this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
327 points (97.1% liked)

Just Post

1100 readers
5 users here now

Just post something 💛

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Outside the environment you mean?

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I mean, we dig it out of the earth, concentrate and refine it. So the problem is the concentration, no? Geologically dead and whatnot are requirements for a final depot, because the high concentrated radioactive and poisonous stuff is a disaster waiting to happen.

But mixing it with gravel/dirt for a final depot might be safer too.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm just confused by what you think a biologically dead zone is?

Why would we want to store it out in the open when we can just store it in a giant underground chasm somewhere. How does mixing it with sand make it less radioactive.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I thought more of marine dead zones, because slightly poisonous and radioactive gravel/sand could still be a problem. But maybe forget that.

But still, instead of one hole with high risk, 5 holes with medium risk might be better.