The Nuclear Power Thread

[joelupchurch]

The Chinese government can also accept less stingent safety standards since they are will to accept the loss of life that would be unacceptable in the US (unless one lives in New Orleans ). And the Chinese people cannot sue the government or companies they way its done in the US.

Large forgings have so far been ordered from Japan until shops can be established in the US.

Here is an update on large forging capabilities. China has leapfrogged Japan and the US isn't even in the running.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf122_heavy_manufacturing_of_power_plants.html"

From a public safety perspective, I'm not sure it matters what value the Chinese Government places on human life. All it takes is a desire not to have multibillion dollar investments turned into puddles of radioactive slag. If anything, it might help, since I suspect any subcontractor that is caught cutting corners on reactor construction will end up with a bullet in the back of the head. They may not care if they are shipping toys painted with lead paint to American children, but they care very about protecting their investments.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it would be hard at all. One need only look at a small handful of incidents from our not-too-distant past to realize that such things as boiler explosions and fires that engulf a large part of a city have gone from somewhat common to exceedingly rare.

Now, of course, it is possible for regulation to go too far, but it is very difficult to identify what "too far" is.

For nuclear, though, you can mostly ignore the safety regulation itself and focus on the application of it. The examples given of politicians arbitrarily holding up plant construction are examples of people being able to game the process for political purposes and to the detrement of the plant. So what I'm most interested in seeing is a regulatory process put in place that eliminates such abuse, shortens timelines for approvals, etc.

 

[mheslep]

I don't think it would be hard at all. One need only look at a small handful of incidents from our not-too-distant past to realize that such things as boiler explosions and fires that engulf a large part of a city have gone from somewhat common to exceedingly rare.

Now, of course, it is possible for regulation to go too far, but it is very difficult to identify what "too far" is.

Yes difficult to establish "too far", because it is easy to show correlation, but not to prove causality - my point.
The alternative argument to improving safety and decreasing accidents relies on the rise of the middle class and technological improvements. As people become more affluent and expect more from life, they are less and less likely to value their lives cheaply and thus won't take highly dangerous jobs, nor tolerate a boiler design that burns down the neighborhood every ten years; government regulation happens along for the ride, taking credit. I can not prove the alternative, but it is a plausible theory, correlating well with the record.

See for example this history of declining mining deaths since 1901. The Federal Coal Mine act did not come along until 1969; OSHA 1970.

 

[t92]

A couple of questions. I was reading up a tiny bit on reactors and I was introduced to pool-type reactors and research reactors (often used to provide medical isotopes).

Now, I read about some low temperature non boiling lwr that were built to provide process heat and even some papers on low temp organic rankine cycle power reactors.

It got me wondering why we don't just chill a bit on the efficiency obsession and just build massive pool-type ORC power reactors. Like DIY geothermal plants. How hard can it be to build something like this?, and wouldn't the increase in plant engineering simplicity pay for the lack of thermodynamic efficiency? Well they clearly don't exist, so I wonder if anyone knows of any references to any papers, blogs, or other info that analyses why this idea isn't practical?

Or is it that we are like an ant-eating monkey with his hand stuck around a banana (sexy molten lead fast breeder super efficient mega reactor) in a bottle he can't get out because his fist is too big, but that there are some tasty v. large dead beatles (low hanging fruit nuclear) in the bottle that he could tweazer out between his fingers that are far less of an arse to attain than the usual ants (fossil fuels)?

In the same vein (but far more speculatively), what would be the practicality of having two separate types of reactors; one to produce radioisotopes by neutron activation, and the second to use these radioisotopes in massively scaled up radioisotope thermal power plants? Again any references as to why this is not practical would be great!

 

[Astronuc]

There are such systems as district heating plants, which can be nuclear. These provide heating to businesses or residential areas. In NY City, the local utility provides steam to some buildings.

With such systems, there is always the concern of liability in the event a hot water/steam line ruptures and injures or kills people or damages property.

Nuclear power plants have typically been built in areas removed from population concentrations, primarily because of the Emergency Protection Zone (EPZ), which can be a large area. It's easier to do that in rural areas, which also pay much lower property taxes. In addition, large power plants need a lot of cooling water - either sea, lake (reservoir), river, cooling tower, or in other words the heat is passed into water or air.

