Nuclear is back in vogue. But what about its waste? | FT Rethink

Nuclear power is undergoing a revival, and there are more than 50 reactors being built around the world. But safely disposing of lethal nuclear waste, which can remain radioactive for up to 300,000 years, remains a remarkably difficult problem to solve.

#nuclearpower #nuclearwaste


► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.

[nathanngumi]

The burial in clay or granite of nuclear waste sealed in caskets is innovative. As long as leakage or leeching or other penetration is averted then the waste can remain buried forever. Nuclear fusion offers great promise as it will use nonradioactive elements like lithium and hydrogen which are abundant on earth and will allow nuclear to go renewable!.

[elonburgers]

The amount of waste nuclear produces per gigawatt is so tiny compared to any other conventional fuel, this video sounds like a classic petroleum industry sponsored scare video.

[Mivoat]

Moltex Energy’s waste to stable salt process enables nuclear waste to be recycled less expensively than any other recycling process I am aware of. The resulting fuel is for their stable salt reactors, a form of molten salt reactor. In the days of steam engines boiler explosions were among the most horrific accidents, but nobody expects diesel engines to explode today because they cannot. In a similar way molten salt reactors can’t explode. They do not contain solid pellets in which huge pressures build up, and for which billions need to be spent on systems to contain them just in case. Moltex energy has been selected by the province of Ontario as one of two companies to replace their ageing CANDU reactors. They have three offices in North America and a research facility in Warrington UK. Why does the media always ignore them? The capital cost is still estimated at around $1 per Watt. This is possible because they have removed the main hazard afflicting solid fuelled nuclear reactors such as pressurised water reactors, namely solid fuel pellets. Further, the Moltex reactor is simpler than other molten salt reactors in that it does not pump fuel through pipes valves and a chemical processing unit. Instead the fuel simply stays there its tubes and clever chemistry stabilises all the fission products, keeping them non-volatile. Folks, it’s not a secret, you should be shouting it from the rooftops. In today’s times more than ever we need a reliable, well-informed media. Please have a look. There are clear explanatory videos right here on this platform by Dr.Ian Scott, Moltex CTO and former Unilever chief scientist.

[collinwimbish]

It’s why there needs to be more public investment/research into thorium reactors.

[peterr]

do get lost with your concern trolling. we are not falling for it

[jensjensen]

LFTR or other molten salt reactors can solve most of the problems and turn them into positives as filtering out useful fission products from a liquid is the only practical way to do it and if the fuel is already dissolved in a liquid salt both reprocessing and refueling is easy. There is a handful of companies already working on the problem but unfortunately the regulatory regime in the west is slowing progress down to a snails pace.

[shawn]

Wind and solar. Energy for everyone. It's that simple.

[LukePuplett]

If you're going to the effort to dig down deep, then just use less risky geothermal. We have all the low risk energy we need above and below us. It's the grid that is often the limiting factor.

[TomCourtney]

Yeah, this is just more biased reporting. Not worth the time to watch

[njm]

Can we place plastic waste down there too??

[birch]

I believe a quarter-million metric tonne is 250 000 metric tonnes which sounds scary but is small compared to how much toxic and other wastes are produced yearly.
Basically, very decisive information would need to compare how many other types of waste which also are hazardous to health
make space.

[tropisk.]

are the waste products humans, or what are you trying to inform us about?

[julianshepherd]

Nuke Lies
1 it will be cheap
2 it will be safe
3 it will be safe to dispose of waste
4 it will take 10 years to build

[IKEMENOsakaman]

Green loving people "NO NUCLEAR!"
Putin "ok i stop oil"
Green loving people "NUCLEAR! NOW!"

[lostgleammedia]

Do you really want the world covered with nuclear power plants… that makes nuclear disasters massively more often… how many nuclear disasters can the world afford

[AmedeeBoulette]

I don’t get it. Why not send it in Sun?! A rocket is cheaper than any other long term management. And less dangerous.

[nefelibatacomingthrough]

More nuclear! High energy costs slows down the society and that slows down fissio r&d, flying cars, and personal jet pack build with 24 days of fly time.

[CitiesForTheFuture]

No-one talks about the risks & hazards of transporting this waste to these burial sites... would you like trucks or railway cars transporting nuvlear waste through your city or town? What happens if there's an accident or the shipment is hijacked along the route by terrorists?

I'm not sure humanity is "ready" for nuclear energy - we're too immature as a civilisation for such a dangerous technology. The chinese gov - the ccp - is the worst when it comes to responsible ecological care; they don't give a damn about nature.

[lucasatilano]

All nuclear power defenders bury their head when they hear about nuclear waste

[mastersinr]

if elon can shoot his car in space we can shoot nuclear waste in space. Nuclearwaste to the moon!