337
24 years of nuclear waste from the Maine Yankee powerplant (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/justpost@lemmy.world
159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Operated from 1972 to 1996 and produced 119 billion kilowatt hours of energy

Dry cask storage is a method for safely storing spent nuclear fuel after it has cooled for several years in water pools. Once the fuel rods are no longer producing extreme heat, they are sealed inside massive steel and concrete casks that provide both radiation shielding and passive cooling through natural air circulation—no water is needed. Each cask can weigh over 100 tons and is engineered to resist earthquakes, floods, fire, and even missile strikes. This makes it a robust interim solution until permanent deep geological repositories are available. The casks are expected to last 50–100 years, though the fuel inside remains radioactive for thousands. Dry cask storage reduces reliance on crowded spent fuel pools, provides a secure above-ground option, and buys time for nations to develop long-term disposal strategies. In essence, it’s a durable, self-contained “vault” for nuclear waste

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

For argument's sake, let's say you live near a disposal/storage site.

It's underfunded, so it leaks into the groundwater. Or maybe they don't catch a leak in time. You develop cancer because of radiation because you live close to the storage/disposal site.

It's not an uncommon scenario. Fracking has done this with wastewater being pumped back into the ground (https://news.yale.edu/2022/08/17/proximity-fracking-sites-associated-risk-childhood-cancer), and even places like Whidbey Island in Washington state have dealt with forever chemicals leeching into their groundwater (https://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/navy-expands-testing-of-wells-for-forever-chemical/). Yes, we need a storage site, but people should have a say about what is stored near where they live... whether it makes a difference or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Comparing fracking to nuclear waste is comparing apples to oranges. These are literally one of the most carefully handled materials in the world. We aren’t just dumping them in a pit and forgetting about them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I love how you take the sins of the fossil companies and try to make nuclear responsible for their actions. It's almost like the problem is the unhinged capitalism and lack of regulation and not the nuclear power itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're not wrong in that people should have a say in what is stored where. But...

    I can't say that no one lives near Yucca Mountain but almost no one lives close to it.

    Yucca Mountain was considered because its a mountain of solid granite without an aquifer under it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It also has to be transported there. One of the long running arguments is that this just uses up their roads and highways and cones through their state without their knowledge or compensation.

    Look at the train derailment that have occurred.

    The general public is unaware how nuclear waste works. Their fears are valid and it is their state, not everyone else's. The federal government is arguably flippant about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent