I’d be interested in the economics of building an artificial hydroelectric storage facility over those of building and running a mine for storing nuclear waste.
Germany is not the only country that’s having problems with permanent waste storage. Most countries have not even started dealing with this issue and are still using interim storage solutions.
Most countries have not even started dealing with this issue and are still using interim storage solutions.
because there’s so little of it. a single plant generates about a truckload a year (20-30 tons) of spent fuel. fossil plants burn hundreds of tons of fuel per day.
personally, i’ve always thought that as long as it’s radioactive, there’s untapped energy in there, so the best way to get rid of the waste is to build better reactors that can actually use it up.
There are actually such reactors! There are amazing technologies, but the political issues around developing nuclear tech pretty much made the EU stuck in 1970s tech. China recently started the first gen 4 reactor!
generates about a truckload a year (20-30 tons) of spent fuel
Is that spent fuel or just waste in general? I have seen “20 tons” used for both here and there, and there’s a big difference between them IMO.
Fuel is much more dangerous than, say, a piece of equipment that was exposed to something, but both will be stored as “nuclear waste”. Not that I’m saying the equipment is “safe” but the likelihood of a disaster occurring because a barrel of irradiated equipment busted open vs a barrel of spent fuel…
I’d be interested in the economics of building an artificial hydroelectric storage facility over those of building and running a mine for storing nuclear waste.
I think that would be pretty one-sided. You need very few nuclear waste storage sites because the volumne if waste is very low.
On the other hand you need a lot of hydroelectric storage facilities. And without any natural elevated reservoir, I really don’t see how it would be viable at all.
Germany is not the only country that’s having problems with permanent waste storage. Most countries have not even started dealing with this issue and are still using interim storage solutions.
It seems to be the country with the most drama around it, though. The interim solutions are good enough for now.
Right so why shouldn’t we just use power sources where we don’t have an issue with massively toxic waste products later on in the process?
Edit: And which are also a lot cheaper.
Because of reliability and lack of storage options.
Pumped hydroelectric storage exists and is easily achieved. What about the storage options for nuclear waste?
Only if you have a mountain nearby, which not all places have.
We have those.
Not really, you can build hydroelectric storage facilities.
The nuclear storage facilities here in Germany are already being shut down because they’re in danger of leaking into the groundwater.
Sure you can, but they don’t work very well without elevation…
Yes, Germany is quite bad at managing theirs, but that’s more of a political problem than a technical one.
I’d be interested in the economics of building an artificial hydroelectric storage facility over those of building and running a mine for storing nuclear waste.
Germany is not the only country that’s having problems with permanent waste storage. Most countries have not even started dealing with this issue and are still using interim storage solutions.
because there’s so little of it. a single plant generates about a truckload a year (20-30 tons) of spent fuel. fossil plants burn hundreds of tons of fuel per day.
personally, i’ve always thought that as long as it’s radioactive, there’s untapped energy in there, so the best way to get rid of the waste is to build better reactors that can actually use it up.
There are actually such reactors! There are amazing technologies, but the political issues around developing nuclear tech pretty much made the EU stuck in 1970s tech. China recently started the first gen 4 reactor!
Is that spent fuel or just waste in general? I have seen “20 tons” used for both here and there, and there’s a big difference between them IMO.
Fuel is much more dangerous than, say, a piece of equipment that was exposed to something, but both will be stored as “nuclear waste”. Not that I’m saying the equipment is “safe” but the likelihood of a disaster occurring because a barrel of irradiated equipment busted open vs a barrel of spent fuel…
I think that would be pretty one-sided. You need very few nuclear waste storage sites because the volumne if waste is very low.
On the other hand you need a lot of hydroelectric storage facilities. And without any natural elevated reservoir, I really don’t see how it would be viable at all.
It seems to be the country with the most drama around it, though. The interim solutions are good enough for now.