Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Sweden Approves Plan To Bury Spent Nuclear Fuel for 100,000 Years (nasdaq.com) 135

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
Sweden's government gave the go-ahead on Thursday for the building of a storage facility to keep the country's spent nuclear fuel safe for the next 100,000 years. From a report: What to do with nuclear waste has been a major headache since the world's first nuclear plants came on line in the 1950s and 1960s. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that there is around 370,000 tonnes of highly radioactive, spent nuclear fuel in temporary storage around the globe. "Our generation must take responsibility for nuclear waste. This is the result of 40 years of research and it will be safe for 100,000 years," Environment Minister Annika Strandhall told reporters at a news conference. "The solution for the final storage of spent nuclear fuel - through that, we ensure that we can use our current nuclear power as a part of the transition to becoming the world's first fossil-free, developed nation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sweden Approves Plan To Bury Spent Nuclear Fuel for 100,000 Years More

Sweden Approves Plan To Bury Spent Nuclear Fuel for 100,000 Years

Comments Filter:

  • Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @03:12PM (#62212917)
    Most of that can likely be reprocessed or used in some other productive manner. I trust the Swedes enough not to turn it into nuclear weapons. Even if there's still leftover waste, reducing the absolute amount of it is still a good idea.

    • plan now to plan later (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Jodka ( 520060 )

      Agree. This sounds more like government contractors finding a big new trough to feed at than it does a rational scheme for waste disposal. The planning horizon is 100,000 years, so you'd think they could continue to store that spent fuel on-site for a few decodes until we know if wave reactors [wikipedia.org] will work.

      Make up some number like about 20 years from now. By then, so much of the uncertainty about whether to bury that forever or fission it will be resolved. Wave reactors will or will not prove viable by th

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        From the article it looks like they already have a 70 year window to find a use for the nuclear waste. What is the problem with building the storage facility now and if you don't need it in 70 years you are only out the cost of building the facility. If you wait 20 years (maybe 30) then you are going to be 20-30 years behind where you would be if you started now.
        Even if we find a use for the waste in 100 years it isn't inconceivable that you could dig it up and use it.

      • Fusion does not change the waste problem regarding the waste we already have.

        • Fusion does not change the waste problem regarding the waste we already have.

          Yes it does, because that waste exists into the future and fusion potentially changes the economic viability of wave reactors which that waste would fuel; If fusion reactors undercut and supplant wave reactors, that could make burying the waste a better choice.

          Suppose in the future electricity generated from natural gas has price x. Suppose that also electricity generated by wave reactors has price x/2. So we should keep the fissionable waste instead of burying it, right? Because we will want it to fu

          • Putting waste into a wave reactor does not magically remove the waste.

            And perhaps you keep mixing up Fusion with Fission? A fusion reactor most certainly has no use for waste from a fission reactor ...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's not economical to build new reactors to process and reuse it. The cost is just too great to justify it, since there are other clean and cheaper sources of energy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      Although some blame politics, I.e. cars donâ(TM)t run on water because the technology has been suppressed and stored in Area 51, the reality tends to be economic. In the US nuclear power plants are not economical, and a number of failed construction projects being paid off by ratepayers is the proof. Bill Gates can and should pay full costs for new experimental technology. But not the taxpayer

      Reprocessing is the same thing. It, along with long term storage, is a good option. however it is the more ex

    • Re:Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kot-begemot-uk ( 6104030 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @05:14PM (#62213459) Homepage
      At present only two countries do that - Russia and to a lesser extent China. Even the French ship their spent nuclear fuel to Russia for reprocessing (the last batch was shipped in late November if memory serves me right).

      Everybody else either stores or ships to one of these two.

      The Swedish are a bit lucky here - Northern Europe is one of the most seismically stable and geologically dormant parts of the world. It is a gigantic slab of granite from Kola in the East to Norway in the west. 10km deep with no faults, no earthquakes and nothing to cause any problems with storage if you go deep enough. No need to strengthen any of the tunnels either - granite bless it.

      • France has its own reprocessing plants ... Why the funk would they ship something to Russia for reprocessing?
        If they shipped something to Russia it was for deposit and burial

    • I trust the Swedes enough not to turn it into nuclear weapons.

      They don't need nuclear weapons, they have lutfisk.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by chefren ( 17219 )
        That's Norway. Sweden has something much worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        • "During the production of surströmming, just enough salt is used to prevent the raw herring from rotting while allowing it to ferment. A fermentation process of at least six months gives the fish its characteristic strong smell and somewhat acidic taste. A newly opened can of surströmming has one of the most putrid food smells in the world, even stronger than similarly fermented fish dishes such as the Korean hongeohoe or Japanese kusaya."

