Nuclear waste storage ….. no big deal

From CFACT

By Kelvin Kemm.

Nuclear power will be the future. There is no doubt about it. Nuclear is the cleanest, greenest, cheapest, safest, energy source ever. There is no doubt about that, no matter what anyone says. Also, just look at the energy density of sugar, coal, petrol, and uranium. Sugar contains about 20 megajoules per kilogram, coal 25, petrol 50, but uranium is 76,000,000. What this tells you is that you can carry your lifetime supply of electricity in a shopping packet, if you’re carrying uranium.

Let us face it, coal is going to be a primary energy source of the world for years to come. Stopping coal use is like shooting yourself in both feet with a machine gun. As time passes, rather rapidly, there’s no doubt that coal will give way to nuclear, for purely economic reasons. Certainly nothing to do with the myth of anthropogenic CO2 causing increased global warming. Meanwhile the Chinese are building new coal plants faster than the Western world is decommissioning theirs. The Chinese know what they are doing, and they are chasing their goal… of economic dominance.

Don’t burn banknotes

As coal gives way to nuclear power in the production of electricity, we should not stop using coal, but we should no longer burn it. Coal is composed of very valuable chemicals, so why burn them? Burning coal is something like burning banknotes instead of wood, to keep warm.

In South Africa we have the SASOL Company, which converts coal to petrol and diesel. About 1/3 of South Africa’s petrol and diesel comes from coal. The coal chemicals are also used to produce ladies’ cosmetics, aspirin, high-quality waxes, and more.

The ultimate answer is to use small nuclear reactors to drive the coal conversion plants.

The world’s consumption of electricity doubled over the past 25 years, and is set to double again in the next 25. In fact, it will double faster because more people are getting connected to electricity, and more and more electrical devices are coming into existence. So, forget about green extremist goals of reducing world energy consumption.

The most sensible route for doubling electricity consumption, on a world scale, is via nuclear. Electricity consumption is directly proportional to GDP, which in turn directly affects the take-home pay of citizens. Citizen wealth changes the nature of society.

Another Revolution is coming

Cast your mind back to the Industrial Revolution, of around 1760 to 1840. Abundant coal was linked to the development of steam engines, and iron production. Energy and engines led to deeper mining, mass textile production, and a host of other advances. So, the Industrial Revolution burst onto the scene and changed the world. A large adoption of nuclear power, together with AI, electronics, and massive scientific development will also change the world.

But let us return to nuclear, and the relentless anti-nuclear campaigns waged by the slogan-chanting greenies. One of their themes is; ‘what about the nuclear waste?’

Nuclear waste is no problem. Really. If you want a good night’s sleep, you can take a sleeping pill. If you take the entire bottle of pills, you will sleep really well, and never wake up. But people don’t usually do stupid things like that. Yes, without doubt a lot of nuclear radiation will kill you, if you are stupid. But small amounts of nuclear radiation are perfectly safe. Large amounts of nuclear radiation are also safe, when handled by professionals in a professional manner.

Why do the public somehow think that the Army can handle artillery ammunition in a safe, professional way, but somehow professional nuclear engineers can’t handle radioactive materials?

Does the Glacier worry you?

The radiation of concern is called Gamma radiation. It ‘shines’ like a light. Gamma rays are exactly the same as light, radio waves, X-Rays, or microwaves in the kitchen microwave oven. But the Gammas carry more energy than X-Rays, and so they can cause harm. The kitchen microwaves are safely contained inside the ‘box’ which is the microwave oven. When a radioactive object is put into a lead box the Gammas are safely contained in the box, and you can safely sit next to it and eat your lunch.

For long-term storage you put the box underground, and leave it there. Note that by international convention, no nuclear waste is ever dumped or thrown away. It is stored, like the gold bars at Fort Knox. The principle is that you can move the radioactive material at any time in the future. So, worrying about a glacier advancing in 100,000 years’ time is silly. When you see the glacier coming you have decades to move all your boxes.

A highly useful property of all radioactive materials is that they constantly advertise their presence. It is like a cricket in his hole in the lawn. His chirping tells you where he is. With a Geiger counter, even a radioactive pinhead is easy to find in your lawn. It calls you. But a lump of Arsenic is extremely difficult to find, because it hides. There is arsenic in advanced solar panels, but nobody panics about that.