Low power density nuclear plants could possible be viable if they can have a small EPZ, and provide electricity and district heating. Using a Rankine cycle, plants may develop up to ~36% thermal efficiency, but low temperature (and lower pressure) plants are less efficient. It would be ideal (if not practical) to provide heating from the hot water discharge of the power system. Otherwise, the heat is just dumped to the environment.

There are a number of small reactors generating radioisotopes for medicine. And one commercial nuclear power plant in the US is being used to produce Co-60 for medical applications.

 

[mheslep]

I think this better placed here:

Was reviewing some of the posts upthread on nuclear costs and thought this update on Olkiluoto apropos to recent news. Olkiluoto was originally budgeted at $4B, then was $5.7B in 2008, now is $7.2B.

Regards the Olkiluoto EPR, any word from the industry on a) the expected final cost of the plant and b) the primary reasons for the cost overruns and schedule delays? Pop press now says 4.5B Euro / $5.7B for the 1,600MW plant, won't come online until 2012 (permit granted in early 2005)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/18/nuclearpower

Update two years on:

But the Olkiluoto-3 reactor has had a deeply troubled history. Originally slated to cost around $4 billion (€3 billion), its price tag has nearly doubled to $7.2 billion (€5.3 billion). And it is four years behind schedule.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703865004575648662738551250.html?KEYWORDS=Olkiluoto
That's one reactor being built at an existing nuclear plant. Good grief.

 

[joelupchurch]

Olkiluoto is a textbook case of project mismanagement, but I could supply equal or worse on just about every type of major construction project. We don't stop building bridges, dams, roads and skyscrapers because one project goes over budget. Reactors seem to get built in the far east without these kind of problems. Areva lowballed the bid on a FOAK rector and then tried to make the difference by hiring inexperienced contractors from various countries creating a veritable tower of Babel.

There was one sentence in the WSJ article that stuck out for me.

But Areva and Siemens didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction on Olkiluoto started, and they underestimated the time it would take to complete them, setting the scene for big delays.

"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

 

[mheslep]

Olkiluoto is a textbook case of project mismanagement, but I could supply equal or worse on just about every type of major construction project. We don't stop building bridges, dams, roads and skyscrapers because one project goes over budget. Reactors seem to get built in the far east without these kind of problems. Areva lowballed the bid on a FOAK rector and then tried to make the difference by hiring inexperienced contractors from various countries creating a veritable tower of Babel.

There was one sentence in the WSJ article that stuck out for me.


"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

Sure, it may be that the Olkiluoto over runs and delays are due to bumbling, though it is not as though the French don't have have dozens of prior reactor builds already in their resume. What I'd like to see to confirm the bumbling thesis is one example of a reactor built in the US or Europe that has not cost so much or not taken so long to build (in recent history), before signing off on building (and co-financing via the government) another ~50 reactors in the US.

 

[joelupchurch]

Sure, it may be that the Olkiluoto over runs and delays are due to bumbling, though it is not as though the French don't have have dozens of prior reactor builds already in their resume. What I'd like to see to confirm the bumbling thesis is one example of a reactor built in the US or Europe that has not cost so much or not taken so long to build (in recent history), before signing off on building (and co-financing via the government) another ~50 reactors in the US.

France hasn't build a reactor since 2000, so it isn't like they have a pool of people with current reactor construction experience and they didn't use the people they did have. They tried to save money by hiring a bunch of newbies.

If anything the US is in worse shape, since we have only completed 2 reactors since 1990. The long hiatus means we will have to climb the learning curve all over again. I just hope Westinghouse and the Shaw Group are rotating a lot of construction engineers through China so they can get some experience. The Chinese have 25 reactors under construction right now so they are accumulating a huge reservoir of trained personnel.

Unless we want to hire the Chinese to build reactors for us, I don't see any alternative to climbing the learning curve again. At least when we start building AP1000 reactors, the Chinese should have worked out the bugs in the design already.

 

[mheslep]

France hasn't build a reactor since 2000, so it isn't like they have a pool of people with current reactor construction experience and they didn't use the people they did have. They tried to save money by hiring a bunch of newbies.