          Sounds yummy, but I enjoy cheese that could best be describ

  • Environmental minister fails duty, news at 11 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Burying waste is not "taking responsibility". Burying radioactive waste even less so.

    Run it up in fast breeder reactors and re-use until gone saves having to store it for any length of time. But of course, the US won't have that.

    Saying "we'll bury it" still makes a mockery of "we're taking responsibility". No you're not. You're giving the problem to the next five thousand generations. And thanks for that, eh.

    • Re:Environmental minister fails duty, news at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @04:05PM (#62213171)

      Run it up in fast breeder reactors and re-use until gone saves having to store it for any length of time.

      And you have the working reactors that Sweden can use today?

      But of course, the US won't have that

      What does the US have to do with a decision made by Sweden?

    • FYI, breeder reactors produce materials that could potentially be used in nuclear weapons and that is why the US has NOT promoted their use

      spent nuclear fuel can certainly be processed for re-use in nuclear batteries like those produced by Ultra Safe Nuclear corporation [usnc.com] , but that leaves a substantial amount of waste (basically, everything that ever entered the nuclear plant) that must be tucked away for several millennia

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Proliferation isn't the biggest issue, cost is. For Norway to build a reactor capable of recycling that fuel would simply be uneconomical.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Agripa ( 139780 )

        FYI, breeder reactors produce materials that could potentially be used in nuclear weapons and that is why the US has NOT promoted their use

        But that is true of any uranium fueled reactor; it is not unique to breeder reactors. If fuel is added and used for a short length of time, then plutonium-239 is produced which may be chemically extracted with a minimum of plutonium-240 which would otherwise render the plutonium useless for weapons.

    • 1 cubic meter of water weighs 1 ton. Lets say that nuclear waste isn't mostly concrete, steel, and other very dense heavy materials with a heap of integrated radioactive materials but is low density water. It would take a cube 71 meters on each side to store all 370,000 tons of nuclear waste.

      Humanity holds nuclear energy and waste to a double standard that no other industrial activity is held to. We demand perfect safety records and zero waste which prevents it's usage while at the same time thousands of pe

  • Highly Radioactive? (Score:4, Informative)

    by cowdung ( 702933 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @03:15PM (#62212931)

    If it has a half-life of 100 thousand years it can hardly be called "highly" radioactive. Quite the opposite.

    • If it has a half-life of 100 thousand years it can hardly be called "highly" radioactive. Quite the opposite.

      Came here to read this, am leaving satisfied.

      If the half life is 100,000 years it's probably safe to hold in your hand and store under your bed.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Vihai ( 668734 )

        100.000 years is not the half life but even if it was it is still quite short, especially if we're talking of transuranics with long decay chains and we are talking about tons of them.

    • Yeah it's the stuff that has short half-lives that's the dangerous stuff.
    • At some point we should have enough data and capability to bury radioative waste in oceanic subduction zones. Right now, we don't have the technology to send large amounts down and drop it with 100% accuracy into said zone.

    • The rule of thumb is 10 half-lives to consider the isotope gone. So after 100,000 years everything with a half-life less than 10,000 years will be gone.

      Rummaging through the "Mae West" curve to see what isotopes would be left at that point would be interesting, but I'm sure they already did it.

      • So after 100,000 years everything with a half-life less than 10,000 years will be gone.
        Erm, nope?

        Do you have a math problem? I'ms sure you find help in your area to help you with math.

        • His math looks OK to me: 10 half-lives times a half-life of 10,000 years is 100,000 years. (And after 10 half-lives, you'd have 2^-10 of the original isotope remaining, which he claims is effectively zero.) Or did I miss something?

          • Yeah,
            you miss that the stuff is not gone. Lol.
            A single cubic centimeter of any radioactive substance contains more nuclei than your example.
            If he was right, or you were right, we had no Uranium or other radioactive stuff on the planet. All would be gone already.

    • That is a stupid attitude of people who failed physics class in school.

      Half life has nothing to do with "how radioactive" a material is.

      You get a nice amount of Gamma or Neutron radiation through your body, or in case of Alpha and Beta radiation, you get the stuff inside your body: the half life does not matter at all.

