this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
338 points (96.9% liked)

Just Post

1134 readers
118 users here now

Just post something 💛

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wonder what the neighbour kid would charge to cut that lawn.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

Likely the safest lawn they'd cut. The radiation levels are incredibly low, and it's going to be well maintained with no hidden hazards or issues that may pop up.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (15 children)

I mean nuclear energy is fine and all, but i'd argue that solar is still better.

Think about it:

Image Source

Cyanobacteria and their photosynthesis (essentially generating energy out of sunlight) was the foundational breakthrough that allowed life to expand all across the planet and feed multi-cellular organisms, give rise to the modern variety in life that we see.

Solar panels are like photosynthesis (kinda), just on a more technical level. If nuclear energy would have been significantly cheaper in the last few decades, solar energy might not have been developed in the first place, because there would have been no perceived need for it, so we'd be stuck with nuclear.

But it is important that solar energy is available, and so it's a good thing that cheap nuclear power didn't prevent solar energy from happening. We should be thankful.

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

How much waste does solar produce for the same amount of energy to be delivered? A quick calculation from a very generous 30k kWh per solar panel lifetime results in almost 4 million solar panels for same amount of energy. How much of that waste would end up in a garbage heap? What is the environment cost to mine the materials for those solar panels? The environmental cost of the land needed to deploy them?

Saying "it's like photosynthesis" is the most useless, reductionist analysis you could possibly do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›