Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#201

Post by Krasnol »

mbostleman wrote: post #192
Krasnol wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get 27.300 results for "solar waste" on google. 88.000.000 for "solar waste management". Literally "no one ever"...

I don't think the implication was that there is no data out there. I think it's more about the popular conversation. I have this same problem all the time when I discuss this topic with people. It's very common for people to respond quickly about nuclear with "but what about the waste". To which I typically respond "what about the solar waste". The problem is, the question is generally only applied to one side while…

We both know what was intended by that. Dramatization in an already emotion filled discussion.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#202

Post by magicalhippo »

Krasnol wrote: post #119
gambiting wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have pointed out, most issues are political, not technical. There are already places which would be perfect(deep mine shafts surrounded by salt deposits, so they are literally impenetrable as salt is self-sealing) but the countries/states they are in object to keeping the waste as some sort of ideological issue. What I want to know is whether there is a technical issue with what I am suggesting.

You just literally proposed to dig a 5-6m deep hole and assumed that would be enough...not even salt mines are enough. See Germany where there is suddenly groundwater seeking into a salt mine full of radioactive waste. A salt mine that was considered safe once. Now they are looking for years now to find a new safe spot and Germany stopped producing new waste. Still they have those problems. Tax payers are paying for…

To be fair, he said 5-6 kilometers, and the Asse II mine is less than 800m deep.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#203

Post by magicalhippo »

gambiting wrote: post #176
dmurray wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deepest mine in the world is 4km deep. There are only a dozen or so more than 2km deep. Going down 5-6km may be possible, but definitely not with "no issues". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines

You don't need to drill tunnels for people to walk in - just a borehole wide enough to fit a cylinder filled with nuclear waste. In fact, this very idea was already researched and test holes drilled - but of course was cancelled due to public opposition, even though we could get rid of our nuclear waste almost overnight using this method. Typical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal

Just running the numbers here.

As per your Wikipedia article, current technology limits the borehole to 50 cm. That gets us 500 to 1000 m^3 worth of storage per borehole, assuming the lower 1km to 2km is used for storage.

From this[1] page, as far as I understand, on a global scale the current amount of nuclear waste in need of such storage is 482000 m^3. So roughly 500-1000 boreholes to store the current waste inventory.

Anyone got any ideas on how much it costs to drill a 5-6km 50cm hole?

[1]: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#204

Post by Consultant32452 »

Krasnol wrote: post #173
ovi256 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, we were talking about Fukushima, do you have any data about that ? Anyway, about the first link: Wow, 40000 cancers attribuable in Europe by 2065 to Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history. That sounds bad, until you finish reading the abstract, where the authors evaluate that impact as "several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes ... unlikely that the cancer burden from…

> First of all, we were talking about Fukushima, do you have any data about that ? How can I? Who would provide that? Especially in Japan where politics and ignorance go hand in hand with avoidance to even talk about the whole thing or any disastrous event. The piles of white bags full of earth next to the roads in the region are the only silent reminders that something really bad happened there. > Anyway, about the…

Nuclear is not a yes or no question, it's a how much question. Wind/solar/battery are going to be a huge part of moving us off fossil fuels, but it doesn't seem likely that they will be sufficient in all cases across the world. Nuclear seems like the best option available to fill in the gaps.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#205

Post by Krasnol »

magicalhippo wrote: post #202
Krasnol wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just literally proposed to dig a 5-6m deep hole and assumed that would be enough...not even salt mines are enough. See Germany where there is suddenly groundwater seeking into a salt mine full of radioactive waste. A salt mine that was considered safe once. Now they are looking for years now to find a new safe spot and Germany stopped producing new waste. Still they have those problems. Tax payers are paying for…

To be fair, he said 5-6 kilometers , and the Asse II mine is less than 800m deep.

Yeah, when I saw that, I couldn't edit anymore.