    • U235 has a half life of 700 million years. I'm glad you've put my mind at ease now because I use it as a toothpaste additive. It's not "highly" radioactive. SMH

    • A spent fuel rod that has been cooling for a ten years will still feel hot to the touch and deliver a lethal dose of radiation in a couple of minutes. So I'd class them as Highly Radioactive. Reprocessing to remove the usable uranium and plutonium will still leave the extemely radioactive fission products and long lived transuranic elements concentrated in the reprocessing waste.

    • Re:Highly Radioactive? (Score:4, Informative)

      by crunchygranola ( 1954152 ) on Friday January 28, 2022 @06:19AM (#62214601)

      If it has a half-life of 100 thousand years it can hardly be called "highly" radioactive. Quite the opposite.

      Bizarrely, at this moment, this is given points as "informative".

      This turns the logic of burying stuff to decay away upside down, trying to infer that since they want to confine it for a long time it must have been safe all along. Really?

      The point of burying radioactive material for X length of time is that many half-lifes of stuff that have a half-life much less than "X" decay to low levels. The witches brew mixture of spent fuel is very radioactive initially, and it gets less and less with time. There is no "magic" time when it all has decayed to some effectively innocuous state, but the longer you wait the less radioactive it is, and confining for a long time is a good thing. Even if one asserts that it really only needs to be confined for a few thousand years, it is good engineering practice to make the design containment time much longer. This is called a "margin of safety" in engineering and any competent engineering includes one. The more difficult it is to control the conditions of service, the larger the margin.

      There is a popular comparison offered for aged spent fuel, asserting that after X years (usually several hundred is claimed) it is "less radioactive than the original ore", or something called "a uranium ore equivalent", but invariably without an explanation of what that means and how that is actually being calculated. If we compare the radioactivity to actual ores, we see that this comparison is simply wrong. The most common ores that are currently being mined (like the Olympic Dam mine in Australia) have a uranium content of ~0.1%, and a specific activity of 0.005 curies/tonne, or if we want to consider an absurdly high grade (these days) of fantasy ore of 10% uranium (0.5 curies/tonne), the spent fuel does not decay to this activity level in even 10 million years due the presence of long lived actinides and their decay chains. At 100,000 years spent fuel is at 100 curies/tonne, at one million years at 30 curies/tonne. This is still high activity, high level waste under current standards and though not rapidly deadly if handled or anything, is still much more radioactive than anything found in nature, and unsafe to handle or be exposed to for long periods.

      I looked into where apparently these "uranium ore equvalent" comparisons are coming from (like I said, they are never explained). Among the problems are using old numbers for low burn up fuels, current fuels contain much higher concentrations of actinides, and pretending (without making this clear) that they are treating the "ore" as if it was highly concentrated like the fuel, when in fact it is dilute.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The problems start when it gets into your body or the local ecosystem. Normally your skin and flesh protect organs from DNA damage done by radiation in the natural environment. If radioactive particles get inside your body and sit there for years, maybe decades, even if the amount of energy they radiate is low it can still cause serious health problems.

      It's the old "banana equivalent dose" fallacy. Your body regulates the amount of potassium in it, so eating bananas is safe. It doesn't do so well when you g

  • The catch is it's in Finland (Score:5, Funny)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @03:15PM (#62212933)
    Don't tell anyone.

  • Article simply ignores the two big questions. 1, why do they imagine the location chosen will be secure that long? And 2, how will they prepare the waste to sit around that long? Dry casks leak and vitrification is too expensive, for the money you could have renewables to replace your nuclear instead. This article is worthless.

    • Re:how do they plan to prepare it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by chill ( 34294 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @03:30PM (#62212999) Journal

      Copper cannisters with cast iron inserts, buried in bedrock and sealed up with bentonite clay. [skb.com]

      Lots of interesting information at the website of the company doing this: SKB.They've been working on this problem for decades.

      SKB is owned by the nuclear power companies. They have a statutory duty to deal with the disposal of Swedish nuclear waste and to pay for these operations.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Torodung ( 31985 )

      Begs the question, how do we store energy efficiently? That what makes renewables really work.

      Until then, nuclear should be part of our strategy to eliminate as much carbon emissions as possible. We need electricity on demand to bounce around the power grid. Renewables cannot address consumption spikes. Hybrid solutions that include nuclear will.

      All strategies on deck. Now, please. So if we aren't already completely screwed, as in extinction event, we can be screwed less harshly.

      • Agreed. There should be sustained push for renewables including all the BE distribution architecture, smart meters, and incentivization for the same.

