Hacker News Reader

Comment by 323 | Hacker News Reader

During the current situation I learned an interesting thing about nuclear power plants: if you bomb them, the amount of radioactivity that will be released into atmosphere because of waste products storage on site is vastly larger than the one that would be released by a nuclear explosion in a random place.

Because unfortunately most nuclear waste is stored on site because of the NIMBY problem.

So every nuclear power plant is a giant liability in case of conflict.

View on HN

Not only that, but even ignoring the radiation, a nuclear plant is a single point of failure that will leave a lot of people without electricity.

And it can easily become a target in case of war, terrorism but also social unrest.

A decentralized network of both domestic solar and public solar, wind, hydro, geothermal sources is much more resilient / anti-fragile.

Also, centralization of political power around big energy companies is not good for democracy.

Long term nuclear storage is one problem. Who pays for the decommissioning is another one. In many cases it turns out to be the taxpayer.

This is not true. Every power plant that produces waste must pay money into the waste repository fund totaling nearly $50B - which is probably overkill for building a long term facility by a factor of 5 or more.

Overkill?

Maybe. Maybe not.

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/uk-nuclear-power-decom...

My (not totally serious but kinda serious though uninformed) solution to the problem: Build a few big underground atomic bunkers around the world and store the long term waste there until we can find a solution (or leave it there). Do it in the middle of a desert far away from any people. No NIMBYs, not interesting for attacks.

Let me introduce you to Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Even the middle of the desert is not safe from NIMBYs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

Nuclear waste repositories are not immune to accidents. Putting all our nuclear waste in one place may not be the solution we're looking for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant#20...

I don't remember saying it was. Did you reply to the wrong comment?

My reading of your comment was that you were piggybacking on the above:

> Build a few big underground atomic bunkers around the world and store the long term waste there until we can find a solution (or leave it there).

And your comment specifically mentioned Yucca mountain, which was indeed planned to be a big underground repository for nuclear waste, and therefore vulnerable to the same type of catastrophic failure I referred to above. Am I missing something?

I see. I should've quoted the bit I was replying to.

They said:

> Do it in the middle of a desert far away from any people. No NIMBYs, not interesting for attacks.

And I was just pointing out that building it in the middle of the desert has not proven to be a good way of avoiding opposition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com