Insignificant volumes

One huge advantage of nuclear is that there is so little nuclear fuel, so the resulting spent fuel is extremely small, unlike coal ash. The spent fuel is called High Level Waste (HLW). It is the really dangerous material, if you walk up to it. Then there is Intermediate Level Waste (ILW), which is things like pumps, pipes, and so on, which had radioactive material flowing through them. Finally, there is Low Level Waste (LLW) which is paper towels, lab coats, and items which were used in a radiation designated area, and could conceivably have some radioactive dust on them. All of these categories are packaged into drums and safely stored underground.

Nuclear waste is better handled than any other waste in the world. This is a positive spin-off legacy from all the exaggerated scare stories which have been generated by the anti-nuke lobby.

Nuclear people worldwide are very proud of what they do, and how they do it, and they do it well.

The big scare which has always been splashed in news media is if something explodes, then some of the radioactive material can be reduced to dust and scattered into the atmosphere. It then acts like any other dust, and blows with the wind, and then settles out. But remember the crickets in the lawn. If it were not radioactive you would not know where the dust was. You would not even know it was there. But even the dust ‘chirps’ its presence, and so the ‘chirp’ can be used to scare the public. Note that during the infamous Fukushima incident, not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation. Yet the popular news was full of scary stories of radiation spreading everywhere.

The nuclear waste repositories of the world are all perfectly able to safely store any radioactive material for centuries, just like Fort Knox stores its gold.

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a South African nuclear physicist who has been a CFACT Senior Advisor for over two decades. He is Chairman of Stratek Holdings, a nuclear project management company, and is past Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). He has given both Congressional and Senate briefings in Washington DC. He has been guest speaker at over 20 US

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 22 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
141 Comments
Andrew St John
September 5, 2026 6:27 pm

In 1972 French researchers were examining Uranium ore samples from Gabon in Africa. To their disbelief and later astonishment, they found that in certain places like Oklo in Gabon, that there was a big variation in the percentage of naturally occurring U235.
What had happened? 
Going back to 1956 when a Physicist highlighted that it was possible for a Naturally Occurring Fission reaction to start and finish.
Yes, that’s right, under certain conditions the naturally occurring U235 can undergo nuclear fission, under certain conditions.
In Oklo in Gabon, it is thought that there were U235 ore beds with a stream of water running through it.The French then thought that water over the ore bodies had acted as a moderator (a bit like a reaction promoter) to the U235, which then started to undergo fission.
The heat produced then boiled that water away and the reaction stopped. It is surmised that this reaction went on for hundreds of thousands of years, until the U235 was consumed or that the byproducts inhibited the reaction.
And so, part of the naturally occurring U235 was converted to waste, leading to the observed differences in ore distribution.
And the nuclear waste has stayed in situ for all that time.
Stable within the ore body.
This is somewhat similar to the current waste management practices such as vitrification (storage in glass) of nuclear waste and the Australian inspired Synroc process.
When did this sequence of nuclear fission take place?
Incredibly, probably 1.7 billion years ago – longer than we have had modern humans. 
There has been nuclear waste in Gabon in Africa, locked away in stable geology, that is older than the human race.
And will still be there when the human race has gone

.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Andrew St John
September 6, 2026 1:10 am

And, there is a crater in Western Australia. Has been downhill and downstream to natural uranium ore deposit which has worn down and been carried into stream beds over millions of years. The best guess is that one day it went critical and there was a natural atomic explosion.

Andrew St John
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 6, 2026 7:15 am

Thanks Phillip,
Given our plethora of U235 I surmise that we, too, have had natural uranium fission reactions phenomena in Australia.

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 6, 2026 7:56 am

Natural uranium ore does does not have a sufficient concentration of fissile U-235 to “go critical” by itself.

A U-235 concentration of about 0.72% is found in “natural uranium” and can achieve criticality only by employing heavy-water or pure graphite as a reaction moderator, while light-water systems require at least 3% enrichment of U-235 concentration to enable criticality.

To the best of my knowledge, there was NO heavy water or graphite in proximity to any uranium ore deposit anywhere in Australia, or anywhere else in the world.

cgh
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 6, 2026 8:51 am

True. But at one time the proportion of U235 was much higher than the 0.72% it is today. A billion years ago, the natural concentration was about 2-3%. U235 has a much greater rate of decay than U238, hence the difference. In such a circumstance, influx of any kind of water may have been enough of a moderator to produce an Oklo event.

