this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
229 points (92.9% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2603 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I'm not especially anti-nuclear power overall, but temporary storage sounds like a terrible idea. Transporting nuclear waste twice means twice the possibility of something catastrophic happening.

[–] thbb@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You wildly overestimate the danger nuclear waste represents.

First, transportation is done in small amounts at a time, completely encased in concrete and steel, and is of no risk of exploding: the only danger would be spillovers, which would call for expensive cleaning operations.

Next, storage. The whole waste produced by 60 years of nuclear waste in France amounts to only a few swimming pools of dangerous material. If this material was actually fully useless, we could ditch it in geological layers underground where it would become soon unreachable and dispersed, posing no discernable danger for the upcoming few billion years.

Furthermore, the only reason we don't ditch this nuclear waste right now is that this material can still be useful for plenty of uses that are not yet economically viable, but could be in the long term, such as energy generation with low-yield reactors.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] thbb@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Note that they present the issue only as a financial problem rather than an actual threat to the environment or people.

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Since your articles behind a paywall, I cannot read it. However, I can guarantee you as what you're describing was in a barrel. It was low level waste. So likely a mixture of propellants or other chemicals that had been exposed to a reactor environment and then disposed of in a sealed barrel. High-Level nuclear waste is solid metallic-like substances that are encased in glass, steel and concrete. There's nothing to explode.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Not paywalled for me, but here you go-

The dump, officially known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, was designed to place waste from nuclear weapons production since World War II into ancient salt beds, which engineers say will collapse around the waste and permanently seal it. The equivalent of 277,000 drums of radioactive waste is headed to the dump, according to federal documents.

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The information you provided was not sufficient so I googled

The suspect drums contain nitrates and cellulose, which are thought to have reacted to cause the explosion in February

It was low level waste mostly americanum dissolved into the mixture of nitrates and cellulose. The barrel did not explode as much as the lid popped off.

[–] IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

WIPP is for low level transuranic waste from DOE projects, just FYI. Not super toxic stuff. They ship it in these super tough containers that they test by dropping on a spike and putting in a furnace. Wild to watch.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Waste from nuclear weapons is not the same as waste from commercial nuclear power plants.

[–] hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 months ago

Redd.. err Lemmy believes in the doctrine of safe, clean, wasteless nuclear. Even if there was waste it is completely harmless, not a big deal, please look the other way. They can be no other ~~God~~.. I mean viable alternative for generating energy. Also, did you know ~~this straw man~~ .. I mean coal spreads nuclear isotopes too?

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 1 points 6 months ago

Please research the term nuclear flask