EXCLUSIVE: Nuclear waste removal project commences at UK's most hazardous building

[@petermclaren2665]

On 16th June 2020, the UK came to the end of a 67-day, 22-hour, 55-minute coal-free streak, a remarkable period which saw us go for over two months without using any coal-fired power for the first time since the Industrial Revolution. The first time in 138 years!

[@seankilburn7200]

We’re making surprisingly quick progress on that front

[@Nainara32]

It's a pity that there isn't an efficient way to harness all that energy being emitted by the waste.

[@lucacarbonaro2911]

there are 4th generation reactor that can use radioactive waste with left the low level waste that didn't last for 240.000 years

[@stickynorth]

Ask the French on tips on how to close the nuclear fuel cycle. They reprocess everything!

[@lucacarbonaro2911]

@@stickynorth yes but it is cheaper to buy more uranium

[@Johnnyfive55]

@@stickynorth Sellafield is a reprocessing plant, a dirty badly run one

[@EiziEizz]

@@stickynorth And create 3 orders of magnitude more waste volume by smearing the waste on liquids, solids and gases during reprocessing. Nuclear energy needs to die.

[@Hillclimber001]

So essentially, just move it all somewhere else - great!

[@subumohapatra]

First of all, no one has died because of that waste, please acknowledge that. The solution planned to store in concrete vaults is good enough, it will ensure no one will be hurt in future. Thanks for pointing out its not waste from civilian reactor fleet, the cost for waste disposal from commercial power production is already included in price set for electricity from nuclear power plants, therefore commercial nuclear waste is always paid for. Now let’s run some numbers by assuming that space travel will become very cheap and reliable in 20 years and cost to low earth orbit would be 200 $/kg. Let’s say another 100 $/kg for journey to Venus and 200$/kg for transport to the launch site and carbon neutral fuel needed to propel the rocket, the total cost to Venus per kg would be 500$/kg . FYI carbon neutral fuel can be produced from carbon extracted from sea water/air by using nuclear power as input. Now for 97 billion pounds ( 1 British pound = 1.25$) would be 112.5 B$. At 500$/kg we would be able to dump 225 mega tonnes of nuclear waste on Venus. Please bear in mind the same can be done to clean up super fund sites which have chemical waste that does not decay. So let’s not spread unnecessary fear of nuclear waste.

[@iain3713]

200 kg to orbit is absurdly optimistic, and it would be far more to escape earth's gravity well

[@Lukeleebrewin]

Health and safety tip: Don't attach radioactive waste to a giant rocket.

[@subumohapatra]

@@Lukeleebrewin Everheard of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator that's been luched pretty frequetly, most of the mars rovers are powered by RTGs.

[@subumohapatra]

@@iain3713 in shuttle era 10000$/kg was impossilbe today its below 4000$/kg. Shuttle cost was 50k$/kg.

[@iain3713]

@@subumohapatra that's because the shuttle was uniquely expensive, the Saturn V was near $5000 per kg. Bear in mind that it takes way way more energy to send things out of LEO. The falcon 9 can only loft 3000kg on an escape trajectory compared to 16 tons to low earth orbit, and with escape trajectories upper stage reuse is not an option.

[@ragw33d]

97 billion uk sure does like to spend the money 22 billion on track and trace, estimated cost of HS2 is between £72bn and £98bn yet nasa says its estimating a cost of 20-30 billion usd to go back to moon just insane costs

[@adder3597]

97 billion over 120 years works out at about 800 million a year. Given how complex the site is, and just how much work needs doing to clear it back to fields safely, that's pretty cheap. It's the time component that's the kicker.

[@RawTopShot]

@@adder3597 It won't be fields, it's within the Sellafield (Windscale) site. It'll be built over.

[@ExcuseMyDerp]

They may say it’ll cost 97bn but what the news didn’t say is that Sellafield’s track record of budgeting things isn’t exactly brilliant! Most things cost at LEAST twice as much usually and take twice as long. The amount of taxpayer’s money that has been wasted at that place is unbelievable.

[@wickwicker8575]

@@ExcuseMyDerp Not only sellafield but other nuclear sites in the UK which is costing the taxpayer billions all down to incompetence and lack of government oversight.

[@ExcuseMyDerp]

@@wickwicker8575 I’d suggest that excess government oversight is a contributor to wasting taxpayer’s money

[@Generalphoenix8438]

I have heard of the system that can use nuclear waste as a sustainable fuel source but it does also say that the technology has been around for decades but was not able to be built because of costs. Is their anyone who also knows of this.

[@peace4peaceful]

Yes. Not sure if this one is it but. The UK and another country are developing a nuclear plant that imitates the sun's power. They have managed to contain the heat and are developing the system further. They said it will generate huge amounts of electricity. Be another 50 years or so before it's ready. Not sure if it's Nuclear fission? It's on KZbin somewhere.

[@FemboyEngineer]

I’d doubt that’s correct because if it was, they wouldn’t be burying it.

[@tomwhite2765]

Probably thinking of a breeder reactor. Uses the waste products from current reactors as fuel

[@alexscarbro796]

Apparently there is a reactor in the states that was designed for that purpose. Apparently the design we currently use was chosen because it created the waste products needed for nuclear weapons.

[@Generalphoenix8438]

@@FemboyEngineer I read it somewhere. It was during the 1960s it was proposed and because of the cost required to build it it wasnt possible. Again I dont know the name of it.

[@hgfdasdf3754]

£97,000,000,000? What?

[@Loopyengineeringco]

I wonder how many tWh of power was produced with this material. I doubt it's 97£billion's worth!