Reply to  cgh
September 6, 2026 1:29 pm

U-235 has a half-life of 714 million years. Therefore, if today’s concentration of U-235 in naturally occuring U-238 is 0.72%, then 1 billion years ago the concentration would have been about 2.9%.

U-238 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years, so it would have decreased in relative concentration over 1 billion years by only 17%, far too small to to make a real difference in relative concentration percentages.

The net result is that the concentration ratio 1 billion years ago would have been approximately 2.9%, still below the minimum of 3% needed to achieve criticality without heavy water or graphite (or equivalent) to act as a moderator.

That’s math for you.

Reply to  Andrew St John
September 6, 2026 12:19 pm

Mr. Layman here.
U235 is radioactive so it is “emitting” bits of its nucleus all the time. When enough of those bits are protons, then overtime (a long time!) it will degrade into a “lighter” version of U or even something else on the periodic table. Isn’t that what “half-life” is all about?
What am I missing? (Corrections welcome.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 6, 2026 1:54 pm

U-235 naturally decays by emitting alpha particle radiation (helium nuclei, NOT protons). By losing one or more protons, any radioactive element (defined by its atomic number, not atomic weight) always decays into a different element.

A description of U-235 natural radioactive decay (which is NOT forced fission) can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235 .

A description of “half-life” of radioactive elements can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
“half-live” expresses the time required for a given mass of a radioactive element/isotope to naturally decay down to one-half the mass present at t=0. It can be measured/calculated starting at any time and follows a natural logarithm (e^-kt) decay function.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 7, 2026 7:16 am

Thanks.
If it loses neutrons, it becomes a lighter U. If it loses (or gains) protons, it becomes another element.
I knew that but it’s been a long time since I first learned it.
(Does memory have a half-life? It seems like it sometimes!) 😎

PS I have aa old Landmark book, The Story of Atomic Energy (W-48) written Laura Fermi (Enrico Fermi’s widow) copyright 1961. I read it when I was about 7 or 8. Maybe I should pull it off the shelf and read it again?

Andrew St John
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 6, 2026 4:13 pm

Thanks for your reply. I was talking about naturally occurring U235 fissions reactions. In Oklo. Billions of years ago. I was not talking about half-life of U235. Can you add something more to this discussion about naturally occurring fission reactions?

Reply to  Andrew St John
September 7, 2026 4:10 pm

Could radiation from one atom impact another close enough to cause a change?
Sure.
Could those atoms naturally condense enough to create a chain reaction?
I don’t know. Do you?
You seem to be presenting an hypothesis that it did happen.
Maybe it did, but who was around to record the event?
There are lots of preemptions made about pre-pre-historic times that there was no-one around to record.
Man just makes its best guess.

Tom Halla
September 5, 2026 6:53 pm

The “waste disposal” problem was the creation of Jimmy Carter insisting on a “once through” fuel cycle.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 5, 2026 7:15 pm

He was worried about the security of it, and therefore opposed reprocessing. I think he was wrong about that.

We need safe storage of high and mid level waste (which we’ll have even after reprocessing) such that our fleeting human memories don’t need to keep track of it. The Europeans are already starting to do this, but we still store most our waste “temporarily” in the back 40 of the plants/facilities that wasted it. Long term solutions would not only get us out of that jackpot, but would also offer a final solution for the extra waste that would be the end products of even the “cleanest” combination of SMR’s and reprocessing.

cgh
Reply to  bigoilbob
September 5, 2026 7:49 pm

I agree. But we already have safe storage of high- and mid-level radioactive materials. It exists in the form of dry surface storage in concrete. This method has been in use for all Western commercial nuclear reactors for more than half a century. Thus far, it has a perfect safety track record. There have been zero injuries or fatalities from radiation from spent nuclear fuel. And there is no credible scenario in which its radiation can cause any injury.

Reprocssing of used nuclear fuel is indeed done by France, Japan and a number of other nations. This too was demonstrated decades ago. Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is simply a matter of economics. It will occur when the cost of newly mined uranium is greater than that of reprocessing it. There is so much uranium in the world that this is many decades or centuries into the future.

