4d ago

24 years of nuclear waste from the Maine Yankee powerplant

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

160 comments

I don't trust modern US corporations to manage anything.
How long until people can live near Chernobyl?
- People could live near Chernobyl on day one.
- I get what point you're trying to make but it still is kind of ironic you're using a very distinctly communist failure which happened due to the communist power structure every step of the way as the example here.
  
  Three Mile Island came pretty close to a similar fate. That almost happened and didn't because of a very brave whistle blower. But at its root, companies tried to cut corners because of a profit motive. I.E. a huge capitalist failure. When utilities and things relating to survival needs for people are tied to whether a company can make money off of it or not, they will find opportunities to gouge, cut services, or simply not reinvest into maintenance. The failure of the Texas power grid during the freeze a few years ago is another great example of this.
  Looking at the global warming crises, I don't have faith that humanity as a whole is responsible enough for safely handling nuclear facilities. Chernobyl is now in a warzone. I think Fukushima is still uninhabitable. Our monkey brains and 80 year lifespans blinds us from the consequences 200 years from now.
  I hope I'm wrong.
- modern nuclear designs are pretty much unable to melt down. they’re properly failsafe. storage of nuclear waste is in a completely different category to active nuclear, and Chernobyl afaik was a flawed design for its time
  
  modern nuclear designs are pretty much unable to melt down.
  Some gifted idiot at a nuclear plant
  "Hold my beer.*
Nuclear energy is downright silly. "These rocks get really hot when we put them close to each other, let's boil water with it to turn turbines" lmao like something outta the scp foundation
- Computers run on magic runes written in gold.
  
  on top of that, the information represented within them modifies itself, like characters dancing around and shaping new patterns, hence the nickname of "dancing spirits"
- Even weirder when you think about cpus. "Here's a rock we filled with lightning and tricked into thinking."
- Pretty much all of our electricity is boiling water to spin turbines, even hydro except with that we wait for it to recondense to spin the turbine. Wind and solar are the only large scale exceptions, and even then some solar is boiling water instead of PV.
  
  Even wind is just using a windmill to spin a turbine, Solar and some very limited small scale thermocouple power sources are our only non wheel based power sources.
- Precisely modeling how hot they get is very important, heh.
- Very odd and hyper simplified take on it.
Who certified the casks? If it was a private corporation, forget about the 50 to 100 years.
Wow. That’s excellent perspective on how little waste nuclear plants create!
- Now compare it to how much fly ash a coal plant produces.
- It's even more efficient these days. French reactors produce miniscule amounts of waste
"The casks are expected to last 50–100 years...". Let's see 2025-1972=53 years. Sounds like it is nearing time to start replacing these or to figure out a better solution to reuse the high level waste.
- Behold: Breeding
  I mean, breeder reactors...
- "High level waste," basically by definition, has a half life of ~30 years. So down to a quarter of the radioactivity after 60, 1/8 after 90, where they're likely easier to repackage.
So I guess the high security double fencing is not necessary then?
- That's to keep the radiation in.
- Depends on your definition of necessary I guess? It is perfectly safe to hug the caskets. The fences are there in case someone wanted to intentionally sabotage them.
We have disposal technology, it just isn't economical or politically supported: the material can be reprocessed, splitting it into the transuranic elements. The uranium and plutonium can be reused as fuel, americium and other elements with industrial use directed as such. The waste left that has no use can then be stored in a smaller footprint... And as a bonus to reprocessing, would only be hazardously radioactive for 150 years rather than thousands.
- All that shit costs money. Just toss the waste wherever and wait for public funds to appear, amiright?
  
  But when 8 years of wind turbine blades pile up its not a problem?
until permanent deep geological repositories are available
I have been growing up with the outlook that one day we might find these yet somehow this promise/hope still sounds exactly the same many many years later
- Research takes time, and it's not like there's a ticking clock or anything, the uranium is just going to sit there until we do something with it. It's not as if the uranium is going to get bored and suddenly explode or something.
- In Germany we already found suitable places but lobby work and local governments worked against it and now it's in moist mines in leaky barrels.
- I think the main reasoning why permanent solutions haven't been "found" yet is because we still closetedly believe that we will find a better use for the waste if we just wait a few more decades.
  it would be a shame to bury all that waste under 1000 meters of concrete now only to find out you can re-use these spent fuel rods for another round in the reactor in 2050.
  
