's running ~100% MOX right now (with no indication as to the source or whether it is using the breeding blanket), but noone even has any plans to attempt to reprocess spent plutonium based fuels, so at best it just doubles the amount of energy, doubles the amount of short lived extremely high level waste, and leaves you with a slightly higher level of long lived transuranics.
The danger of the long lived waste isn't handling it, it's having it enter the ground water and ecosystem where it will build up in the food chain forever.
> The french reprocessing facilities for ex weapons MOX are filthy, release more radiation than TMI and Fukushima combined in normal operation, and are horrifically expensive, and the others are all kept secret.
In reality, a single transatlantic flight will expose you to more radiation than spending a year at the reprocessing site.
Greenpeace had zero credibility on nuclear power. They think a million people died from Chernobyl. This is nothing more than propaganda.
> The danger of the long lived waste isn't handling it, it's having it enter the ground water and ecosystem where it will build up in the food chain forever.
> In reality, a single transatlantic flight will expose you to more radiation than spending a year at the reprocessing site.
More attempted misdirection. The problem is the emissions into the atmosphere and ocean which is cumulative and spread over a much larger region, not the radiation on site. Much like coal: One La Hague running at full capacity for a coupleof decades is a relatively minor problem. A thousand of them running for a century using much more polluting feed stock is the issue.
> Greenpeace had zero credibility on nuclear power. They think a million people died from Chernobyl. This is nothing more than propaganda.
If it's not a problem then why not pay for third parties to put whatever sensors they please and run whatever tests they wish on the outlets, vents, and surrounding land rather than removing them and running a media suppression campaign? Proving Greenpeace wrong would make their job far easier.
Radiation density is what matters. Radiation that escapes into a much larger volume rapidly becomes negligibly more radioactive than the average. If the surrounding areas are contaminated, it should be trivial to find this without access to the plant itself. Unless this is radiation is completely contained in the plant, and in that case it's not really contamination is it?
They don't want Greenpeace sticking random sensors everywhere, because they'll detect negligible amounts of radioisotopes and insist it's contamination. They're free to walk around less than a mile away from the plant with Geiger counters in and whatever other equipment they want. If nearby areas were contaminated, then being prohibited from entering the plant itself would pose no issue to discovering that contamination. And you can't just walk onto a nuclear facility, them being prohibited is not unusual in the slightest. It's like claiming the fact that Im not free to expose Area 51 is proof that there's something nefarious hidden there: aliens, genetically engineer Nekos, take your pick.
The sensors removed were outside the facility. The suppression campaign was about Iodine in the soil.
It is trivial to provide hard evidence about what the levels of radioactive Iodine, Krypton, Caesium, etc. are. Suppressing it just makes you look guilty. Their behavior is exactly like in Kakadu where the response is "you can't prove people don't smoke and drink more here", or what the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have done for decades.
If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? The only readings these activists have taken show average levels of radioisotopes that they turn around and claim are contamination. Why aren't France's neighbors complaining about these spills? Surely neighboring countries would object to their waters being polluted, and they have the resources to detect it. Or does this conspiracy spread beyond France, an international conspiracy of countries colluding to cover up waste?
If I stick a voltmeter on a power distribution center, and the plant workers remove it is it evidence of some sort of nefarious activity? No, because unknown devices being placed in critical infrastructure should be removed and examined.
Greenpeace France have stopped trying to argue waste is being spilled. If nothing else I have to laud your commitment to this theory that waste is being released.
> If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found?
Yeah you're right, conclusive evidence that it's safe and isn't producing an amount of radiation that would become dangerous over decades if it were to expand is trivial to provide. Why hasn't it been found?
I know right? It has been in operation for more than half a century. If there was a noticeable buildup of radioisotopes in the areas we'd be seeing a growing concentration in that areas. We have incredibly precise ways to measure radiation, sensitive to deviations if a fraction of a percent above average. The blueish area on this chart [1] is a trillionth (10^-12) above the initial radiation value. We can detect the radiation this far away not because it's dangerous, but because our instruments are so sensitive.
If there was contamination then countries all across Europe would be detecting along their waters. But they aren't.
That was a dye simulation you linked and it shows Fukushima is miniscule compared to enough reprocessing plants to cover a country's energy over a few decades. And that even a single reprocessing plant will release a Fukushima worth of radiation every few decades if they are operating without a group like Greenpeace to hold them to account. As usual, lies and attempted misdirection.
From just two facilities reprocessing a tiny fraction of spent fuel the amounts are measurable and have historically been high enough to cause major problems at neigible fuel output. Stellafield alone released more Cs137 into the ocean than Fukushima.
They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. The decreased output rate per kg of MOX is still not low enough for it to be safe with mass expansion.
You are proposing the amount of nuclear derived electricity increase 20-fold. Including MOX in this would cause reprocessing to increase by several orders of magnitude.
If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs.
The studies you link do not find any dangerous levels of radioisotopes. They also actually found higher radioisotope concentrations in the Baltic than in the north sea and English channel, because Chernobyl released more radiation than this reprocessing plant contrary to your assertion otherwise. You say that a reprocessing facility releases more radiation than Fukushima every few decades, but La Hague had been in operation for 50 years. Fukushima levels of radiation would have been released by now, and mysteriously nobody can seem to detect it.
> They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place.
What measures? No source seems to mention any sort of changes or improvements following Greenpeace's stunts. What is far more likely for reductions in radioisotopes? Is the stopping of oceanic dumping of nuclear waste, that I explained later.
> If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs.
This is already happening! You just linked to two public studies on the concentration of radioisotopes in the waters around Europe. How can you simultaneously post studies measuring radiation density, while also claiming that it's not possible to measure the radiation in the vicinity of these facilities?
And again, it's mysteriously only Greenpeace that cares. Belgium, Netherland, the UK, Spain - all of France's neighbors are apparently okay with their waters being polluted?
To be blunt, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how radioactive contamination works. The UK and USSR dumped huge amounts of nuclear waste into the ocean, and there was no observed ill effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... Whatever emissions this French reprocessing site is producing is negligible compared to the background concentrations of radioisotopes.
Two plants reprocessing a negligible fraction of the fuel for 2% of world energy provably have more effect on the north sea than chernobyl.
Both plants, but especially Stellafield were producing many times as much before Greenpeace's 'stunts'.
Scale it up at least 5000 times so that the amount of reprocessing isn't negligible and you have a chernobyl worth of radiation every 20 years or so. This is only the one pair of isotopes in the one place with an indisputable proof.
Note that your claims about it being undetectable were proven to be yet another lie and you immediately went back to 'you can't prove that it's reached harmful levels yet' or the exact same script fossil fuel has been running for decades.
When every pro nuclear claim that is easily checked is a lie, what possible reason is there to believe you about the ones that are harder to verify that you'd have even less incentive to tell the truth for?
Radiation is everywhere. We can detect radiation incredibly precisely, to the point that we can tell which person ate a banana for breakfast. I wrote that contamination was not detected, not that zero radiation whatsoever was detected. Again, we can detect radiation that's a trillionth of a deviation above average. But we don't care about the mere presence of radiation - it's all around us in low quantities - radioactive contamination happens when levels reach harmful concentration. None of your studies concluded that radiation would reach harmful levels even if it increased by a factor of 1,000. And remember, we already get 10% of our electricity from nuclear power so I'm not sure where this figure of 5,000 came from.
We all know that the cooling systems of nuclear power plants leak tritium. But the levels are negligible and nowhere near the concentrations that would cause harm. But organizations like Greenpeace continue to try lie and insist that it's contamination when it's not. The same thing is happening with La Hague.
There is absolutely nothing misleading about saying radiation isn't at harmful levels. On the contrary, insisting that the presence of any radioisotopes is evidence of harmful contamination is, itself a highly misleading kind of rhetoric. If you care about the levels of radiation released by La Hague you should be frantically trying to ban stone and brick housing.
Hopefully this will better convey a sense of what radiation exposure really means: https://xkcd.com/radiation/
Nuclear is 2% of world energy, and only an insignificant fraction is reprocessed right now. You're pushing it as a complete fossil fuel replacement, not electrical generation. Then there's the rest of the world that don't have access to enough energy yet.
So you're saying releasing 10PBq of Cs137 per year which is the lower bound on what la hague did in the 90s for reprocessing 1000t of fuel is completely fine and can be scaled up to the level required to generate world primary energy?
No, it wont. The UK and USSR dumped nearly 100 PBq of radioactive waste into the ocean. Scientists have monitored its activity and found that it dilutes to background levels of radiation. Over 2 million PBq of radiation were released during the cold war as part of nuclear weapon tests.
And you know what dwarfs all of these figures? The naturally occurring potassium 40 isotope in the ocean makes up 14,000,000 PBq [1].
Even if your figure of 10 PBq is correct (you don't give a source for it) it is a drop in the bucket compared to what's already been released. Even 50 La Hague operating for 100 years, producing radioactive waste at your figures would not reach 1% of naturally occurring radiation.
It's painfully obvious that Greenpeace is exploiting fundamental misunderstandings of radioactive waste, and how small it is compared to our background radiation exposure. And I'm sorry to tell you, you've fallen for their misinformation.