Carter was an idiot who was worried about weapons proliferation.

Reply to  cgh
September 6, 2026 6:26 am

“I agree. But we already have safe storage of high- and mid-level radioactive materials. It exists in the form of dry surface storage in concrete.”

Unacceptable over the time periods required. We need the “fugat aboud it” systems now being developed by the French. I believe that the NIMBY’s should have the final say here (and that they don’t need a reason to Debbie Downer), but I think we can overcome objections for the right volume under the earth, done correctly. In fact, we have no choice for the very situation we have now.

“Carter was an idiot who was worried about weapons proliferation.”

Wrong, and right. But all true about 47, so there’s that. To repeat, Carter picked a bad tactic to combat a real threat.

michael fellion
Reply to  bigoilbob
September 6, 2026 11:57 am

Sounded sand until the last sentence. Seek treatment.

Andrew St John
Reply to  michael fellion
September 6, 2026 4:15 pm

Very sand, indeed.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 6, 2026 1:28 am

In te UK we did reprocessing for UK and Japan and maybe France, While we needed Pu239 for bombs it almost made sense, but the reality is that reprocessed fuel was about 20% more expensive than fresh. And no one bought it. Theres a decade of usable nuclear fuel in store in the UK

Dan Hughes
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 6, 2026 5:23 am

Both technically and politically unnecessary. Look how Carter’s policy has limited new members into the atomic-bomb owner’s club. And reprocessing happens every day of the week.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 6, 2026 2:15 pm

Really???

Your telling me that before Jimmy Carter there was no such thing as a spent nuclear fuel (SNF) waste disposal problems. That will come as a shock to many US Navy nuclear submarine bases and US commercial nuclear power plants, operating since 1954 and 1957 respectively. That would be . . . ummmm . . . some 20 or more years before Carter became US President in 1977.

Tom Halla
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 6, 2026 2:42 pm

Carter created the bulk, long term storage issue

September 5, 2026 7:09 pm

A [Ctrl-F] search on “Chernobyl” came up 0/0

This wasn’t in Kemm’s article either:

Google AI
On January 24, 1961, a U.S. B-52 bomber broke apart mid-air over Goldsboro, North Carolina, accidentally dropping two powerful hydrogen bombs that nearly detonated

cgh
Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 7:52 pm

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is about civilian used nuclear fuel, not military uses of uranium.

Reply to  cgh
September 5, 2026 9:08 pm

Well you’re right the topic was USED nuclear fuel.

However Klemm mentioned Fukushima and the military handling
nuclear munitions, so I figured mention of Chernobyl and the B-52
incident was fair game.

My point is that articles from my side of the coin need to be honest.
Ignoring Chernobyl and the B-52 crash isn’t any different than your
favorite left-wing lunatic ignoring the “Dust Bowl” and CO2’s role in
photosynthesis.

Thanks for the reply

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 9:46 pm

Both topics are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and your doubling down on the claims is just more evidence of your inability to think clearly regarding the subject.

Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2026 4:26 am

By contrast, “your inability to think clearly regarding the subject” of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is well documented on these pages, isn’t it, Professor Hypocrite?

MarkW
Reply to  stevekj
September 6, 2026 10:25 am

You are the one with the utterly unique interpretation of the 2nd law. BTW, the second law says nothing about temperature, it talks of entropy, which is not the same thing.
Something you would know had you ever spent a few minutes studying the subject.

Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2026 4:37 am

“Unique”? No, Professor Hypocrite, that is a lie. “My” interpretation is the one in every physics textbook, Wikipedia, and Google search. What, precisely, is yours? You have yet to tell us. Please do that now. I’ll wait here.

“second law says nothing about temperature, it talks of entropy, which is not the same thing”

That is correct. Note that what it also doesn’t talk about is radiation, contrary to your own bizarre and unsupported assertion.

You also have yet to show us those “pages of dense math” that constitute what you claim is the “real” Second Law. Please present them now.

MarkW
Reply to  stevekj
September 7, 2026 5:34 pm

I’m guessing your text book was written at kindergarten level.

Now you are contradicting yourself.
“Note that what it also doesn’t talk about is radiation”

If it doesn’t talk about radiation, then the second law also can’t prove that radiation from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object.
BTW, actual, real world science, shows that such a thing does happen.

