Post #1238597
2026-04-14 08:32 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@notjustbikes@social.notjustbikes.com 2026-04-14 08:45
@cabbagebeets Meh, I think the storage problem is way overblown. The really radioactive stuff decays in a fairly short period of time and it's kept on-site in water pools (and the Cherenkov radiation looks so cool). Once it's been there for a few years the remaining material is much less radioactive and very small. Yeah, it needs to be handled carefully, but there are way more important issues to worry about when it comes to large-scale power generation.
-
@bob_zim@infosec.exchange 2026-04-14 12:34
@cabbagebeets @notjustbikes I’d be happy to *eat* all of the nuclear fuel spent to generate the power I personally use in a year. People really have no concept of how energy-dense it is. This is an aerial photo of the storage for Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, a plant which operated from 1972-1997, rated at 860 MW, with a lifetime capacity factor of 68.2% (so it generated ~586 MW on average). 25 years is 219,150 hours, so this plant generated ~128.5 TWh of power over its life. And this isn’t just spent fuel, it’s all the severely contaminated concrete and steel from the reactor, too. All in a grid about 100’ by 120’. Last I heard, New York City’s power consumption is estimated at 60 TWh per year, so this picture represents all the waste from powering one of the biggest cities in the world for two entire years.