Hacker News Reader

Comment by aksss | Hacker News Reader

I haven't kept up on it, but aren't travelling wave reactors supposed to use the spent rods from light water reactors?[0] Seems like an elegant use of nuclear waste.

There was an argument made last year [1] that the problem with nuclear power generation is that everything we have in production is 50+ yo technology. Modern reactors are far cleaner, far safer, but the political hurdles for regulatory approval and NIMBY hurdles are enormous barriers.

Incidentally, if we're considering mining and transport of base resources to be part of indirect deaths, let's not forget that our renewable infrastructure relies on very dirty mining and transportation processes for quartz, rare earth minerals... and coal!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor#Fuel

[1] https://www.netflix.com/title/80184771

View on HN

There are always a lot of interesting research projects brought up about what to do with the nuclear waste in the future. But never anything cost effective actually in production yet, and it's not like they haven't hade some decades to get them going. If we can cite <future technolog> as our solution, I suggest that we go with fusion reactors directly.

The main barriers for building new nuclear plants are that they aren't cost effective, so no one wants to invest in them. I'm certain they could be built cheaper without regulations about safety and funds for long term storage of waste. But I don't think we want to go there.

(Your second link directs me to a documentary about Bill Gates. How is that relevant?)

There is a straightforward, economical, and practical approach to dealing with spent fuel: sealing it in dry storage casks.

This is cheap, good for at least some centuries, and forecloses no future options for its disposition. Why do anything else now?

No, it’s not good for some centuries. Corrosion and other processes that aren’t fully understood how they are affected by radiation make it hard to make any leakproof containers that will last even one century. Also, above ground storage is vulnerable both to changing climate as well as changing political circumstances.

Finally, even if all of the above was overcome, it’s just a way to push the problem to future generations. I’d be quite upset if our generation would have to deal with a hundred thousand tons of radioactive waste in old corroding containers without getting anything for it.

Even a leaking container is not a concern with a cask buried 500 meters underground in a place with no aquifer.

Where did this uranium come from before it was used as fuel?

The Gates Foundation is one of the leading US investors in new nuclear tech right now. That documentary gets into the details of what they're working on and the hurdles they have in bringing new tech online. For a quick digestible bit of Gates on nuclear, watch the following. The documentary explores a lot more about the reactors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k&t=1124

Reply on news.ycombinator.com