Reply to  MarkW
September 8, 2026 5:02 am

“If it doesn’t talk about radiation”

What do you mean, “if it doesn’t”? Why not tell us what you think the Second Law actually says? Please do that now.

“your text book was written at kindergarten level.”

Please show us the definition of the Second Law in your textbook. At any grade level of your choice. Please do that now.

Reply to  MarkW
September 9, 2026 5:19 am

Cat got your tongue, Professor Hypocrite?

I forgot to address this point, amongst all the other nonsense, irrelevant bafflegab, and insults that you use to try to avoid answering a simple physics question:

“Now you are contradicting yourself.”

No I’m not. That is another lie. You tried to back it up with a paragraph that (a) doesn’t contain a contradiction, and even worse, (b) aren’t my words in the first place. Where is “my” contradiction, precisely?

And who taught you to behave like this? Was it your parents?

Reply to  MarkW
September 15, 2026 6:14 am

Oh and there was another lie in your earlier comment, from a previous thread, where I asked you yet again to produce those “pages of dense math” that you claim constitute the “real” Second Law. You wrote:

“I replied at the time”

You did? Where was that? I must have missed it, amongst all your other lies, deflections, and irrelevant nonsense. (Your signal-to-noise ratio is extremely low, unfortunately.) Can you point it out to me, please? If you did post it, and I missed it, I apologize.

“but since you didn’t like the answer, you ignored it. Just as you are ignoring everything I say this time.”

I’m not “ignoring” anything. That would be you, wouldn’t it? Of course it would. Because one of us ran away from this thread like a petulant four-year-old, and the other one didn’t. Can you guess which is which? You sanctimonious lying hypocrite.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 9:46 pm

Well, I’ve not yet encountered a nuclear generator flying around in the sky, so we can safely reject that comparison. Chernobyl is an old fashioned original design Russian reactor. Reactor designs have developed a long way since the Russian ‘rough and ready’ technologies, so I think we can safely put that to bed as well. Fukashima on the other hand demonstrates how safe modern technology is even after being inundated by a tidal wave.

MarkW
Reply to  Streetcred
September 6, 2026 10:26 am

Fukushima wasn’t all that modern. It was already scheduled for de-commissioning when the earthquake hit.

michael fellion
Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2026 12:13 pm

That was a political decision by the elected government to get votes from the sheep who think power comes from the wire not from a power plant. The meltdown would not have happened had the Japanese had a different culture than top down. The operators asked for back up generators to power the cooling pumps and the top management simply refused to provide them as they hemmed and hawed awaiting the public polls and okay from the top politician.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 6, 2026 1:23 am

If memory serves Chernobyl was caused by operators running a test where they disabled the safety systems.
Three Mile Island was something similar.
Fukushima happened because the tsunami shorted out the batteries that powered the safety systems that had been triggered by the earthquake.
The hydrogen bomb uses a plutonium fission fuse to trigger the fusion reaction.

Dan Hughes
Reply to  JohnC
September 6, 2026 5:27 am

The Chernobyl machine was originally designed to make Pu, and was being converted to make electricity.

oeman50
Reply to  JohnC
September 6, 2026 5:32 am

“Three Mile Island was something similar.

Er, ‘fraid not. The accident was started by a stuck open valve on the reactor coolant system that allowed coolant to escape. Actions taken by the operators were counterproductive because they did not believe their indication. No test was involved.

But this is all Monday morning quarterbacking because the situation was chaotic.

Reply to  oeman50
September 6, 2026 7:08 am

Apologies, I am not sure I ever saw the underlying issue mentioned here in the U.K. or if I did I didn’t take it in.

michael fellion
Reply to  Steve Case
September 6, 2026 12:06 pm

Neither Chernobyl or the B52 crash are related to nuclear power plants today. Chernobyl was an unshielded graphic moderated plant that caught fire when the idiot in charge decided to remove the safeties in a test. Today or at least before the current war tourists could visit and the animals living in the exclusion zone are doing fine. The current exclusion zone is political statement by the Ukraine government not a safety concern. The B52 crashed and the bombs never went off as the design made that impossible.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 9:45 pm

Chernobyl wasn’t mentioned because it wasn’t relevant.
The second case also is totally irrelevant to any discussion regarding nuclear power. Secondly, the weapons weren’t armed so the idea that they could have exploded is ridiculous.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 10:08 pm

“… nearly detonated” ????