If anything the US is in worse shape, since we have only completed 2 reactors since 1990. The long hiatus means we will have to climb the learning curve all over again. I just hope Westinghouse and the Shaw Group are rotating a lot of construction engineers through China so they can get some experience. The Chinese have 25 reactors under construction right now so they are accumulating a huge reservoir of trained personnel.

Yes, though the Chinese are almost completely new to the reactor business and don't seem to be blowing out budgets and schedules. I don't know the causes in Olkiluoto, but here the government imposed regulation and legal environment concerns me, as you discussed earlier:

But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants. That doesn't even include all the costs imposed by the insane NRC licensing procedures. The Chinese are building reactors using our designs in less time that it takes the NRC to issue a license to start construction in the United States. ...

 

[gmax137]

"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

Maybe, but 'twas always so in the nuclear business. When you're building one-of-a-kind projects with a $6 billion price tag, you don't complete the design work on your own nickel. Cash-flow requires that the customer pay for some of the work as it is done. And really, do you need to know the detailed routing of every 1/2 inch conduit, or what vendor will supply the fans in the battery rooms, before you dig the hole or pour the basemat? Of course you don't.

On the other hand, everyone involved recognizes the costs associated with designing on the fly. That's one of the motivations for the standard designs now offered by the reactor vendors. It's just that the plants being built are the first instances of the standards, so we're seeing the 'detailed design' being done as they're building. If the utilities really do contract for further copies of the standard, we'll see how the approach works. And we'll see if the utilities can restrain themselves from insisting on deviations from the standard.

 

[mheslep]

"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

Maybe, but 'twas always so in the nuclear business. When you're building one-of-a-kind projects with a $6 billion price tag, you don't complete the design work on your own nickel. Cash-flow requires that the customer pay for some of the work as it is done. And really, do you need to know the detailed routing of every 1/2 inch conduit, or what vendor will supply the fans in the battery rooms, before you dig the hole or pour the basemat? Of course you don't.

On the other hand, everyone involved recognizes the costs associated with designing on the fly. That's one of the motivations for the standard designs now offered by the reactor vendors. It's just that the plants being built are the first instances of the standards, so we're seeing the 'detailed design' being done as they're building. If the utilities really do contract for further copies of the standard, we'll see how the approach works. And we'll see if the utilities can restrain themselves from insisting on deviations from the standard.

Seems like a very good argument for small modular reactors built in a factory, shipped to the site, if and when the US NRC gets around approving them in next couple of decades.

 

[mheslep]

I'm continually puzzled by the lack of any significant US nuclear construction, given the nuclear surge in China and the push for clean energy in the US. We've discussed costs, waste, anti-nuclear protests, etc, but that doesn't quite seem a sufficient impediment to me, so I look elsewhere for the holdup.

Observation of the current fleet of 104 US reactors shows it to be a colossal cash cow. All of the plant capital costs were paid off or written off long ago in bankruptcy courts, and those legal injunction expenses far behind them. These plants crank away year in, year out at ~90% capacity factor, with a minimal average operation and maintenance cost of 1.6 cents/kWh and a fuel cost of 0.6 cents/kWh*. There is a nice cozy relationship with the NRC, with permanent onsite inspectors at every plant in the country. Thus when selling power at 12 cents/kWh, a typical two reactor, 2GWe plant is easily casting off $1.5 billion in profit, free and clear every year. They worry about no miners strikes, rail strikes, or new clear air emissions problems, as does coal, for the life of the plants which are extending out to fifty and sixty years now.

It occurs to me that the operators of these plants would not want their large cash streams threatened in any way. I can only speculate on one scenario that would: a large resurgence of new nuclear construction, that's attended by a reanimation of the anti-nuclear movement and the inevitable NIMBYs; their cries would likely end up forcing new inspections of existing plants, new attention drawn to plants well past their design life, with attendant temporary shutdowns and the like. A fleet of new plants is also likely to have the inevitable small accident or two as they work out the kinks, all of which would be much more visible than previously. So, it is not hard to imagine the current fleet operators and attached nuclear industry have plenty of motivation to slowdown new plant approvals at the NRC, especially with people shuffling back and forth from the NRC to industry.

