Air pollution

[durhamplumber]

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years).[45] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[46] Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.[47]

 

[durhamplumber]

Half life of 15.7 Million years!!!.. not the stuff to create and bung it all in a hole somewhere!

 

[JohnD]

A very long half-life may not be a bad thing, because it means that the energy is dissipated very weakly.

In the same way that if you had a warehouse with a million fireworks in it, and once a week you took one out and set it off, it would be insignificant. But if you set fire to the warehouse and they all went off in ten minutes, it would be rather alarming.

 

[wobs]

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years).[45] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[46] Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.[47]

You've quoted a wiki article without reference, but the link ([47]) dates back to 2006.

There is an active nuclear disposal site in Finland that I have linked to. I also have peer reviwed studies n disposal sites in Switzerland, and the US (for weapons waste), among other places.

Meanwhile, I have just read one group (UCS) who has just warmed to nuclear power:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...embrace-nuclear-power-to-stem-climate-change/

They recommend nuclear power as a major way forward to combat climate change:
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/retirements#.XBvN6fn7SM8

You have also failed to produce any evidence that spent fuel could be a problem if properly disposed of as I showed earlier.

 

[Notch7]

You have also failed to produce any evidence that spent fuel could be a problem if properly disposed of as I showed earlier

Spent fuel isnt the problem.

Decommissioning on the other hand is a bit of headache. Estimate in the range of $1B and 10 years.

150 so far have been shut off, but only 18 of those have been decommissioned.
Add to that the cost of making safe and decontaminating nuclear plants that gone wrong.

The cradle to grave costs suddenly look a bit different.

 

[wobs]

Spent fuel isnt the problem.

Decommissioning on the other hand is a bit of headache. Estimate in the range of $1B and 10 years.

150 so far have been shut off, but only 18 of those have been decommissioned.
Add to that the cost of making safe and decontaminating nuclear plants that gone wrong.

The cradle to grave costs suddenly look a bit different.

These things are factored into the cost of nuclear. When you consider a modern plant can run for between 50-70 years, that's a huge amount of energy produced, with a high capacity factor. The high building costs and decommissioning costs are small in comparison.

18 plants decommissioned? Sounds like we know how to do it.

Of course what many countries do afterwards will be to build a new plant on the same site.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...astes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx

Edit:
Just to expand on this, new builds in the UK must include a decommisssioning plan:
"for any new plant, the preparation of an outline decommissioning plan which shows that the design of the plant will facilitate its safe decommissioning and dismantling"
http://www.onr.org.uk/awestrategy.pdf

 

[durhamplumber]

These things are factored into the cost of nuclear,i When you consider a modern plant can run for between 50-70 years, that's a huge amount of energy produced, with a high capacity factor. The high building costs and decommissioning costs are small in comparison.

18 plants decommissioned? Sounds like we know how to do it.

Of course what many countries do afterwards will be to build a new plant on the same site.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...astes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx

Decommisioning has been around for 50years max,,,and i bet an awful lot of the stuff has ended up at the bottom of the ocean...The best solution now is stick it in a hole for 10years and prey for no earthquakes or leakage into the environment..When we cannot accurately predict the cost of HS2 at all accurately,,its impossible to dream up any sort of sensible decommission figure.How do you "factor in",Chernobyl,or Fukishima???""18 plants decommisioned,,,so we know what we are doing" how incredibly naive.