        However, it's insanity to start ripping out working, base load, C02 free** , power generation before renewables and the associated storage issues are satisfactorily understood and deployed. I also dislike the arguments from certain sectors that nuclear is too expensive, when a large part of the expense are created by those same people vis a vis endless lawsui

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suutar ( 1860506 )

      This appears to be about how to handle waste that already exists. I'm not seeing how adding renewables addresses that, regardless of how much vitrification costs.

    • Best Effort available (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @07:36PM (#62213833) Journal

      Valid points.

      1, why do they imagine the location chosen will be secure that long?

      It's more about geology. They have to pick a site that has a specific geology, granite. They've picked granite because of the amount of time it takes for ground water to seep through is measured in thousands of years, the best chance radio-isotope decay if it leaks.

      Obviously fractures in the granite may short-cut this which is where the bentonite clay comes in. When it is exposed to groundwater it swells up and seals the leak. It's the best available method.

      The third layer of defense is largely theoretical but supported by some research that the CSIRO did in Australia when they discovered crystal formations of radio-isotopes that were impervious to water.

      There is not a lot of data out there about how these crystalline rock structures (Uranacytes - IIRC) are formed so I expect that the last line of defense is the best they can do with the knowledge available today.

      2, how will they prepare the waste to sit around that long? Dry casks leak and vitrification is too expensive, for the money you could have renewables to replace your nuclear instead.

      They have to do something, they have to store it somewhere. They are doing the right thing to reduce the amount of spent fuels hanging around in spent fuel cooling pools.

      You're right that it isn't perfect, there are still a lot of questions about the C22 grade steel and it's resistance to corrosion however it's the best we can do right now.

      The Swedes really have done the best effort anyone could expect fully knowing that they chose to open Pandora's box.

      This article is worthless.

      The article doesn't have a lot of detail. The only reason I know about the facility is because I've been tracking its progress. It is state of the art for nuclear spent fuel product storage.

      I think it's appropriate to point out that this is where the US is hamstrung by law. One of the biggest issues in resolving spent fuel storage in the US is due to restrictions in the Atomic Energy Act from building *any* nuclear facilities into crystalline rock structures such as granite. That prevents the US doing something as technologically advanced as the Swedes because this obsolete part of US law still exists.

      I'll also point out that the infrastructure of this facility parallels the U.S Energy Department's original "Defense in Depth" specification for a spent fuel facility before those laws came into being.

      We should be applauding what the Swedes have done. It's as full as responsibility that any nation could take in building a facility to store nuclear fuel products and therefore the example of "Best Practice" that other nations can model.

      This is a good day for both sides of the nuclear debate but for different reasons.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by chr1973 ( 711475 )

        I think it's appropriate to point out that this is where the US is hamstrung by law. One of the biggest issues in resolving spent fuel storage in the US is due to restrictions in the Atomic Energy Act from building *any* nuclear facilities into crystalline rock structures such as granite. That prevents the US doing something as technologically advanced as the Swedes because this obsolete part of US law still exists.

        I'll also point out that the infrastructure of this facility parallels the U.S Energy Department's original "Defense in Depth" specification for a spent fuel facility before those laws came into being.

        We should be applauding what the Swedes have done. It's as full as responsibility that any nation could take in building a facility to store nuclear fuel products and therefore the example of "Best Practice" that other nations can model.

        Thanks for an informative post! Do you happen to know the rationale behind these laws in the United States?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MrKaos ( 858439 )

          Thanks for an informative post! Do you happen to know the rationale behind these laws in the United States?

          No, all that I know was that it was a game of politics instead of science. I think it was Idaho that proposed the amendment, which is odd considering how many nuclear research facilities are located there. As I understand it Nevada got the spent fuel facility because one of their representatives was sick.

          You would need to pull whatever the American version of Hansard is, for that particular vote, to get an understanding, but even that doesn't include the 'behind the scenes' discussions and games politici

  • From reading the SVT (Swedish TV article) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jools33 ( 252092 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @03:22PM (#62212973)

    The plan seems to be to embedd 12 000 tons of radioactice waste in 6000 copper capsules that are left in a clay sealed chamber. As everyone knows copper is reknowned for not rusting. Apparantly its taken 40 years of research to arrive at this point and the suggestion is that it will last for 100000 years, not everyone is convinced.
    My interest in this story, I live less than 80km away from the site. I can also say that the site is on the Baltic / Bothnian sea coastline, which is an area of natural beauty. Any kind of leakage will see radioactive material likely released into the sea, which is one with relatively weak tides, and so weak circulation of water, I think any leak is going to hang around for a long time.

  • How many things have humans successfully buried for 100,000 years? What were humans doing 100K years ago? Think we'll be around 100K years from now?
    • I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years we just transport stuff like this to space and dump it there.

      100,000 years is a long time . . . for progress.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:You wish. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Scarred Intellect ( 1648867 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @03:44PM (#62213065) Homepage Journal

          It'll never be safer to put that junk in a rocket. It'll never be cheaper to put that stuff in a rocket.

          I was part of a group that did extensive modeling of the waste processing processes for the Hanford cleanup. One day, a coworker and I did some rough calculations based on the then-new reusable SpaceX rockets. We assumed a 50,000 lb payload, and density of concrete (assuming we'd be able to grout our waste rather than vitrify it, which is the current plan). This kept estimates unreasonably conservative.

          The target: Launching our nuclear waste into the sun.

          We found that with reusable rockets (5 launches per rocket) plus what we guessed to get from LEO to the sun that would be a total loss, and using an operational budget matching the current effort, we'd be rid of all the Hanford waste in under 50 years.

          In that time, we'd have further developed all rocket technology, especially reusable rockets, perhaps some space elevator technology, and presumably untold numbers of additional supporting technologies.

          So cheaper? Yes.

          Safer? Yes, arguably. Safer in that we're done in 50 years, rather than never with the current progress. Potentially less safe in the event of a rocket exploding mid-air.

          • Oh, just "potentially" less safe if a rocket exploded in the air, distributing radioactive waste over hundreds or thousands of square kilometres.

            I don't have very much confidence in your research if that was your take away.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Cyberax ( 705495 )
              Rocket explosion won't disperse the grouted/vitrified waste. It will likely fall down somewhere as a solid chunk, likely causing local contamination at the point of impact.

              • Rocket explosion won't disperse the grouted/vitrified waste. It will likely fall down somewhere as a solid chunk, likely causing local contamination at the point of impact.

                Depends where in the launch process the explosion (or other motor failure) occurs. If it is at high sub-orbital speed it fragments into tiny widely dispersed pieces.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Chas ( 5144 )

            You apparently don't know anything about the history of rocketry.

            Do you REALLY want to blow 25 tons of nuclear waste up in the upper atmosphere?

            If you don't, don't try to shoot it into space.

            Because even ONE failure would be horrendous.

          • Getting to the sun is hard. It is actually easier to get to Pluto. A Falcon Heavy could in theory take 3500kg to Pluto for $150 million. Or a cost of 42 million per ton. Hanford has 110,000 tons of spent fuel, 200 thousand tons of liquid waste and 450 billion gallons of contaminated water. Assuming you don't put the water into the sun that is still 300,000 tons at 42 million per ton which is a total of 12.6 Trillion dollars using the latest Falcon heavy. That is 1% of the US GDP per year for the next

          • Why the sun though? Dumping the shit on Venus requires a hell of a lot less energy expenditure and calculation.

          • I think instead of shooting it into the sun, it may make it more worthwhile to consider parking it in a medium orbit (so it can stay up there for at least a couple of 1000 years without active station keeping) above Earth.

            If in a couple of 100 years we can't think of a way to use those things in space, we can either let them burn up in the atmosphere (if that is workable / safe) or attach boosters to send to the sun or wherever.

            Presumably by the time that has to be decided, we would have better rocket tech,

          • There was a time where we thought the sea was so unimaginably big that it really wouldn't matter if we just let our waste flow into it. We now know that assumption to be false. What makes you think the sun will be any different?

            Can we just deal with the problem at hand, rather than finding yet another way to hide it somewhere else?

          • There's a Jello Biafra stand-up thing about that called "Why I'm Glad the Space Shuttle Blew Up" talking about how there was a payload slated for the NEXT shuttle after that which was to be nuclear, so if that one had blown up? Hoo boy, bad press!

        • Actually, a rocket may be the ideal place to put it.

          https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]

    • Exactly...
      Rome Fell about 1600 years ago.
      Sweeden itself is only 500 years old
      We had countries rise and fall, often with a group of people determine to erase history, burning books, destroying monuments, preventing learning of topics....
      Even within the lifetimes of witnesses of event and complete documentation that it happened, there are groups of people who disbelieve that such events had ever happened, and could come into power.

