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

111–120 of 473 posts

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

#111

Post by [deleted] »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #107
cultofmetatron wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem that argument is that we learn how to increase efficiency as a result of using it and building a supply chain around that resource. Just look at gas engines. a modern gas engine uses a fraction of the fuel of a model T to transport more weight faster to their destinations. What you're suggestion would be akin to saying we should avoid the model T and wait till the prius is available. without a car industr…

I get your overall point, however it's the reverse: electric cars were around before gas-powered cars. And the first hybrid gas-electric car was made around 1898. https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car

[deleted]

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

#112

Post by Swizec »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #109
panick21_ wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a bad take. There is almost unimaginable amount Thorium and Uranium on the planet. We will never run out. In reality, volcanic activity keeps transporting thorium up, so it borderline renewable. We have energy for 100s or 1000s of years with nuclear, even used inefficiently. Sure it fucking sucks we are only mostly U-235 and we are doing it inefficiently, but stopping progress because of that is just dum…

‘No one will ever need more than 512kb of memory’ And calling something ‘a bad take’ because you have a differing opinion makes you an arrogant crass brute.

No one would ever come up with usecases for more than 512kb of memory without first having access to 512kb of memory.

You need to use stuff. Only then can you have better ideas.

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

#113

Post by pfdietz »

pdonis wrote: post #83
pfdietz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Carter's order isn't what killed reprocessing in the US; cold hard economics did. No, "cold, hard economics" would say, if you are correct that it's not even cost effective to do any reprocessing now, that the spent fuel should be stored for 100 years or so and then reprocessed, when it's economically cost effective. But US policy has been that spent fuel has to be stored in a facility that's good for 100,000 years…

You do raise a good question: why was there this idea that burying waste now was a good idea? I can think of two reasons:

First, it may have been thought that opposition to nuclear energy is due to waste, and that burying it would remove the opposition. I consider this ill-founded, both because those predisposed to oppose nuclear use waste only as one of many arguments, and because the actual objective argument (economics) as nothing to do with waste.

Second, it may have been thought in the height of the Cold War that spent fuel at the surface would be a tempting target for ground burst H-bombs, where it would then contribute to long term fallout (each 1 GW(e)-year of spent fuel has about the same long lived fission products as a 20 MT bomb.) This is not an argument the government would have been pushing publicly, of course.

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

#114

Post by RobotToaster »

panick21_ wrote: post #101

I just don't like this, a huge amount of money spent for nothing. This fuel can be managed just fine above ground. Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might have to move it, who cares. If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway. Also, this is not 'waste' there are interesting and unique materials there that might be relevant in the next 100+ years. Not to mention that th…

It reminds me of how "useless" gasoline used to be burnt off at oil wells to extract parrafin oil.

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

#115

Post by pfdietz »

pdonis wrote: post #80
pfdietz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Where does that requirement come from, though? If society is going to collapse in 100 years, I suggest the money be better spent preparing for the consequences of that, not worrying about whether the documentation on dry casks will satisfy some licensing requirement.

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

#117

Post by pavlov »

panick21_ wrote: post #101

I just don't like this, a huge amount of money spent for nothing. This fuel can be managed just fine above ground. Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might have to move it, who cares. If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway. Also, this is not 'waste' there are interesting and unique materials there that might be relevant in the next 100+ years. Not to mention that th…

> “Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might have to move it, who cares. If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.”

This isn’t the right way to plan centuries ahead. You can’t just say “well if the dummies can’t do this one more thing we imposed on them, they deserve what they get.”

With generational risks we should aim to reduce them now as much as possible and take the most dangerous contingencies off the table.

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

#118

Post by justsomehnguy »

tedunangst wrote: post #99
mongol wrote: post #75

Since the fuel will be encased in copper, and copper is quite valuable, I see a future, some centuries or millenia from now, where people will try to steal it, without realizing the dangers associated. With bad side effects as consequence.

So a few copper thieves get radiation poisoning? How bad is that, really? It seems like all nuclear waste doomerism is based on the same assumption that at some point in the future all of humanity is reduced to 100 individuals and all of them decide to dig into the same mine shaft.

> How bad is that, really?

They wouldn't die outright, see Goiânia accident.

But honestly, if the future mankind would lose it knowledge about such place and it's dangers and would get a lesson... then it would get a lesson.

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

#119

Post by foverzar »

Can't recycle anymore in Russia.

I was honestly surprised to learn how big of an issue nuclear waste management is. Up to the point where people are actually reinforced in popular opinion, that nuclear waste is a dirty and an unmanageable problem.

This isn't even really waste, there are lots of useful materials that you can extract or reprocess into other kinds of useful fuel for other types of reactor.

Except after Chernobyl, almost no one actually bothered with developing proper infrastructure and production chains for nuclear industry.

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

#120

Post by nevi-me »

panick21_ wrote: post #101

I just don't like this, a huge amount of money spent for nothing. This fuel can be managed just fine above ground. Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might have to move it, who cares. If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway. Also, this is not 'waste' there are interesting and unique materials there that might be relevant in the next 100+ years. Not to mention that th…

In the extreme, the have been politicians and other leaders who came in and decided to undo decisions of their predecessors for petty reasons. A memorable example being the US' 45th President.

If this high cost is in the long run cheaper than relying on 10+ generations to do the right thing, it's probably a worthwhile cost.

Post reply on HN