  You can reprocess then and run them through breeder reactors, but no one has proven you can make money doing it.
  That biggest reason no one has permanent storage sites is political. There will always be loud protests at any proposed site.
- The problem with DGRs is the resistance from uninformed locals and environmental groups, on a technical level we know how to build them and how to make them safe.
  
  I thought the problem was SEP fields. Because as soon as you've found an ideal location for a facility all the locals come out (probably in part funded by oil companies) and are like "this sounds great but not here".
  Americans also know how sloppy US contractors get.
- Why not just mix it to trace amounts with sand and deposit in a biologically dead zone?
  
  Outside the environment you mean?
  
  Well, it's usually planned deep underground (and in rock that's unlikely to have water or earthquakes running through) in hopes of it remaining undeterred for as long as possible. If you were to dump it in the desert, then winds or the occasional rain might still carry it all over the place.
This post is incorrect, and harmful. Casks do not only last for up to 100 years. They are given a 20 year certificate, and a renewable 40 year certificate inperpetuity pending safety inspection of the casket.
- That's similar to what's done with a lot of mine wastes, which are just as harmful, if not more.
  Millions of tonnes of metal-rich tailings are held back at a given mine by their engineered dams. The only thing stopping a 'tee hee whoops' is routine inspection and maintenance, even in post-closure
  
  It is not at all similar. Those mines were just sealed off from the outside world with the dangerous materials therein left to polluted surrounding ground waters. These are stand alone and separated containers meant to hold these wastes indefinitely, until such time as their half lives render them no longer a threat.
- Edit: sorry, I thought you were arguing they dontast that long. My brain skipped the "only" at the beginning.
  The image you linked literally says they last 100+ years. Sure, they need to be checked on to make sure nothing is going wrong, but when is that not the case with hazardous material storage?
I'm pro-nuclear power. don't get me wrong. but....spent nuclear fuel does not account for all the radioactive waste produced in fission power production. even the majority of it by mass or volume. low and intermediate radioactive waste represents a MUCH larger footprint
- Where does it go?
  
  Yucca Mountain
  
  up ya bum
- Very much so. Anything that gets too hot has to be interred.
- alright, low and medium level radioactive waste is large in volume, but it is low(er) in radioactivity. how dangerous is it really? what security mechanisms have to be present to ensure it doesn't contaminate the landscape? Would it be okay to just dump it somewhere in the great canyon or the rocky mountains? Would it reasonably do any harm there?
  
  Would it be okay to just dump it somewhere in the great canyon or the rocky mountains? Would it reasonably do any harm there?
  I wouldn't put it anywhere near a water table if you want to keep consuming that water.
  it needs to be protected from weathering.
  Yucca mountain was ideal for a lot of reasons - remoteness, stability, but I suspect there are many similar places - also mines. the good thing re: this waste vs fuel waste is it's relatively low half life will render it 'cool' in a few hundred to a few thousand years.
- Same goes for the industry behind making photoelectric panels, etc. Fusion would also have a lot of side waste due to neutron bombardment.
  
  Same goes for the industry behind making photoelectric panels,
  I'm not sure how to parse this. are you suggesting that PV production involves radionucleotides?
  the recycling of photovoltaic panels has improved enormously over the last decade, and made huge leaps in just the last few years. In some ways, it's becoming a focus for providing new panel production because the recycling can be quite profitable:
  "In 2004, according to Germany’s state-owned Fraunhofer Society, Europe’s largest institute of applied-engineering research, one watt of solar power required about sixteen grams of polysilicon; this has dropped now to about two grams. As Hannah Ritchie, a data scientist and a senior researcher at Oxford University, calculated recently, “the silver used in one solar panel built in 2010 would be enough for around five panels today.”
  https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/46-billion-years-on-the-sun-is-having-a-moment
  re: Fusion - yeah, irradiated hardware is going to be a real thing, but we don't really have much of an idea how much of it will be produced. to be determined imho.
there's an awful lot of people here that don't understand volume over output. this is a small amount for 24 years when compared to the volume of toxic waste that fossil fuel plants put out.
- Even the amount of radiation is lower, as coal power plants output quite a bit of radioactive material
  
  TIL - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
This makes it a robust interim solution until permanent deep geological repositories are available.
Molten Salt Reactors can mostly eat these; until the newer ones come out that can eat these more easily.
Technology will find a way, with proper resourcing.
- Technology will find a way, with proper resourcing.
  And research. It has been illegal to do research on nuclear power in some countries for decades. And then they go "SeE, nO iNnOvAtIoNs!"
  
