this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
613 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

60070 readers
3612 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] suzune@ani.social 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But Germany has no space for nuclear waste. They haven't been able to bury the last batch for over 30 years. And the one that they buried most recently began to leak radioactivity into ground water.

And.. why give Russia more military target opportunities?

[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I'm not a rabid anti-nuclear, but there are somethings that are often left out of the pricing. One is the exorbitant price of storage of spent fuel although I seem to remember that there is some nuclear tech that can use nuclear waste as at least part of it's fuel (Molten salt? Pebble? maybe an expert can chime in). There is also the human greed factor. Fukushima happened because they built the walls to the highest recorded tsunami in the area, to save on concrete. A lot of civil engineering projects have a 150% overprovision over the worst case calculations. Fukushima? just for the worst case recorded, moronic corporate greed. The human factor tends to be the biggest danger here.

[–] Flatfire@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

Not an expert, but molten salt reactors are correct. MSRs are especially useful as breeder reactors, since they can actually reinvigorate older, spent fuel using more common isotopes. Thorium in particular is useful here. Waste has also been largely reduced with the better efficiency of modern reactors.

Currently, Canada's investing in a number of small modular reactors to improve power generation capacity without the need to establish entire new nuclear zones and helps take some of the stress off the aging CANDU reactors. These in particular take advantage of the spent fuel and thorium rather than the very expensive and hard to find Uranium more typically used. There's been interest in these elsewhere too, but considering how little waste is produced by modern reactors, and the capacity for re-use, it feels pike a very good way to supplement additional wind and solar energy sources.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

there is some nuclear tech that can use nuclear waste as at least part of it’s fuel

Those are less competitive, and salt reactor attempts have historically caused terminating corrosion problems. The SMR "promise" relies on switching extremely expensive/rare/dangerous plutonium level enriched fuel, that rely on traditional reactors for enrichment, for slightly lower capital costs.

[–] suigenerix@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

... there are somethings that are often left out of the pricing

Another example that gets skimmed over or ignored is the massive cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant. It typically ranges from $280 million to $2 billion, depending on the technology used. More complex plants can be up to $4 billion. And the process can take 15 to 30 years to complete.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If France can find space, surely Germany can.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

If Finland could find space, Germany definitely can.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Idk, Finland has a much lower population density vs Germany. France is something like 1/2 the population density, but they also have >50 reactors, so surely Germany can find room for a few...

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 10 points 1 month ago
  • Finland: 338,145 km² and 5.6 million people
  • Germany: 357,596 km² and 82 million people

Where do you want to put your hazardous waste again?

Yup, but population density should be what matters, because that implies how much usable space there is for waste disposal.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Finland with it's vast swathes of frozen tundra.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

We don't have vast swaths of Frozen Tundras. This isn't Alaska.

And it's actually stored south not north.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago