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

So many things wrong here. Even if you don't build any 'highly complex reactors' as you call them nuclear waste is safe.

Reduction of waste threw a reusable fuel cycle would reduce the amount of waste considerably but it isn't actually a necessary condition.

Geological storage is unproven and costs billions, but that you seem to ok with. That also involves a lot of steps and a lot of things that can go wrong.

> portions have some amazing-yet-not-yet-known use

We already know many of the potential use cases but I guess if you are not interested in production of medical isotopes to advance cancer research then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Right now we build new reactors only to make these isotopes and the are incredibly limited and only available to a limited set of people.

Equally the storage of nuclear batteries has run out and NASA and other space agencies are desperately to start producing them again.

> It's really not fine, as you state we are quite good at making mistakes and bungling things, adding more factors into the equation increases the risk of something going wrong

It also increases the risk of bringing sustainable reliable green energy, advances in nuclear technology with many application and high paying jobs in the local economy rather then putting up some solar panels produced in China.

> unproven theories that we think quite possibly are wrong

The theories are not unproven. Its simply a matter of doing the engineering, nobody really questions that these things are possible. Its just a matter of having the funds. Instead of every country spending billions digging a hole, investing in next generation technology is just obviously a better idea. For the price of the nuclear repository Switzerland is planning they could literally build a whole fleet of new reactors to power the country.

The most likely scenario is that at some point next 300 years we figure out advanced fission or fusion and if we do so burning that waste up isn't that big a deal.

If the danger were a nuclear explosion destroying a city, then you would have point.

But its not, the danger is maybe a slightly leaking cask could maybe lead to slightly higher cancer rates in a certain area.

> So you must store 1000 more times the fuel for it to be truly sustainable

Instead of one 1 football field it might be 1000 over the next 10000 years. Yeah horrible, we can't possible spare 1000 football fields full of parking lots.

That report includes radiation sources which are much more radioactive and much smaller than nuclear waste from power plants. Small radioactive sources can be easily lost or stolen due to their size. Nuclear waste from a power plant is larger being mostly fuel rods or irradiated containers and is stored and transported in large containers that are not easily lost or stolen. Making an argument based on that report also covers arguing against the use of radioactive materials in healthcare and industry since that is where most of the small losable isotopes are employed.

Thanks for the references, I was always under the impression that uranium was a relatively abundant material. I tend to agree with @credit_guy in that we always tend to find more of the natural resources when the need presents itself. However according to your link, the grow of stock/newly discovered uranium is quite slow... kinda concerning

> This has to be repeated again and again. Civilian nuclear waste isn't really a good great target for sabotage. There are 1000 places to attack that are far cheaper and have higher effect.

Sure...there is the nuclear reactor around the corner...

What is this sentence even based upon? Do you have some strategic study on that? Because they're investing a hell lot of money to protect that stuff.

> So you know about every form of re-procession that will ever be invented and already know the associated costs.

Please tell me of that magic forms of reprocessing which are somewhere even at the far horizon.

> Canada is planning one right now to reprocess spend CANDU fuel.

There is a lot "in planning" and has been for decades, not much came of it. Even with those reactors currently being build...besides rising costs of course.

> This equation changes if you add the cost of storage facility the new fuel as well.

How does it if nobody wants to buy your overpriced fuel you still have to mix with actual fresh fuel which you can get cheaper? Do you want to force them to take it after you wasted so much money on it? To what end? It doesn't go away. You'll still have to store it in the end, just like the stuff which gets created during the process. The process actually generates more stuff you have to store...

> Finnland even with its very expensive new reactor now produces stable green energy and this reactor captial investment will pay off 80-100 years.

The fact that they already had to reduce output because the actual price on the market is far below what they produce already shows that it will take much longer. Longer then the thing will run.

> Funny how Finalnd with lots of nuclear has far greener energy with less money investment then Germany. Finland didn't make a 20 year propaganda campaign to claim they are so great and green, they just build a reactor and are fine now.

The only "funny" thing about that paragraph (and the whole comment) is the use of greenwashing.

Other than that: Germany has done much more for the implementation of truly green energy around the world than any of those "nuclear countries" you've mentioned here. Today, humans on the farthest corners of this planet can afford to have electricity, and it's not because of a nuclear reactor in their backyard.

> If you shit on a nuclear reactor for being turned off, boy I have news for you about wind and solar.

The difference between turning off wind or solar is that it works almost instantly and without creating additional costs. It's called flexibility. Flexibility in power generation is a concept from the future. You should read it up. It's cheap and clean. Unlike with nuclear, where countries like France (back when their fleet wasn't rotting around) have to sell for peanuts on the EEX because it's too expensive and problematic to reduce power on the reactor. Not even talking about a real shut down here.

> Had Germany started building nuclear reactors, even with conservative cost estimate. Nuclear would have been a far better deal then the 'Energiewende' they actually did. Starting in 2000 building nuclear reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s would have lead to a far, far greener grid then they have now.

This is hilarious. Germany replaced their nuclear fleet years ago. Why would they need to waste money on a technology from the past? Especially because not even France can build reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s...

How didn't you know that? It's a running joke for years.

> My calculation

Your calculations are useless if you don't even know about those astronomical cost explosions and delays around nuclear reactors in Europe...

> And those reactors would last 60-100 years.

This is hilarious. How did you miss all those news about the rotting fleet in France?

> Nuclear for France has been on of the best public investments ever done. Minimal impact on taxes and cheap long term stable fuel prices for literally half a century.

The price is fixed by the government. It's called tarif blue and the company selling the stuff had to be nationalised...again. Such a "great" business...

How didn't you know that...too...?

We both know why: you grabbed those talking points from the Astro Turf and their followers without checking anything of it.