Re:Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years
by pdonis on Friday June 16, 2023 @06:14PM
(#36364664)
> it's a waste of money to do it right now
If you're allowed to store the current waste in a facility that's only good for 100 years or so, then yes. But not if you're required to store any waste you don't reprocess for 100,000 years.
Re:Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years
by pfdietz on Friday June 16, 2023 @07:58PM
(#36365611)
Where does that requirement come from, though? If society is going to collapse in 100 years, I suggest the money be better spent preparing for the consequences of that, not worrying about whether the documentation on dry casks will satisfy some licensing requirement.
Re:Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years
by pdonis on Monday June 19, 2023 @01:38AM
(#36387665)
> Where does that requirement come from, though?
I've answered that already in another subthread we're having.
> If society is going to collapse in 100 years
Where was that kind of thinking involved in this at all?
AT THIS MOMENT it's an economic loser. If you need reprocessed fuel in 100 years, by the miracle of nonzero interest rates you save money by doing it closer to then instead of right now. The cost of storing the fuel until then is low enough that this works out.
> It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above.
No, it's a waste of money to do it right now.