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

  • andyburke@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    42
    ·
    4 days ago

    Why? That waste we mostly don’t need to worry about. This waste will be deadly for thousands of years…

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      4 days ago

      The global heating caused by coal will be deadly as well but on a much more global scale.

      • zout@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Don’t forget the coal ash, which is something to worry about.

    • sartalon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yeah, no need to worry about the billions of tons of C02 that has been pumped into the atmosphere…

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 days ago

      You could make out with those casks for 5 minutes every day and not suffer any ill effects. Unlike any of the byproducts from coal.

      • andyburke@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The byproducts from solar panels and wind turbines.

        Edit: the impacts of storage production are probably a way more fair comparison and I will still put Lithium-based battery production as less harmful than this type of waste that requires long term storage I doubt our species to be capable of.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      No, we do need to worry about those. The company producing them just doesn’t need to put in any effort to contain them, and the public has to deal with it. Nuclear is largely so expensive because they have to be incredibly safe, to an honestly ridiculous degree. Meanwhile other power production just throws their hazerdous waste around and let’s everyone else deal with it so they can continue to make a larger profit.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      Still waste, and some non radioactive waste can remain dangerous too. Maybe not as bad and for a shorter amount of time, but still.

      I think it would be nice to see, to put things into perspective.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      If you’re worried about nuclear waste affecting your life in any negative fashion, don’t go outside and breathe the air or stand anywhere close to a radio transmitter.

    • Derpenheim@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Blatant misinformation, there are so many resources you could read or watch to better inform yourself, but you have, at this point, deliberately chosen not to.