| ▲ | kleiba2 4 hours ago |
| Interesting fact: Belgium's neighbor Germany has commenced a search for a suitable place to store nuclear waste indefinitely in the 1970s. Given that such a place must be safe for hundreds of thousands of years, they have not yet found one. All the nuclear waste they've got is stored in temporary places (above ground) at former nuclear reactor sites. The search is not expected to conclude before 2040 at the very earliest. |
|
| ▲ | toasty228 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is such a non problem, here is the waste from the entire french nuclear production ever (the red cube): https://www.discoverthegreentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023... Meanwhile I've been filtering the german coal byproducts with my lungs, and paying my electricity 2-3x more per kwh than the french |
| |
| ▲ | noIdeaTheSecond 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Is that the real location or a mere simulation of size? If it's the former I wonder why close to the water? I'd understand if it was a nuclear reactor...maybe for cooling purposes but only for storing the waste? I guess it's just a size simulation, although if it were reality maybe the though is: Oceans are big enough to dilute the whole thing in case it breaks...as a watersports and ocean fan that makes me sad | |
| ▲ | raincole 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yep. The anti-nuclear group's narrative is always that "but no one wants that in their backyard..." but my god if only most voters realize that the waste from their whole state/country can literally fit in one single backyard. | |
| ▲ | noname120 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s only the high-level radioactive waste. There is also the intermediate-level with long life radioactive waste that is problematic. Overall you’re right, it’s much less of a concern than many people seem to think, but no point in downplaying it. | |
| ▲ | croes 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How much of that waste is needed for a dirty bomb? Do hear the fears that russia could hit a Ukrainian wind turbine with a rocket? Me neither. BTW did you also hear that the French government hat to rise the nuclear subsidies because the nuclear energy is so expensive? The prices for consumers were still raised | | |
| ▲ | toasty228 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Do hear the fears that russia could hit a Ukrainian wind turbine with a rocket? That's a very dumb point actually, without nuclear Ukraine would be in a much tougher situation energy wise. They're getting their shit fucked regardless, and they seemingly have 15 active reactors producing energy right now, if russians wanted to blow them up they would be long gone. > BTW did you also hear that the French government hat to rise the nuclear subsidies because the nuclear energy is so expensive? So what? Energy is a national security matter, electricity is a service, subsidies are fine. Btw these prices are inflated because of European wide electricity schemes (or scams, depending on how you want to see it) Even if germany got free, unlimited and non polluting electricity right now they'd need 50+ years to make up for how much pollution they released compared to france since ww2 | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Fears" is the correct word. See also: Radiophobia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia Reality, on the other hand, is that nuclear power is what keeps the lights on in Ukraine in this war, and Ukraine is looking to expand. The ARENH program is not a subsidy, it is, in fact, a reverse subsidy. It requires EDF to sell electricity cheaply to its competitors. | |
| ▲ | venzaspa 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The French government have been able to safely store actual nuclear weapons without incident, so I'm sure they can do just fine with a few barrels of nuclear waste. | | |
| ▲ | croes 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you want to guard nuclear waste by the military just like nuclear weapons or what is your point? | | |
| ▲ | polski-g 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes obviously. Its a trivial amount of waste generated over 60 years, less than the size of a football field. I'm pretty sure a football field can be guarded. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mpweiher 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Interesting fact: Finland just built one, for €1 billion. How can that be, if it's so incredibly difficult that Germany has not managed to do this? The simple fact is that it has virtually nothing to do with any "difficulty" of finding a repository site, the problems are purely political, same as the US: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons.[6]" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... Some German state governments even made this explicit, stating that they would not allow a repository to be designated until the German nuclear exit was finalized in their official coalition agreements. Another nice little trick was changing the language to require the "best possible" site, rather than a suitable one. Sounds innocuous, but anyone with a bit of experience in algorithms know that in theory, this actually makes the task impossible, because how can you definitively prove that there isn't an even better site that you haven't looked at yet? In practice it has made the process of finding a site incredibly lengthy, difficult and expensive. It doesn't help that the BASE, the Germany federal agency for nuclear waste has been completely taken over by the Green Party, so there is no interest in actually finding a site, and they spend almost their entire budget every year on spreading anti-nuclear propaganda. |
| |
| ▲ | toasty228 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > if it's so incredibly difficult that Germany has not managed to do this? The german government and institutions were (are?) full of pro gas (pro russian/russian tied) people who spend decades in the government before bouncing of to russia to work for petro companies. It's hard enough when you try, so imagine how hard it is if you don't even try > Gerhard Schröder, who served as Chancellor of Germany from 1998 to 2005, has worked extensively for Russian state-owned energy companies since leaving office. | | |