* http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/

 

[gmax137]

I think the problem is the cost: if your 2 GWe station costs $12,000,000,000 that's a large fraction of the total market capitalization of even the biggest utility companies. And at that cost, the $1.5 billion per year profit you calculated would take 8 years to pay it off (without even considering interest cost). True, after that you can print money for the following 50 years; but meanwhile natural gas is at $4, so you can make tons of money without betting the company.

Then, consider the effect of deregulation: the first nukes were ordered by utility companies whose business model was based on a longer term view ('once paid off, the unit is a cash cow'). Now the model is selling power this quarter. I think the execs back in the 60's still had the excitement of the 'electrification' that took place in the 30's and 40's: they saw the power companies as an agent of change (for the better). Now, these same companies are run by MBAs who have never worn a hard hat.

 

[mheslep]

I think the problem is the cost: if your 2 GWe station costs $12,000,000,000 that's a large fraction of the total market capitalization of even the biggest utility companies. And at that cost, the $1.5 billion per year profit you calculated would take 8 years to pay it off (without even considering interest cost).

Well much longer than that. That $12-14B is drawing interest during the 6-10 yrs it takes to bring the plant online (in the US). But I was suggesting above that the cost might be a symptom, not a fundamental cause, as the Chinese would apparently build the same 2GWe plant, same US AP1000 design, for $3B. Why? Cheaper labor costs, yes, but that doesn't explain the balance.

 

[gmax137]

... the Chinese would apparently build the same 2GWe plant, same US AP1000 design, for $3B.

Really $3B? Is that documented somewhere? Sorry if you already posted it above; this is a really long thread...

 

[mheslep]

Really $3B? Is that documented somewhere? Sorry if you already posted it above; this is a really long thread...

Tianwan Nuclear Station in Lianyungang city. I should note I only have these Chinese media claims:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-05/13/content_4542917.htm

2.12GW (ignore the MW typo) for $3.3B

 

[Astronuc]

Milestones for AP1000s
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Milestones_for_AP1000s_2212101.html
22 December 2010

Construction of AP1000 units in China has seen three milestones this month: on-site, at a new module factory and in fuel fabrication.

 

[AndyDaws]

good afternoon all - interesting reading, but rather US centric, perhaps?

Things are looking rather different here in the UK. We're a comprehensively deregulated market, and yet seem to be attracting private interest into investment in new-build nuclear.

To do it, it's taken a level of government intervention into the working of the market (in essence, what will be a carbon tax on fossil-fuel generation).

Preliminary siteworks have started on what will be the first of four Areva 1600MW EPRs (two each on two sites - Hinkley Point and Sizewell), under development by EdF. It's also looking probable that we'll see a similar capacity developed by a consortium of RWE and Eon, most likely using the AP1000. A third consortium, involving Iberdrola of Spain and GdF-Suez (plus a UK firm, SSE) has acquired a site at Sellafield that looks to have capacity for perhaps 3200MW.

In a sense, we seem to be turning into the test-bed for the European revival. We've got almost all of the major European generation operators engaged in one or other of our new-build consortia (there are rumours of Vattenfall joining either with EdF or the Iberdrola consortium). That implies investment in relearning nuclear construction and operation skills.

One major driver is that we've got european level commitments to reductions in CO2 ouput, but don't have quite such life extension opportunities as operators of LWR technologies. With one excpetion, our remaining reactor fleet are variants of the 1970s AGR design. There are inherent limits on life extension due to such issues as distortion in the graphite core, or corrosion in the pre-stressing cables of the prestressed concrete pressure vessels.

 

[mheslep]

good afternoon all - interesting reading, but rather US centric, perhaps?

Well the US does generate nearly a third of the world's nuclear energy (~800 TWh out of ~2500 TWh)

Things are looking rather different here in the UK. We're a comprehensively deregulated market, and yet seem to be attracting private interest into investment in new-build nuclear.

To do it, it's taken a level of government intervention into the working of the market (in essence, what will be a carbon tax on fossil-fuel generation).

Preliminary siteworks have started on what will be the first of four Areva 1600MW EPRs (two each on two sites - Hinkley Point and Sizewell), under development by EdF. It's also looking probable that we'll see a similar capacity developed by a consortium of RWE and Eon, most likely using the AP1000. A third consortium, involving Iberdrola of Spain and GdF-Suez (plus a UK firm, SSE) has acquired a site at Sellafield that looks to have capacity for perhaps 3200MW.