  Which countries?
  Are you talking about illegality to enrich to a level beyond that required for civilian use? Like Iran?
What I don't get is if the waste is emitting enough radiation to be harmful, why don't we use it to make power.
- Power generation is all about thermal differential.
  If the differential is too low, then your power generation either doesn't work or is incredibly inefficient.
  Spent fuel is not radioactive enough to produce a large enough thermal differential to run steam turbines. In some cases it can be reprocessed through some expensive means and then used again. However, the key word here is expensive. It's considerably more economical to use new fuel than it is to reprocess old fuel.
  Breeding reactors are a thing but their economic viability is questionable.
  
  Dump it in water, heat it up, use the heat for heating. You don't need it to be the most efficient, you only need to not waste it.
- Levels far too low to be viable energy sources can still be biologically harmful.
Doesn’t seem like much, tbh
- It really isn't burning coal etc. Will kill way more people and do way more damage than just having this sit around chilling
If you drink that you gain super powers.
- Will I become big and strong?
  
  For a few minutes.
I mean nuclear energy is fine and all, but i'd argue that solar is still better.
Think about it:
Image Source
Cyanobacteria and their photosynthesis (essentially generating energy out of sunlight) was the foundational breakthrough that allowed life to expand all across the planet and feed multi-cellular organisms, give rise to the modern variety in life that we see.
Solar panels are like photosynthesis (kinda), just on a more technical level. If nuclear energy would have been significantly cheaper in the last few decades, solar energy might not have been developed in the first place, because there would have been no perceived need for it, so we'd be stuck with nuclear.
But it is important that solar energy is available, and so it's a good thing that cheap nuclear power didn't prevent solar energy from happening. We should be thankful.
- How much waste does solar produce for the same amount of energy to be delivered? A quick calculation from a very generous 30k kWh per solar panel lifetime results in almost 4 million solar panels for same amount of energy. How much of that waste would end up in a garbage heap? What is the environment cost to mine the materials for those solar panels? The environmental cost of the land needed to deploy them?
  Saying "it's like photosynthesis" is the most useless, reductionist analysis you could possibly do.
  
  The environmental cost of the land needed to deploy them?
  I did some quick maths a while ago and figured out that it's approximately 3% of our total land use.
- The reason why nuclear is necessary is because of scale. Solar can't scale up fast enough to even meet demand, let alone exceed it. Nuclear can. But both is good as well, we can do as much solar as we want and then make up the gap with nuclear.
  
  Solar can’t scale up fast enough to even meet demand, let alone exceed it.
  Based on what argument?
  
  But both is good as well, we can do as much solar as we want and then make up the gap with nuclear.
  I think solar will eventually become more effective and ubiquitous, but indeed nuclear should be the gap in the meanwhile. Unfortunately, folks on either side of the debate are dogmatic thinking it's one or the other instead of being pragmatic.
  I used to be anti-nuclear, but with the rate of how bad climate change is getting, we need the nuclear power as the stop gap while we ramp up solar and other renewables. Even my boss who has an environmental degree was anti-nuclear but turned around. The vehemently anti-nuclear think we are going to build more nuke plants. Building new plants are indeed expensive, but those in the middle think we should not build more, but instead advocate not shutting down the already existing plants until other renewables catch up.
  Moreover, and this is also a hard to swallow pill for many, much of the anti-nuclear sentiment has roots from Soviet disinformation campaign during the Cold War, especially in West Germany to malign nuclear energy. The Soviet Union was afraid that West Germany's civil nuclear programme might turn to a military one. That disinformation campaign still lingers in the minds of many not just in Germany but have spread across the globe.
- Both are good.
What ever happened to Yucca Mountain? I thought that was supposed to solve America's nuclear waste problem for good.
- They've been talking about that since I was in primary school in the 1980s.
  The problem is the weak railroad and interstate infrastructure. There are too many derailments and crumbling bridges to transport such 'hot' materials safely. There's also the danger of hijacking and making of dirty bombs.
  