Way to conflate different isotopes that are short lived or don't bioaccumulate.
The total Cs137 (which caused most of the damage) entering the biosphere from nuclear testing was officially reported as 545PBq.
My figure from La Hague was accidentally the total including H3, not just Cs137, but seeing as that's completely fine, let's use Stellafield before big mean Greenpeace and the nuclear alarmists held them to account at the end of your supposed golden age.
This was around 4PBq/yr for reprocessing around 1500t/yr of low burnup SNF which would produce around 200t/yr or of MOX or about 10GWe
Producing 10TWe or enough energy to power the world in your fantasy breeder scenario would be 4000PBq per year of Cs137 or 8x the fallout of the entire testing program every year if even a small portion of reprocessing operated in this completely fine and normal way.
Your comparison to K40 is facile because Cs137 bioaccumulates up to 100x in food and it doesn't blend into the ocean evenly. The fukushima plume was still concentrated over a relatively small area and a few hundred m deep when it hit the coast of california 5 years later. There are still hotspots in Japan
The cesium 137 that "hit" the west coast was less than a trillionth higher than the pre-release concentration. 100x of an incredibly small number is still an incredibly small number. We test waters and measure their level of radioactive material. We do the same with fish. They're not even remotely close to hazardous levels. In fact they're not even consistently above baseline: https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/radiation/fukus...
You're assuming that every reprocessing plant will release the same amount of radiation as Sellafield, which was a particularly badly run plant that saw over a dozen contamination incidents. And even then, it was still less than half the figures you initially claimed La Hague was releasing. No such releases have been measured. Greenpeace's claims of widespread contamination we're not replicated. The tests around the oceans in la Hague all indicate levels of cesium isotopes orders of magnitudes lower than unsafe levels. Fish are not showing radiation contamination.
If one activist group published tests supposedly disproving anthropic climate change, would you just ignore all scientific concensus and believe this one group? Why is that valid reasoning when it comes to believing a fringe group's claims about radiation exposure? It's just a coincidence that no healthcare authority, no food and drug agency, no oceanography department, no group besides activists seem to be able to detect this contamination?
Again, just think about how absurd this idea is: France is poisoning the English channel and the UK, Belgium, and Netherlands are totally okay with it? Somehow they're able to keep radiation levels under wraps when anybody can walk out to shore and collect a sample? Fish are being contaminated but nobody seems to be able to find radioactive
I never said it was currently unsustainable. And you're the one that wants to expand nuclear energy 50-fold and switch to breeders when the fuel runs out. Three or four coal plants would be fine. Just like the insignificant amount of reprocessing going on now is fine.
You said Sellafield's emissions which were a product of a regulatory framework of the 70s were completely fine and insignificant.
Now prove it. Back your position up. Demonstrate that its releases were insignificant when scaled to meet world demand and that it won't poison coastlines.
Be sure to include the result of hot spots and bioaccumulation.
Test results show no level of contamination. If they existed we should be able to test a spot in the ocean and find dangerous levels of radioisotopes, but we can't. The "hot" spots are a fraction of a percent above the background levels of radiation, a fraction so small you could increase it a by a million times and it'd still be a fraction of one percent of a hazardous concentration. No bioaccumulation is happening because we don't see radioisotopes accumulating in fish, unlike say Mercury. In fact the highest cesium readings among fish in the Northwest were from before Fukushima, because concentrations are so small that Fukushima's influence is drowned out in the background noise. Governments, universities, and volunteers all monitor radiation fastidiously. They put their data online for real time monitoring, as I linked earlier. None of them find the radiation contamination you claim exist.
If tests showing no contamination isn't enough for you, nothing will. You've resorted to the broken logic of demanding that others prove a negative. There's no point in trying to convince someone resorting to this kind of fallacious thinking.
Again, Sellafield released quadruple the radiation of Fukushima. The west irish sea, english channel, the coast of Japan, and even the coast of California all have measurable but safe accumulation of Cs137. But you are not suggesting one Fukushima, or one La Hague. You explicitly said the thousands of Sellafields required to power the world with that level of regulation and incompetence with reprocessing were fine.
Suggesting that the several fukushimas a day you said was fine should be avoided was enough to earn me a condescending rant about how I don't understand radiation.
Demonstrate that known models of fluid flow and known bioaccumulation factors predict these levels will stay within safe bounds in such a scenario.
This isn't some fallacious broken logic, this is the exact same standard anyone who wants to pollute the ocean and says the amount is too small to be a problem shoukd be held to.