In a sense, we seem to be turning into the test-bed for the European revival. We've got almost all of the major European generation operators engaged in one or other of our new-build consortia (there are rumours of Vattenfall joining either with EdF or the Iberdrola consortium). That implies investment in relearning nuclear construction and operation skills.

One major driver is that we've got european level commitments to reductions in CO2 ouput, but don't have quite such life extension opportunities as operators of LWR technologies. With one excpetion, our remaining reactor fleet are variants of the 1970s AGR design. There are inherent limits on life extension due to such issues as distortion in the graphite core, or corrosion in the pre-stressing cables of the prestressed concrete pressure vessels.

Good news. Any interest in small modular nuclear in the UK?

 

[GerardCKN]

Hello to all- i had just gotten into nuclear energy and just started reading this post.

I had been reading this article that I had found regarding nuclear energy from the articles i just read , in it states that the only natural nuclide suitable for direct usage in a fission reactors is 235U but it is just going to last for another 90++ years . But i also reading another article pubished in the year 2010 that in USA president Obama is planning to build another nuclear plants . Since 235 U is just going to last from another 90++ years would it be exhausting the supply of 235U left? Hope u guys can help me on this :)

 

[Hologram0110]

@GerardCKN

There is lots of U235 left, just like there is lots of oil left. The question is how much is left at economical prices? When discussing reserves one must always consider at what price.
Yes building more plans means that the world will consume uranium faster.

There are also some other sources of nuclear fuel we can build plants to use. These include reprocessing decommissioned nuclear weapons, reprocessing spent fuel, thorium fueled reactors, fast-neutron reactors. There are also some more radical suggestions like sea water extraction that might become realistic options depending on the cost of energy. All this together means that we are not in danger of running out of nuclear fuel any time soon.

 

[joelupchurch]

The first thing to understand is that U-235 is only a small percentage of our potential nuclear fuel. Using breeder reactors would allow us to use all our Uranium and Thorium for fuel. Some estimates show that we have enough U-238 already refined and stockpiled to provide our fuel needs for hundreds of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor"

The reason that we haven't switched to breeder reactors is that U-235 is still fairly plentiful and cheap and there isn't much of a push to use other more expensive technologies. The situation is analogous to our use of petroleum for fuel when we have much less then than a 90 year supply of petroleum, but it is currently fairly cost effective.

 

[chengqi]

I am a sophomore at a chinese university, majoring in nuclear engineering.you may have konw that china is buliding nuclear power plant at a surprising speed.Though that may be a good news for me,i don't think heighly of this idea.Take china for exemple.First,despite the advanced technology of AP1000（of course imported from US)we can't guarantee that every employee concentrate on his work at working time.If any mistake is made, it would become a catastrophe like Chernobly.And developing at such speed,there will be a lot of managing problems or loopholes.How to deal with the spent fuel is another problem.Fuel closed cycle may help a lot but we can't remove all the pollution.I think these radiative substances are deadly to the people around.
my english is poor,i hope you can understand.thank you.

 

[JaredJames]

If any mistake is made, it would become a catastrophe like Chernobly.

You may want to read up on how these plants work.

Chernobyl was only able to occur for a number of reasons - mechanical as well as staff. The same problem couldn't occur in modern plants. Of course this assumes they are using the design and not modifying it in any way.

And developing at such speed,there will be a lot of managing problems or loopholes.How to deal with the spent fuel is another problem.Fuel closed cycle may help a lot but we can't remove all the pollution.I think these radiative substances are deadly to the people around.

Handled correctly the waste is harmless.

It can be taken to an area where it poses no threat and buried as deeply as possible.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Speaking as a life-long nuke rooter, I am really annoyed with the Japanese with their nuke plants (and a lot of other people's plants as well, but I don't know which. All? Possibly...)

The first difficulty is that whatever you do to make a plant safe, someone will raise another logically irrefutable possibility (What if there is a still bigger quake? What if a still bigger asteroid strikes? What if a still bigger Arshl gets to be president? That sort of thing has been called the "hysterical subjunctive" and if you know of a better term for it, do please tell!)