  If the cylinders in the OP can withstand missile strikes (supposedly) why would a derailment be a problem?
- Probably what happens to all these projects.
- Maybe Nevadans don't want that in their backyard? Or maybe they oughta at least get serious compensation for it.
  But they don't get a say.
  
  For what? The existence of something?
  “Not in my back yard” is the biggest cause of so many issues in the world. Get over it.
It would be nice to see a comparison with the waste generated by other sources, over the same period and the same amount of energy generated
- Why? That waste we mostly don't need to worry about. This waste will be deadly for thousands of years.....
  
  The global heating caused by coal will be deadly as well but on a much more global scale.
  
  Yeah, no need to worry about the billions of tons of C02 that has been pumped into the atmosphere...
  
  You could make out with those casks for 5 minutes every day and not suffer any ill effects. Unlike any of the byproducts from coal.
  
  What waste are you referring to that you think does not need to be worried about?
  
  Still waste, and some non radioactive waste can remain dangerous too. Maybe not as bad and for a shorter amount of time, but still.
  I think it would be nice to see, to put things into perspective.
  
  No, we do need to worry about those. The company producing them just doesn't need to put in any effort to contain them, and the public has to deal with it. Nuclear is largely so expensive because they have to be incredibly safe, to an honestly ridiculous degree. Meanwhile other power production just throws their hazerdous waste around and let's everyone else deal with it so they can continue to make a larger profit.
  
  If you're worried about nuclear waste affecting your life in any negative fashion, don't go outside and breathe the air or stand anywhere close to a radio transmitter.
  
  Blatant misinformation, there are so many resources you could read or watch to better inform yourself, but you have, at this point, deliberately chosen not to.
I too have played satisfactory. Next step, more containers on top of these.
- It's really not complicated. Drop a concrete pillar on each corner, a layer of foundations, and they've just doubled the storage...
The casks are expected to last 50–100 years, though the fuel inside remains radioactive for thousands.
In other words, kicking the can down the road. "I hope they find a solution, but I don't care. I'll be dead by then."
- The casks are continuously recertified for as long as the material needs to be held. Radioactive material decays into non radioactive elements over the course of its half life. This is not kicking the can down the road.
  The nuclear energy industry is the safest industry anyone has ever worked in, and it is intentionally so. Please go watch any number of resources on this fact.
  
  Radioactive material decays into non radioactive elements over the course of its half life. This is not kicking the can down the road.
  That's not what half life is.
  The nuclear energy industry is the safest industry anyone has ever worked in, and it is intentionally so.
  Oh, this is not some idiot but rather some LLM propaganda bot. That explains the braindead comment on half-life times...
- Welcome to the world of mining. Metal leaching/acid rock drainage (ML/ARD) is a big issue associated with waste rock, and the solution is often an engineered cover that limits oxygen and water ingress (as these react with sulphur, lowering pH and releasing bound metals in the form of leachate). These covers often use geomembranes that have lifespans of 25 years... Yet you have 300 million tons of ML/ARD waste rock entombed by them.
  Look up the Giant Mine - that one will make your head spin.
I wonder what the neighbour kid would charge to cut that lawn.
- Likely the safest lawn they'd cut. The radiation levels are incredibly low, and it's going to be well maintained with no hidden hazards or issues that may pop up.
Dig hole to hell. Push in
24 years of waste? I find it immensely annoying that this is 8 x 4 pairs of casks and not 6 x 4. We should just dump a couple of columns, it will be much neater then.
Nice of them to keep it all in one place. Great for military security. Enemy doesn’t have to spread so thin if trying to compromise the spent fuel.
And imagine the manpower needed if we were to try to safeguard all our solar installations. Impossible.
- The casks are designed to withstand direct missile strikes.
not buried?
- Hard to air cool when buried.
  Did you not even read the post text?
  
  My basement is air - cooled. I think it doable.
  
  OK just launch it into space

160 comments