| ▲ | declan_roberts 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Isn't it rumored that many of the activists who lobbied (successfully) for Germany to shut down all of their nuclear power plants were being unwittingly funded by Russian interests? |
| |
| ▲ | crote 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh, Germany did - see for example the Asse II mine. It just turned out that they weren't careful enough, so now they have got a giant nuclear waste storage pit which is unstable, is trying to leak into the groundwater, needs constant babysitting to prevent it from getting even worse, and will eventually need a nearly-impossible multi-billion-euro cleanup effort. At which point they'll be left with the original waste, plus a large amount of contaminated salt mine material, sitting above ground right where it started. I reckon they would rather not want a repeat of this. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 1. Asse does not house spent reactor fuel 2. It was an old mine turned into a research mine. It was never intended for actual use. 3. The waste there is mostly medical and low-level other waste like gloves. 4. It is actually safe where it is, moving it is another giant waste of time and money whose sole intent is to stoke fear and create costs. | | | |
| ▲ | jonkoops 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why the hell did they build this in a former salt mine with known water intrusion. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They didn't. It's a research mine and never stored any spent fuel. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cbg0 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This sounds like a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation. There are certain types of reactors that can reuse uranium to further reduce its half life to around 6000 years so the one million years legal requirement is an unreasonable target. |
| |
| ▲ | nikanj 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Any material that is still radioactive after a hundred years wasn’t that deadly to begin with. There is a strong link between ”hotness” and short half-lifes, fast-decaying extra spicy isotopes are..fast-decaying | | |
| ▲ | jonkoops 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Actually, those materials can be MUCH more radioactive in the beginning compared to 'conventional' nuclear waste, the half-life is just so short that you can let them sit for a couple of decades and then deal with it. |
| |
| ▲ | bell-cot 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | IIR, those "certain types of reactors" and their supporting infrastructure are (1) very handy for producing weapons-grade nuclear material, and (2) extremely difficult to operate (historically) without sundry environmental disasters. Which problems make them considerably hotter - politically - than no-reuse type reactors. |
|
|
| ▲ | EdiX 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, nuclear power regulations are unreasonably strict because that was the method we used to soft-ban it. |
|
| ▲ | martinald 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most of the "danger" from nuclear waste passes in a few years as the most radioactive isotopes decay quickly (which is obvious when you think about it). Interestingly the US/UK/USSR dumped loads of nuclear waste in the ocean in the 1950s-70s and I recently read that there was basically no trace detectable of any of it. |
|
| ▲ | 0x000xca0xfe 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years is pure fearmongering. There are loads of chemicals, metals and other nasty stuff that are dangerous forever and also need to be stored somewhere safely, indefinitely. I personally live close to a commercial Asbestos dump (an old mine) and absolutely nobody cares about it. It's so unimportant it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Yet the second radioactive waste is concerned (even if it's just old rubble) everybody seems to lose their minds and refuses to even think rational. |
|
| ▲ | jlnthws 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder where they store coal waste. |
| |
|
| ▲ | aeyes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > All the nuclear waste they've got is stored in temporary places (above ground) at former nuclear reactor sites. Some was stored underground in the past with bad results because the former mines were unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morsleben_radioactive_waste_re... |
|
| ▲ | dbvn 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The most bureaucratic thing ever done... search for a place to store something for 56 years. still not done |
|
| ▲ | 1718627440 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > they have not yet found one. Meaning no region can be selected by a politician with out committing political suicide. |
| |
| ▲ | polski-g 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, putting it in a swing state is a non-starter. But putting the waste in a solid red or blue state? Makes perfect sense. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was referring to Germany and I am not aware, that a concept such as "swing states" exists there. Is declaring a suitable place for nuclear waste an issue in the USA as well? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | throwaway_20357 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why would it need to be safe for "hundreds of thousands of years" in the first place? Do we not think we would find some other use of nuclear waste within the next decades/centuries, and if not, just send it to space? |
| |
| ▲ | crote 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > if not, just send it to space So what do you think is going to happen when (not "if") one of those rockets has a malfunction and blows up? | |
| ▲ | croes 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Terrorists already have a use case |
|