[@adder3597]

97 billion over 120 years works out at about 800 million a year. Given how complex the site is, and just how much work needs doing to clear it back to fields safely, that's pretty cheap. It's the time component that's the kicker.

[@adder3597]

Also, the extreme costs today are a result of attempting to take the cheapest route in years past, with the technology available. In hindsight it was a bad move, but at the time it was the best available practice.

[@RawTopShot]

@@Loopyengineeringco Power.. None... Material for military, plenty.

[@Jon6429]

'The Compartment', Interesting choice of words. I recall it being a shaft with a short tunnel.

[@JackKing12.]

Got some in my toilet

[@Ann-sj4pt]

Unstable nuclear waste in an old crumbling building,with a fairground grabber luck dipping.this is insanity!

[@tracyisland65]

nuclear waste deposited in outer space would be the best option i think

[@coupdegras107]

Clean and safe energy, lads

[@samsonsliteye]

wait, so the reason this clean up is so expensive, is because its so hard to get to the contaminated material and... the solution is... to burry it even deeper so its even hard to get to in the future? am i the only one who thinks this... feels just as short sighted as what was done originally in sellafield? it seems like we are trying to solve the problem with the same solution that we already know doesnt work and only makes it more expensive and complicated in the future?

[@nicky2575]

I thought the same thing! I've now looked into it a little more, and it appears that first of all: this new vault is built with more up to date knowledge about nuclear waste, so should last for long enough that the waste is less dangerous. But to answer your question about being hard to reach, because the waste is now packaged in those portable crates, instead of massive sludge tanks, it means that it can be easily accessed and moved by autonomous vehicles.

[@kelleyhyde2281]

Way I see it they continue to make this horrific set of errors because they like the result, and like to say that they don't.

[@samhalliwell9088]

It’s not buried safely currently. In fact its not buried at all, it’s in a compartment within a building that is ageing. There was no thought put into waste back in the 60s and 70s etc and so it was essentially dumped somewhere for someone to worry about further down the line. The new plan to bury it safely has been thought out over decades and is crucial.

[@northsimulation3386]

There are a lot more complexities with this project than just those mentioned in the video. The current silo is holding the waste in extremely large storage pools, underwater. This presents a whole host of issues with long term stability and management which is why the waste is being removed in the first place. Processing the waste to reduce the liquid volume and then placing it into properly engineered, individual storage containers is a long term solution. Even if future generations decide on a new location for the waste, it is a lot easier to move a set of containers than entire buildings. The newly constructed building showed in the video isn’t going to have this waste just dumped into it, it will house the containers full of the waste.

[@mariefenech2952]

kosher certified best anti semitic abundant rads

[@AliSarshogh]

👏👏👏

[@realtalk5329]

The aliens don't like us using nuclear

[@jeanenry]

The French managed to deal with waste why are UK specialists so SPASTIC.

[@stickynorth]

Close the nuclear fuel cycle and MAYBE there will be a future for the industry. Otherwise it's long-term legacy costs far outweigh its benefits it would seem...

[@kelleyhyde2281]

I suppose they'd better find a place to put it all since over here they plan on putting a mini nuke plant at every street corner and there isn't a thing we can say about it, just stand around glowing in the dark.

[@juliedaniels2696]

Let's face it, we have no longterm solutions for nuclear waste storage. The costs spiral. We can move forward without nuclear. We have alternatives and other options. BUT I expect just like the combustion engine, when future investors took us into fossil fuels. Investment and capitalism will keep nuclear alive. Even though its so hazardous.

[@ausar567]

The next generation nuclear will solve most of the waste problem, but i would be lying if i say thats its done and done, it is closer than having fully efficient renewable, but not close enough, because believe it or not Nuclear doesnt get that much attention from investor, this what explain the lack of reactor and RnD compared to 19s. Its simply took too long to break even, even when its much more profitable in the long run. We can only hope that either nuclear or renewable get massive breakthrough in their research, because fossil is that much worse.

[@jimmyormerod4075]

apart from the fact we do a very good one store it safley until we can harness it

[@christpower5402]

We should just ship it into space.

[@RawTopShot]

Think what would happen if the rocket explodes within the atmosphere

[@gabemore1766]

Cost too much

[@markrl75]

The waste has to be moved in extremely heavy lead containers. Simply not practical or at all possible to put into space.

[@alparbaka2913]

W w w br it ish? Menz?

[@steve64464]

Don't forget to do a Wigner release. The mistakes of mankind are stained/embedded long into the future.

[@santorini8423]

This costs us a fkin fortune. Ship it to Scotland.

[@POLITICAL-BIAS.]

Pathetic comment, and I'm not even Scottish.

[@jevgenijstancura4986]

I have understood that they scrub rest of waste and where it will go after ?! Ukraine ?In exchange of military weapons!?

[@SuperNia88]

NO MORE!!!!

[@SMURFF707]

No more what?

[@grimhhch]

No more what safe energy nuclear power?

[@santorini8423]

@@grimhhch exactly.

[@RawTopShot]

Mmm alternative power production ideas then love? 🤔 No good just saying "no more" and not providing a viable alternative.

[@lucienne4027]

JESUS CHRIST IS COMING!! REPENT. DON'T BE LEFT BEHIND!!!!

[@lockedandloaded6522]

AND PUTIN HAS BEEN HIS RIGHT HAND...HAIL CHRIST!

[@user-mq7vf9me3y]

No.

[@strawberrygirrl]

He better hurry up then.

[@seankilburn7200]

Go away

[@SkidM3rks]

I am here, bow down and say 12 hail jehovas.