Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by Mirioron on Monday April 22, 2019 @07:49AM
(#19718135)
Nuclear reactors produce so little waste that I very much doubt that storing the waste would be the main cost. It's even likely that some of the spent fuel would simply be used in newer reactors later.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by Retric on Monday April 22, 2019 @09:09AM
(#19718598)
Spent fuel is a small portion of the waste generated.
Even equipment used to decommission a nuclear reactor becomes contaminated. It’s not that dangerous for very long, but safe disposal is still expensive.
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by Retric on Monday April 22, 2019 @12:03PM
(#19720008)
Not sure why that was downvoted, it’s easy to demonstrate with even minimal research.
From a pro nuclear website: 97% of the waste produced is classified as low- or intermediate-level waste (LLW or ILW). Such waste has been widely disposed of in near-surface repositories for many years. In France, where fuel is reprocessed, just 0.2% of all radioactive waste by volume is classified as high-level waste (HLW) http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by adrianN on Monday April 22, 2019 @12:35PM
(#19720318)
The claim is that the most expensive part is storing the waste for 10000 years. All LLW and ILW doesn't have to be stored that long.
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by Retric on Monday April 22, 2019 @02:40PM
(#19721546)
ILW and HLW are generally assumed to both be stored in the same areas long term. Which means they are about as expensive to deal with long term.
For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste...
