this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)
Green Energy
2207 readers
144 users here now
Everything about energy production and storage.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No you can not, we still don't have the technology to store it safety. And we definitely still don't do it. If you do just a bit of research you will notice that nuclear waste is being stored in big water pools close to nuclear plants. I would not call that "safe, long term solution".
Current nuclear technology was developed for nuclear weapons, it is a no go. We need to impove reserch into molten salt thorium reactors and fision, but uranium is not an option.
Notwithstanding the fact that “big water pools” would not be an extremely high tech solution and could be a long term solution, you should look into geological storage. Enclosure in glass and concrete, storage deep enough to be below aquifers, do look like they can last millions of years (which, personally I think is a waste: a radioactive material is something that radiates energy. I am sure that within a century or two we will dig up these “wastes” to generate energy, I hope we make their enclosure easily openable)
True, and internet was developed by the DARPA. That’s largely irrelevant. The effort to make weapon-grade uranium (90%) is an order of magnitude above the effort to make power plants-grade uranium (20%)
I agree that, in future, we will probably have ways to store and use energy from radioactive waste and I geological storage might probably be solution.
But... we are still not close to it, "we will solve it in the future" is what got us here.
Additionally, I just think there is no need to take such risks when there are other, safer options.
What technologies are missing in your opinion to do geological storage?
Many sites are currently operational across the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository#Nuclear_repository_sites
If you take a look at "Status" column, only four of them are in use. After 60 years of nuclear energy and 440 nuclear power plants in 32 countries.
I call that a big fail, and exact problem I am talking about.
We don't even need to go into question wether thise will be safe for thousands of years, which is doubtful.
If I show you definite proof of extraterrestrial visits on Earth, it will not matter that 99.9999% of UFO sightings were fake.
No, you never specified the hypothetical blocking problems you are talking about. Existence of even one site in operation proves that no blocking problems exist.
My good man, these are designed for millions of years. Based on the observation of billions years old natural occurring isotopes. From the WP article:
Well I am sceptical. Maybe I can believe that US and other rich nations can make it work, I have huge doubts in most of the couries being careful enough.
Running a nuclear power plant is harder and more dangerous than running a storage facility
Storage facility ahould not be "run", it is not possible to guarantee someone will keep an eye on it for thousands of years.
But you are right, running power plant is harder and I don't trust most of the governments around the world to do it safety.
If rich/stable countries focus only on nuclear as clean energy - risky countries will do the same or go to coal.
We are not searching for solution only for US and Europe since it is not enough.
It needs to be "run" as long as wastes keep coming in, then they are design to last for geological times with no human intervention.
Nuclear power killed less people than dams. If you trust a country with dams, nuclear power is a step up in terms of safety. And if US and China switched to nuclear, we already would be a long way on our path to solving the climate crisis.