Things that are radioactive for longer than human lifetimes are not very radioactive at all. The danger is more that they are still poisonous.
Finding places where you can control the groundwater isn't that hard. We have many candidates. Old salt mines are preferred because the salt slowly flows around the containers and entombs them. This is where the relatively small volume of the radioactive waste is a feature, you don't need a massive number of old mines to handle all of the waste. One or two would be sufficient.
Most of the concern about this is people demanding solutions that are grossly more complex and elaborate than the problem really demands. A political problem. Imagine if coal mines had to treat their tailings with the same level of care? They are similarly radioactive after a few years and just as poisonous, but we let them be dumped right into streams. Natural gas is extracted by pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to break up rocks--greatly increasing the possibility of groundwater contamination. Imagine if they had to extract all of those chemicals back out of the ground and then store them someplace where they could be proven to never leak out again.
High level radioactive waste doesn't stay high level for very long by its very nature. This is why nuclear power plants have ponds where they store the hot stuff until it cools down enough for long term storage. After that they just have to be handled like any other nasty industrial chemical, plus some extra shielding to protect the workers from hitting their total yearly exposure limits too quickly.
> Things that are radioactive for longer than human lifetimes are not very radioactive at all. The danger is more that they are still poisonous.
good, so we take it out after 50 years and place it in your yard than?
just kidding, but saying such things is stupid, the stuff is still highly dangerous even after > 1000 years, especially if the shielding gets blown away, people die from that.
the fuel NEEDS to be on site for the first 10-20 years, since it's impossible to shield it good enough. after that it needs to be stored 100000 years at a minimum.
> Finding places where you can control the groundwater isn't that hard. We have many candidates. Old salt mines are preferred because the salt slowly flows around the containers and entombs them. This is where the relatively small volume of the radioactive waste is a feature, you don't need a massive number of old mines to handle all of the waste. One or two would be sufficient.
btw. you can actually recycle some material, but that is expensive and is not done for all material, but it drain more billions of dollar for a single plant, most often it's easier to socialize the storage of the radioactive waste.
> High level radioactive waste doesn't stay high level for very long by its very nature
spent fuels is radiotoxic over 100000 years? I mean, that is long. of course for more money it can be reprocessed, reducing the long livity waste by a far margin and also not everything needs to be stored that long. it's still problem and down talking it does not help.
> Natural gas is extracted by pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to break up rocks--greatly increasing the possibility of groundwater contamination. Imagine if they had to extract all of those chemicals back out of the ground and then store them someplace where they could be proven to never leak out again.
ok, because that's also bad it's ok to use another bad technology? heck coal is also bad it produces flying ash, way way more tones than all reactors in the world will produce over their lifetime. does it make the waste of nuclear better? no.
is it good to point fingers on other technologies that are as bad? no.
(to make it clear high level waste per 1000MW reactor is like 3m^3 (around a tonne) per reactor. of course it's not a lot compared to stuff that coal, mining (uranium gets mined, too and produces a shit ton of tailings) and gas, etc..., but a lot for the timeframe it needs to be stored)
After 50 years most nuclear waste is barely above background. I wouldn't want it in my yard because it's poisonous, not because it is excessively radioactive. Another way to think about this, uranium ore is in the water supply right now in some parts of the world. It's just about as radioactive as 100 year old waste and yet somehow people are managing to survive.
According to the Wiki that Asse II mine has not released radioactivity into the environment? It was maybe not the best choice given that the mine had been prone to flooding even when it was operational, but it's a manageable problem.
Dropping nuclear is exactly about using the other bad technologies. Renewables are slowly coming online to help, but for the most part you shut down a nuclear plant you open 4 natural gas plants in its place. Unless you are China, then it's 4 coal plants.
Finding places where you can control the groundwater isn't that hard. We have many candidates. Old salt mines are preferred because the salt slowly flows around the containers and entombs them. This is where the relatively small volume of the radioactive waste is a feature, you don't need a massive number of old mines to handle all of the waste. One or two would be sufficient.
Most of the concern about this is people demanding solutions that are grossly more complex and elaborate than the problem really demands. A political problem. Imagine if coal mines had to treat their tailings with the same level of care? They are similarly radioactive after a few years and just as poisonous, but we let them be dumped right into streams. Natural gas is extracted by pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to break up rocks--greatly increasing the possibility of groundwater contamination. Imagine if they had to extract all of those chemicals back out of the ground and then store them someplace where they could be proven to never leak out again.
High level radioactive waste doesn't stay high level for very long by its very nature. This is why nuclear power plants have ponds where they store the hot stuff until it cools down enough for long term storage. After that they just have to be handled like any other nasty industrial chemical, plus some extra shielding to protect the workers from hitting their total yearly exposure limits too quickly.