My argument was also not aimed at the depth but at the unreflected "just dig a hole and hide it there" idea which reminds me of the dumping of nuclear waste into the sea.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#206

Post by Krasnol »

magicalhippo wrote: post #203
gambiting wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to drill tunnels for people to walk in - just a borehole wide enough to fit a cylinder filled with nuclear waste. In fact, this very idea was already researched and test holes drilled - but of course was cancelled due to public opposition, even though we could get rid of our nuclear waste almost overnight using this method. Typical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal

Just running the numbers here. As per your Wikipedia article, current technology limits the borehole to 50 cm. That gets us 500 to 1000 m^3 worth of storage per borehole, assuming the lower 1km to 2km is used for storage. From this[1] page, as far as I understand, on a global scale the current amount of nuclear waste in need of such storage is 482000 m^3. So roughly 500-1000 boreholes to store the current waste inven…

It costs something around 1000€ for a 6m well. Without the paperwork.

But this is your usually drilling equipment for those depths.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#207

Post by Gibbon1 »

newnewpdro wrote: post #131
Gibbon1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. Are three.

Three reactors melted down @ Fukushima Daiichi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

Three mile Island's core also melted by didn't breach containment. That fact hasn't been widely publicized. And there is a tendency to skip over that TMI is on the Susquehanna River which drains into Chesapeake Bay.

TMI came within hours of being a monumental disaster.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#208

Post by Krasnol »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #204
Krasnol wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First of all, we were talking about Fukushima, do you have any data about that ? How can I? Who would provide that? Especially in Japan where politics and ignorance go hand in hand with avoidance to even talk about the whole thing or any disastrous event. The piles of white bags full of earth next to the roads in the region are the only silent reminders that something really bad happened there. > Anyway, about the…

Nuclear is not a yes or no question, it's a how much question. Wind/solar/battery are going to be a huge part of moving us off fossil fuels, but it doesn't seem likely that they will be sufficient in all cases across the world. Nuclear seems like the best option available to fill in the gaps.

You make it look like nuclear is a all case solution across the world. It never was and it never will be so it's definitely not the best option available.

And yes it as an yes or no question. Especially if you consider building a new reactor today and investing into that. It doesn't look like many people consider to vote "yes" on that now with the alternatives growing. It's also not a bridge technology. A gas or even oil power plant would be better then a decade long involvement in a nuclear plant.

It's done and we just can hope now that what's still there won't fall apart before it gets demolished.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#209

Post by gambiting »

Krasnol wrote: post #205
magicalhippo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, he said 5-6 kilometers , and the Asse II mine is less than 800m deep.

Yeah, when I saw that, I couldn't edit anymore. My argument was also not aimed at the depth but at the unreflected "just dig a hole and hide it there" idea which reminds me of the dumping of nuclear waste into the sea.

Well, the clear difference is that stuff dumped into the sea will make it to the surface sooner or later. Containers will eventually leak and the dangerous materials will get into water, which then will carry it all over the world. Waste dumped into a 6km deep borehole is not coming out ever. I've made another comment above with a link to the wiki article about project deep borehole - where exactly this was researched and found viable for long-term storage of radioactive material. But was of course stopped by......public protests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#210

Post by petre »

Krasnol wrote: post #200
petre wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I forgot about Russian gas. The US basically had to threaten the EU with tarrifs (hint: on vehicles, I wonder who's EU's biggest vehicle producer) if we don't import LPG from the US to reduce dependency on Russian gas. Norway, your other suppiler, isn't building any new capacity either. Wait, your country is building coal plants in 2019? At least reconvert them to gas or oil. Otherwise I agree that the differenc…

> The US basically had to threaten the EU with tarrifs f we don't import LPG from the US to reduce dependency on Russian gas. Norway, your other suppiler, isn't building any new capacity either. I don't get what you want to say with all that. Of course Norway is not expanding capacity. Why should they? Renewables are coming. Here and there. And if the US wants to deliver cheaper LPG, why shouldn't we buy it? > Wait,…

> And if the US wants to deliver cheaper LPG, why shouldn't we buy it?

Because it requires building a terminal in Hamburg or another Baltic port and a distribution pipeline. It's easier to keep buying from Russia.

What you do not understand is how energy is being produced/sold. Supply has to meet demand at all times, otherwise energy is sold at a discount or lost. Pure end of the year statistics don't mean much.

Post reply on HN