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

Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 473 posts

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#71

Post by pfdietz »

pdonis wrote: post #69
pfdietz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That list includes the US, which hasn't had commercial reprocessing in many decades. The truth is that reprocessing is an economic loser at this point; even France admits it. Separated plutonium literally has negative value; you lose money trying to fabricate fuel elements from it instead of using freshly enriched natural uranium. France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that exp…

> reprocessing is an economic loser at this point Not on a time scale of 100 years or so, let alone the 100,000 years that are being imposed as a requirement on geologic storage. On that time scale recovering unburned fuel from reprocessing will be cheaper than mining and refining fuel. > France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that expensive Yes, particularly when you factor in…

> Not on a time scale of 100 years or so

AT THIS MOMENT it's an economic loser. If you need reprocessed fuel in 100 years, by the miracle of nonzero interest rates you save money by doing it closer to then instead of right now. The cost of storing the fuel until then is low enough that this works out.

> It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above.

No, it's a waste of money to do it right now.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#72

Post by pfdietz »

pdonis wrote: post #70
pfdietz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That list includes the US, which hasn't had commercial reprocessing in many decades. The truth is that reprocessing is an economic loser at this point; even France admits it. Separated plutonium literally has negative value; you lose money trying to fabricate fuel elements from it instead of using freshly enriched natural uranium. France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that exp…

> That list includes the US, which hasn't had commercial reprocessing in many decades. But it also includes many countries that reprocess currently. The US has not reprocessed fuel in many decades, and never on any significant scale, because the Carter Administration outlawed it based on mistaken concerns about proliferation, and it's been a political pariah ever since. It has nothing to do with any rational technica…

Pakistan and India do it for their nuclear weapons programs. You don't want to be making that argument.

The UK, France, Japan, and Italy don't reprocess anymore (I'm not sure Italy ever did on any substantial scale).

Carter stopped reprocessing by executive order, but Reagan quickly reversed that order. No reprocessing then occurred, because reprocessing made no economic sense. It turned out Carter's order isn't what killed reprocessing in the US; cold hard economics did. It did provide a convenient excuse for those who wish to ignore that reality.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#73

Post by Ekaros »

nabla9 wrote: post #7

The mechanical container solution is top notch, but 99% of the safety is just geological stability and selecting right place. Over 2 billion year old granite with very few cracks far from any fault lines. The worst possible scenario they calculated: 1) the nuclear canister would corrode in a thousand years instead of the calculated hundred thousand years, 2) and at the same time installed clay buffer surrounding cani…

I wonder if that area has Radon... Which likely would mean much higher dosage...

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#74

Post by pfdietz »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #60
pdonis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Countries that reprocess nuclear waste still need a deep geologic repository That's possible, but even if it's done, it's only necessary for hundreds of years (because the radioactive isotopes left over have much shorter half-lives), not 100,000 years. Big difference.

Radiotoxicity does indeed drop to ore levels in 300-500 years but even then there are a few problem actors. Partitioning and transmutation can help with these, probably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

I consider the elements containing those isotopes to be prime candidates for space disposal, not burial.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#76

Post by Symbiote »

Moldoteck wrote: post #57

I don't get something so maybe somebody can explain. Afaik, France has nuclear reprocessing plant, basically they take used fuel, separate nonrecyclable parts and get new fuel to be used again in their reactors. Why other countries don't send their used fuel to France for reprocessing? Is it too expensive? Too dangerous to transport? limited capacity of the plant? Or that the produced fuel can't be used in reactors f…

See the start of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#77

Post by karaterobot »

fwlr wrote: post #11

I do think the borehole plan (3km deep, rather than 400m deep) is better, although it is more speculative and this proposal has the overwhelming advantage that it’s being enacted.

Agreed; perfect is the enemy of the good in this arena. We just need someone to do something first, to make it easier for the second group, and the third, who can then offer some improvement to the process without having to overcome the same level of NIMBY challenges.

NIMBY may not be the right acronym. Not In My Very Remote, Geologically Stable Bunker System.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#78

Post by StanislavPetrov »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #21
PinguTS wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.

Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement. "The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am... One thing that drives me craziest of…

>The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach

The parent post didn't say that burying the waste wasn't the scientifically preferred approach. Disposal is only needed if you create it in the first place.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#79

Post by StanislavPetrov »

ScoobleDoodle wrote: post #42
acidburnNSA wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement. "The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am... One thing that drives me craziest of…

I think the people you're referring to want us to stop producing nuclear waste in the first place. This approach of geological sequestration, while being the scientifically preferred solution, still has potential very negative consequences for some future generation many years in the future. By some people calling this safe, it enables the nuclear proponents to leverage that to say there is no issue with the waste so…

> By some people calling this safe, it enables the nuclear proponents to leverage that to say there is no issue with the waste so it's fine to create more.

Unfortunately those who believe nuclear energy generation is necessary often refuse to acknowledge the very real risks and costs associated with it. The fact is that there is no panacea when it comes to energy generation. All known methods come with risks, rewards and downside. It is fine to argue that nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest way to generate energy, but not that it is completely safe or without risk.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#80

Post by pdonis »

pfdietz wrote: post #71
pdonis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reprocessing is an economic loser at this point Not on a time scale of 100 years or so, let alone the 100,000 years that are being imposed as a requirement on geologic storage. On that time scale recovering unburned fuel from reprocessing will be cheaper than mining and refining fuel. > France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that expensive Yes, particularly when you factor in…

> Not on a time scale of 100 years or so AT THIS MOMENT it's an economic loser. If you need reprocessed fuel in 100 years, by the miracle of nonzero interest rates you save money by doing it closer to then instead of right now. The cost of storing the fuel until then is low enough that this works out. > It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above. No, i…

> it's a waste of money to do it right now

If you're allowed to store the current waste in a facility that's only good for 100 years or so, then yes. But not if you're required to store any waste you don't reprocess for 100,000 years.

Post reply on HN