@gdinwiddie Nuclear waste isn't exactly stored as barrels and barrels of glowing green sludge, just waiting to seep into the environment. "Spent" fuel is still dangerous to life, but when encased in concrete, it's not going anywhere - and the quantities we're talking about is *miniscule* even considering how long the reactors run. Time, Distance, Shielding.
@veviser @gdinwiddie Yeah, concrete never fails. We're talking 1000s of years. Only the romans new how to do 1000+ year concrete, and they weren't optimizing for nuclear or chemical containment. Not to mention the minor problem of shipping concrete casks to the lucky "permanent" storage site. You want that shit experiencing a collision in your town? Remember, the stuff will kill you or shorten your lifespan due to chemical toxicity quicker than the radiation will get you.
@artemesia @veviser @gdinwiddie Nuclear radiation also "leaks", even in concrete, because keeping water out of underground concrete containment areas is extremely difficult.
Look at Hanford & the Columbia River. In less than 100 years, the radiation will likely reach the river.
A new federal tool called TRAC is helping lawmakers, tribal nations and even watchdogs see how contamination is moving underground in southeastern Washington.
@Npars01 @artemesia @veviser @gdinwiddie There's no safe way to deal with spent fuel or the highly radioactive components from decommissioned containment that remains hazardous for thousands of years, no matter what 'experts' claim.
Arranging security around sites that house these materials would exceed original costs by orders of magnitude.
These reactors become dangerous to operate after just a few decades of use.
There's a reason insurance companies refused to issue policies.
@artemesia @veviser @Ultraverified @Npars01 I remember reading an article back in the 1970s pondering how to mark the location of nuclear waste in ways that would be understood in future millennia.
@gdinwiddie @veviser @Ultraverified @Npars01 Yep, still a consideration. There's an underground nuclear waste site going live in Finland in a year or two, wonder what their labeling is.
Well, to be fair long term storage proposals are deep underground in dry played-out mines in techtonically stable locations. Except for this waste dump in Texas, but I guess 40 years isn't long term. And Hanford was started during WWII as a site to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Priorities were different back then, and it's a little unfair to be comparing contemporary fission plants with Hanford. That said, I don't want to live near either type.
But the fact is that nobody in North America wants that shit, so it just piles up at commercial reactor sites as Somebody In the Future's Problem(tm).
When solar panels, which typically have a 25-30 year lifespan, reach the end of their lives and become waste, they must be managed safely. Learn about this renewable energy waste, different types of solar panels and how they are regulated.
George Dinwiddie
in reply to Laffy • • •Veviser
in reply to George Dinwiddie • • •Artemesia
in reply to Veviser • • •Yeah, concrete never fails. We're talking 1000s of years. Only the romans new how to do 1000+ year concrete, and they weren't optimizing for nuclear or chemical containment. Not to mention the minor problem of shipping concrete casks to the lucky "permanent" storage site. You want that shit experiencing a collision in your town? Remember, the stuff will kill you or shorten your lifespan due to chemical toxicity quicker than the radiation will get you.
Nicole Parsons
in reply to Artemesia • • •@artemesia @veviser @gdinwiddie
Nuclear radiation also "leaks", even in concrete, because keeping water out of underground concrete containment areas is extremely difficult.
Look at Hanford & the Columbia River. In less than 100 years, the radiation will likely reach the river.
The storage & cleanup costs are huge.
opb.org/article/2024/04/14/new…
tri-cityherald.com/news/local/…
nytimes.com/2023/05/31/us/nucl…
ecology.wa.gov/blog/may-2020/3…
corporateknights.com/waste/the…
New tool tracks contaminated groundwater at Hanford nuclear site
Anna King (OPB)Nicole Parsons reshared this.
Ultra Verified
in reply to Nicole Parsons • • •@Npars01 @artemesia @veviser @gdinwiddie
There's no safe way to deal with spent fuel or the highly radioactive components from decommissioned containment that remains hazardous for thousands of years, no matter what 'experts' claim.
Arranging security around sites that house these materials would exceed original costs by orders of magnitude.
These reactors become dangerous to operate after just a few decades of use.
There's a reason insurance companies refused to issue policies.
Nicole Parsons reshared this.
George Dinwiddie
in reply to Ultra Verified • • •I remember reading an article back in the 1970s pondering how to mark the location of nuclear waste in ways that would be understood in future millennia.
Michael Gemar
in reply to George Dinwiddie • • •@gdinwiddie @artemesia @veviser @Ultraverified @Npars01 “This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here.
“What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger.”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-t…
messages on nuclear waste stations, intended to deter the entrance of future intelligent life
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Artemesia
in reply to George Dinwiddie • • •Yep, still a consideration. There's an underground nuclear waste site going live in Finland in a year or two, wonder what their labeling is.
bouriquet
in reply to Nicole Parsons • • •Artemesia
in reply to Nicole Parsons • • •Well, to be fair long term storage proposals are deep underground in dry played-out mines in techtonically stable locations. Except for this waste dump in Texas, but I guess 40 years isn't long term. And Hanford was started during WWII as a site to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Priorities were different back then, and it's a little unfair to be comparing contemporary fission plants with Hanford. That said, I don't want to live near either type.
But the fact is that nobody in North America wants that shit, so it just piles up at commercial reactor sites as Somebody In the Future's Problem(tm).
Nicole Parsons reshared this.
Gerard van Oel 🍋
in reply to George Dinwiddie • • •Laffy
in reply to Gerard van Oel 🍋 • • •Markus Ojala
in reply to Laffy • • •End-of-Life Solar Panels: Regulations and Management | US EPA
US EPALaffy
in reply to Markus Ojala • • •@mojala Um, that’s not leakage, but you knew that.
Then again, your bio reads: “ A total c*nt, sorry for that. Please block immediately. Toots autodelete every week”
I understand why you felt compelled to warn us. I feel compelled to comply. #Toodles
@gevoel @gdinwiddie @Npars01