Now, the problem is that unless the subject matter of the HS happens to be raised by someone who has no idea what he is talking about (justabout possible, I suppose...) it is logically possible in some form. But every time we have yet another incident (small, big or ginormous) we have yet another mountain to climb. We can do just so much to avoid such mountains, and just so much to avert asteroids and tsunamis, even if we spend the national GDP on protecting each individual fuel pellet. But the one thing I reckon we should have the ability to do, and insist on doing if we insist on building nuke plants, is make the passive fail-soft features work without active intervention (or it is hardly passive or fail-soft, is it?)

And is that what they did this time? Sure doesn't look like it to me! I am no nuke engineer, but it seems to me that if you have to assume that there always will be enough water from outside sources, and enough power and infrastructure to pump it, to prevent meltdown, then something, somewhere fails to be fail-soft, let alone fail-safe. And here I am not picking on the Japanese; I reckon that every plant everywhere should be SCRAMmable, and should SCRAM itself if the controls disagree with the boss.

If you think THAT is prohibitively expensive, wait till you see what come of the whole deal in Japan! Suppose that the passive water supply (or other coolant; I am not picky) had handled the melt-down problem; this would have been a poster-child for nukes (as TMI should have been, really) but instead we have a lot of govt stuffed shirts telling us that there is nuclear fallout all over, but it is all OK, trust us!

(What? Not exactly what they said? Wanna bet? Go down the street and ask the first ten laymen you find -- Any bets about the answers you get?)

What would sufficient water beneath or around or above the reactors have cost? Another million each? Ten million? A billion?

What will the difference in direct costs per reactor be in these examples?

What will the indirect costs be?

Just asking.

Maybe I'd better stop asking before my annoyance need some SCRAMming of its own...

 

[ramachandra_g]

I am a newbie. So bear with me if what I suggest is already discussed and ditched.

I was thinking about mirror and laser to achive the fusion.

Suppose say we have a globe which is a mirror inside.
You sent a laser pulse through a tiny hole.
Let this laser reflect inside of this mirror globe till it gets out of some other hole.
And say the geometry of this globe is such that the laser would repeatedly go over a tiny point in space inside this globe.
Assume million reflections inside the globe and the central place where the laser goes through would be concentrating theoratically million lasers.

This local hot point would be able to fuse the gases inside the globe.

Two things to ponder.
What would be the geometry of the globe that would focuse the laser reflection on a tiny point inside the globe? Would that be elliptical globe?

 

[JaredJames]

I am a newbie. So bear with me if what I suggest is already discussed and ditched.

I was thinking about mirror and laser to achive the fusion.

Suppose say we have a globe which is a mirror inside.
You sent a laser pulse through a tiny hole.
Let this laser reflect inside of this mirror globe till it gets out of some other hole.
And say the geometry of this globe is such that the laser would repeatedly go over a tiny point in space inside this globe.
Assume million reflections inside the globe and the central place where the laser goes through would be concentrating theoratically million lasers.

This local hot point would be able to fuse the gases inside the globe.

Two things to ponder.
What would be the geometry of the globe that would focuse the laser reflection on a tiny point inside the globe? Would that be elliptical globe?

They already use this technique, except they split the laser pre-entry to the "globe" and focus it on a material in the centre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion

 

[ramachandra_g]

Inertial confinement fusion described there does not use the mirrors for reflecting the lasers. They use a small number of mirrors to illuminate evenly over the whole surface of the pellet. And they don't have million reflections either.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

You may want to read up on how these plants work.

Chernobyl was only able to occur for a number of reasons - mechanical as well as staff. The same problem couldn't occur in modern plants. Of course this assumes they are using the design and not modifying it in any way.


Handled correctly the waste is harmless.

It can be taken to an area where it poses no threat and buried as deeply as possible.

At any most best design of the nuclear plants, advanced technology of handling of wastes and world-best industrial culture there is nevertheless a nonzero probability of similar incidents.
It is banal.
But despite it at this moment and in the future there is not any real alternative to nuclear power.
And no any renewable sources will become significant in world energy balance in the future. It is an objective reality. And any speculations, any "green initiatives" can only be considered as politicians' methods to coquet before voters.