Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Right now we can't do much with the U-238. But one day we'll develop fast reactors where U-238 will be just regular nuclear fuel. At that point, we could mine new Uranium from the ground or use what we currently call "waste".
Burying the spent fuel does not make the environment of our children cleaner, it makes it dirtier.
Making nuclear plants which can effectively and safely run for 100+ years is a more important challenge as well because decommissioning and commissioning are huge (and radioactive) tasks which only need to be done once (each) but fuel storage is a comparatively tiny and seemingly very well understood and controlled issue. I don’t know why people focus on it so much.
Because the nanosecond you stop shining a spotlight on it, Duke Energy or similar will pull a chevron, and 20 years later when the casks corrode through we'll find 200 tonnes of SNF under a playground.
There are still messes all over the planet which haven't been cleaned up from mining and milling from before tye "alarmists" started pointing out the hazards and mass protesting.
That's a pretty smart comeback, I have to admit.
But aside from being smart, what are you trying to say? Should we get rid of railways? Should we get rid of "dangerous chemicals". What does "constant hypervigilence" mean for rail and dangerous chemicals? Assuming the public is guilty of not showing constant hypervigilence (as you seem to imply), what should the public do? Not rely on regulatory bodies? Supplement somehow what the regulatory bodies do? How?
Back to the NRC, do you feel the public has to tell the NRC how to do its job? I mean, you obviously are saying that, but how do you propose that to happen?
The "unjustified" focus is the primary mechanism by which an extremely corrupt industry was brought into some semblance of safety after windscale, church hill, and browns ferry. There are constant attempts at regulatory capture and undermining safety. The 'irrational' strict rules are the only system that has ever worked in safety critical industries like aerospace. Without strict adherence you get a challenger disaster or similar. This lesson has been learnt in other industries over amd over, we don't need to learn it again with an actually uncontained meltdown or by listening to the kinds of people that call filters Cockraine's Folly.
When politicians know relaxing the rules and letting the usual corner cutting thrive would end their entire party's careers we at least get a mostly-safe nuclear industry and the corruption is focused on stealing tax money.
Indeed I was not proposing a change. I was suggesting, quite explicitly, that it's better to store the nuclear spent fuel on site, as it is done today.
You are not proposing a change per se. You'd simply like the whole nuclear industry to disappear overnight, if that were possible. Or maybe I'm mistaken?
> There are constant attempts at regulatory capture and undermining safety
Maybe you can provide some links. I'm not familiar with attempts of regulatory capture in the context of the nuclear industry, but I'm familiar with the general concept of regulatory capture.
As for the rest of your argument, it looks like you are trying to refute something I never said. I personally consider that the NRC are doing a good job. I don't consider that what they do is "irrational", and my guess is that the engineers working for NuScale or Holtec, or other nuclear companies don't find them "irrational" either.
What are you talking about? I am pushing for complacency? What gave you that idea?
Just so we are clear: I am happy that the NRC is doing its job. The public has absolutely no idea what the NRC is doing, because it's much too technical.
I'm not sure you ever took some time to see what the NRC is doing, although most of what it's doing is not classified and posted for the public. If you have a few minutes to spare, head over to [1] and check some of the recent correspondence with Holtec related to Holtec's SMR approval. You will see how thorough the NRC is, how technical, and how detailed-oriented. I'm very happy they are like that, I would want, and expect, nothing else.
If that public vigilance actually exists (and it looks to me you consider yourself one member of the movement), then the public should spend time going through all those documents, and spot errors, and bring them to the public debate.
Instead you are just spreading FUD, that somehow we are on the brink of a new Chernobyl, and just because of the public vigilance we don't have an (actual quote from your comments) "uncontained meltdown".
Here's my proposal: take some time and browse through the NRC posted documents. Get to appreciate how extraordinarily thorough they are. If you find any hint they are not, take action, either write to them or to your representative. This way you'll be constructive. If you don't find, then maybe you'll get to respect them for the hard work they are putting in.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-acti...
You also continue to put words in my mouth.
If in a couple 100 years we still unable to figure out how to reprocess and use these thing, then maybe, maybe it worth thinking about it.
Existing solutions work well, highly radioactive material is kept in carefully monitored cooling pools. Once it decays sufficiently, it can be put in more permanent storage, but at that point you should really compare the relative danger to that of natural uranium ore (which we dug out of relatively shallow mines in the first place).
If I had to describe 5km underground, I'd say its super deep into the environment not a long way out of the way.