Just Post

1417 readers

87 users here now

Just post something 💛

Lemmy's general purpose discussion community with no specific topic.

Additionally, this is a no AI content community. We are here for human interaction, not AI slop! Posts or comments flagged as AI generated will be removed.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

suns3t@lemmy.world

dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world

327

24 years of nuclear waste from the Maine Yankee powerplant (infosec.pub)

submitted 7 months ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/justpost@lemmy.world

151 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

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The theoretical solution to this is battery storage… However, battery tech at a scale large enough to make solar a viable solution for our immediate power needs is doubtful with our current technology and resources.

https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/39964314

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

First of all, those are theoretical projections of cost benefits over time based on the most opportunistic climate anyone could come up with, and has nothing to do with scaling.

Secondly Lcoe isn't exactly the best way to determine what would be an optimal source of power for any given use. A lot of nuclear power's marketable sources of revenue deal with industry that needs sustained and high capacity outputs.

Edit: also, their cost analysis is based on some pretty dubious means. They aren't exactly generous with providing their sources and this wasn't exactly easy to find.

In 2024 alone, average battery prices fell by 40%, hitting a record low of $165 per kWh for a full battery system (excluding Engineering, Procurement and Construction and grid connection costs).

How well do you think their cost and benefit analysis would do if nuclear power got to ignore engineering, procurement, construction, and grid connection?

I'm not saying that solar is a bad thing, it's just not appropriate dependent on scale and intention.