      The jobs of keeping that area free of buildings, and civilization growth on it,

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      I'm not sure about humans but dinosaurs managed to bury themselves for millions of years. You're not trying to imply that humans aren't as smart as dinosaurs are you?

      8^)

    • How many things have humans successfully buried for 100,000 years? What were humans doing 100K years ago? Think we'll be around 100K years from now?

      Probably many times. Anything buried by humans 100,000 years ago (we have been around for 300,000 years by current estimates) and is still buried fits that requirement. The oldest grave we have dug up so far is 74,000 years old, but there are no doubt many graves and other things buried that still buried. Heck in Olduvai Gorge and Afars we recover Homo artifacts that were buried for millions of years. Why don't they count?

  • Natural Nuclear Reactor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @03:38PM (#62213029)
    We know that burying radio active material is a viable option because there was a natural water regulated nuclear reactor in Oklo, Gabon 1.7 billion years ago and the spent fuel moved just centimeters since then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    Other points: Highly radio active material will have half lives measured in months or years. If this is moderately radio active it won't even be noticeable in 1000 years. There is back ground radiation around us all the time, we need to safely manage it. Coal is the default substitute for electric baseload in almost all the world. Burning coal, along with all the other nasty elements like lead and arsenic, fine particles and acid rain that it releases into the atmosphere you can also add radioactive particles. Significantly more than nuclear. https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
    We knew how to use nuclear power in the 60s more cheaply, in an environmentally responsible way and in a way that was far safer to humans and the environment than any other power production except maybe river run hydro (which wins on price). The environmentalists aren't interested in safety. They are religiously opposed to nuclear and will do everything possible to drive up its price. Burying nuclear waste in the correct geology was safe 60 years ago. 50 years ago coal mines in the USA were going bankrupt and few coal generation plants were being planned. Thanks to Green Peace and other fanatics we burned an extra 50 years of coal and natural gas.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The problem is that even 10 years is beyond the ability of many organizations to plan for. With staff turnover, politicians coming and going, it's difficult to formulate a plan and stick to it.

      Nuclear waste management is an example of this. The attitude is always "someone else will figure out what to do with it when the time comes, now look at my quarterly numbers". Norway is being exceptionally responsible here.

    • I think you mix up what radioactivity is.
      The natural reactor is still highly radioactive: as the uranium there is not gone, it still there.

  • where it will end up (Score:5, Funny)

    by Walt Dismal ( 534799 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @06:02PM (#62213643)
    It's likely that in some post-apocalyptic future after the crash, nomads will avoid the mysterious plague zones filled wih mutations and death. No one knows why these areas have an almost supernatural ability to kill those who enter. However, a wandering hero type finds a clue in an ancient scroll containing the cryptic words 'New Jersey' and 'iPhone'. He escapes mutated apes and uncovers the horrifying secret. Starring Charlton Heston and Linus Torvalds in his first screen role. Rated PG for Graphics Accelerator Required.

  • I was wondering... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Thursday January 27, 2022 @06:13PM (#62213685)
    How much does it cost to store 370,000 tonnes of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel for 100,000 years? How does that work out at per MW hour generated? How does that work out against other sources of energy?
  • This does make fossil fuels sound far safer than it should. The smog bound cities of the last century are now clean yet this pollution sticks to our countryside for hundreds of thousands of years. Tell Greta she can ferk off.
  • Ok... Norway is a slutty little dealer. You know... The kind who pushes drugs but doesn't use them.

    Norway is way closer to fossil free than Sweden. Just try driving an EV on E6 and pray you don't run out of battery. There is almost nothing on that highway between Strõmstad and Uddevalle at least.

    Oh.... For electricity... Norway has had a bit less than 1% fossil for some time. No nuclear... Anymore.

    I suppose Sweden just doesn't consider Norway developed.

    I would love to see Sweden sell sell the peopl

  • Dumb (Score:2)

    by tiqui ( 1024021 )

    Radioactive material is, by definition, loaded with, and emitting, energy.

    Use it. It just takes a different type of reactor.

    There are tons of different ways to extract the energy - breeder reactors, many types of RTGs, etc - a virtual panoply of options. "let's just bury it and wait centuries for it to stop emitting free energy" reeks of stupid and lazy. Any civilization throwing away so much energy must have such a surplus that it can have no excuse to charge anybody money for energy.

    Think about it: There'

  • We need better rockets so we can pack this crap and shoot it into the sun, or just shoot it into venus or something.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close