No credible source claims that Sellafield released more radioactive material than Fukushima. Fukushima released 340,000 to 780,000 TBq. At it's peak, Sellafield was releasing 5,200 TBq in 1975 [1]. The Magnox reprocessing lasted from 1964 to 2022. Even if we assume this peak release was constant through the entirety of operation (it wasn't), that's still 1 to 0.5 times the release of Fukushima over Sellafield's entire 58 years of operation. This is nowhere near the 4x you claimed, and it's actually even lower since Sellafield was not releasing 5.2 PBq per year throughout its entire operation.
All the fluid flow models show that the radiation released rapidly disperses to negligible concentrations. But even the best fluid flow model isn't as good as real world experimentation. Fukushima gave us that real world experiment. At least as much radiation (probably many times more) as Sellafield released over it's 6 decades of Magnox reprocessing was released all at once when Fukushima melted down. Scientists and environmental organizations all over the world tested their waters for the levels of radioisotopes. And even just a few kilometers off the shore of Fukushima, the concentrations were less than one percent of safe levels. Maps like these [2] can be so misleading because they use a Log scale, and neglect to mention that the safe levels of Cs137 is 7,400 Bq per cubic meter. Most of that map is under 10 Bq per cubic meter.
This is the same deal with bioaccumulation. We test fish. We measure the concentration of toxins. Because unlike radioisotopes, there are toxins like mercury and algae byproducts that do pose real health risks. We have all the infrastructure in place to discover bioaccumulation of radiation. But no such increases are being observed. Because it isn't happening. Or are all the governments across the world colluding to keep fish contamination under wraps?
Again, I come away with the conclusion that you have fundamentally skewed perceptions about the dangers of radiation. We released 2,566,087 PBq of radiation as part of nuclear weapons tests. This is equivalent to 5,000 Sellafields releasing radiation at its peak rate of release for 98 years. And these nuclear tests weren't spread out over a century, they were done between 1945 and 1963. And guess what? It resulted in no ocean bioaccumulation, no contaminated oceans. And in reality Sellafield did not average 5 PBq per year throughout it's operation, and not all reprocessing plants are as badly run as Sellafield. Even if we take the most pessimistic scenario possible it'd still result in radiation releases less than released from nuclear testing every century. If this level of radioactive release impacted the global environment, we'd have had ample opportunity to detect it. So unless you're claiming that there's a global conspiracy to keep a lid on ocean contamination from nuclear weapons tests, there's no reason to think that fuel reprocessing will result in contamination even if every reprocessing facility is as bad as Sellafield.
Radiation is dangerous when it's concentrated. Parts of Nevada are still irradiated from nuclear tests because the radioactive material landed on the ground and then it stays there. Radioactive material released in the ocean dilutes to negligible levels. Radioactive material in the human body typically amounts to 8,000 Bq [3]. Yet you're freaking out over 5 Bq per cubic meter in the ocean. I'm sorry but all this conversation has done is conveyed just how pervasive misinformation about the risks of radiation is these days.
You're making another pathetic attempt to deflect by conflating different isotopes and including the ones that last days or seconds and ones that don't bioaccumulate with long lived ones that do again. Stick to the really bad one which your plan entails multiple fukushimas worth of a day. Then include the hotspots that exist ten years later and bioaccumulation.
Also here's that thing you said never happened happening
Also, ingestion is neither the most dangerous or most likely route to eventually-fatal exposure: inhalation of radioactive dust is the hazard. It might take years to deliver lung cancer, on schedule, but it is a bad way to go.
That is called a "Radioisotope thermoelectric generator" but it's not the magic bullet that it appears to be. Depending on the isotope, you either get a very tiny amount of power (far less than you'd get from a solar array), or a very short half life.
I mean maybe not even powergen. Store it in the arctic where the population is low, people are unlikely to stumble across it, and then use the latent heat to heat homes or greenhouses or something. Also, I don't think seismically active and things like flooding/hurricanes aren't a thing. If the containers can keep their integrity, why not? If if not enough to fully heat homes/water/whatever, it would at least reduce the need for other sources. Of course this all depends on if the stuff can be stored safely -- and I think that's mostly solved?
> Keep the material in dry cask storage until the photon emitters have mostly decayed away, at most 600 years. If the US were to generate all its electricity from nuclear, a 600 year decay time means she would have to devote at most 21 square miles — about the size of Manhattan — to dry cask storage. This is based on the Histore system, Figure 5, which needs one acre to store 580 tons of used fuel.
Does anyone actually believe that our energy needs will never grow over time, and that growth isn't exponential?
> Does anyone actually believe that our energy needs will never grow over time, and that growth isn't exponential?
IME we minimize the negative when considering costs of things we strongly desire. When considering our ability to pay costs in the future we are similarly (overly) optimistic.