SxyxS
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 6, 2026 1:35 am

That’s actually the thing that made me smile – I always thought detonating a hydrogen bomb was a total pain in the butt and probably one of the most complicated things to get started as it needs a nuclear reaction to start another nuclear reaction iirc.

I somehow doubt that a 1000 ton explosion of TNT right next to it would do crap except for turning the bomb to crap..
It would neither start the fission nor the fusion.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  SxyxS
September 6, 2026 2:13 am

I suppose that it would be possible for a uranium based fission bomb to be detonated, (at least in parts), by a crash.

Imagine the two sub critical parts, usually one or both parts are explosively moved together to create a critical mass. Of course, you need to do this very fast else the first part of the reaction gets explosive and moves the parts away from each other, resulting in the bulk of the uranium NOT going into the reaction.

IF, the collision resulted in the parts coming together, like a back seat passenger hitting the front seat passenger, then a critical mass would result. It should be noted that the collision speed would be around a couple of hundred km/h. Compare this to the delivery speed of an exploded portion, traveling down a barrel into the other half. Much higher speed and hence much more likely that the bulk of the uranium would undergo a fissile reaction.

At a couple of hundred km/h, would the mass even get really hot before it starts to fly apart? I’ll let the bomb technicians do the sums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon#/media/File:Gun-type_fission_weapon_en-labels_thin_lines.svg

MarkW
Reply to  Eng_Ian
September 6, 2026 10:40 am

It’s been a long time since anyone built any gun-type nuclear devices.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  MarkW
September 8, 2026 9:55 am

Like this one? (snark)

https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2102

atomic cannon . been there.
The linked photo is cool !

michael fellion
Reply to  Eng_Ian
September 6, 2026 12:20 pm

No nuclear weapon has been built like you describe since WWII. All nuclear weapons are implosion bombs which compress the nuclear material to critical; mass. To unsafety the device one takes out the plug of neutron absorbing material before setting off the explosives around the outside all of which have to go off in order and very much near the same time.

Reply to  SxyxS
September 6, 2026 7:24 am

As I understand it, the compression of the nuclear core must be very precise, very even around the core, to achieve critical mass. Uneven compression, say from a crash seems unlikely to have that result.

MarkW
Reply to  SxyxS
September 6, 2026 10:37 am

Whether a fission reaction can be started by a crash depends on what type of bomb it is. One type is like a cannon in which one chunk of uranium is fired into another chunk. Simple, but not efficient.
The second type is where a shell of uranium is imploded by a carefully constructed sphere of explosives. If you have ever seen a picture of a bomb, in a more or less round, container, with lots of wires attached to it, this is the type you are looking at.
This is also the type used for fission bombs, since they can put the hydrogen at the center of the implosion, where pressures and temperatures will be the highest.

All the wires mentioned earlier are detonation wires. The signal to detonate has to reach each of the segments of the explosive mantle at as close to the same instant as possible. This causes a spherical shock wave to form, collapsing the shell of uranium.

The further from spherical, the less efficient the explosion.

These types of chemical explosives are typically not sensitive to mechanical shock. (watch some of the MythBusters C4 episodes)
C4 won’t even ignite if you burn it.

It is so close to impossible for a crash to set off a nuclear explosion that you don’t even need to bother discussing it.

Edwin Cottey
Reply to  Steve Case
September 5, 2026 10:18 pm

How can you tell if a bomb ‘nearly ‘detonates? Either it detonates or it doesn’t. All the old WW2 bombs that are dug up regularly over England and safely defused, did they all ‘nearly’ detonate too?

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Edwin Cottey
September 6, 2026 2:22 am

For a fissile fuel device the amount of fissile material that actually splits could be used to derive an efficiency score for the bomb design.

If the bomb detonates and only 0.1% of the available material splits, then the bomb could be said to be a dud, (Note, I do not want to be near a dud or a good one when the bang happens).

If 100% actually split I think that would be beyond the dreams of even the most keen bomb technician. In reality some of the available fuel probably doesn’t even get close to splitting, especially if the core of the bomb has detonated and the material that was on the outside is flying outward, spreading out, (and obviously getting less dense). It might not even see a neutron travel anywhere near to its nucleus.

So back to the question, is a near explosion something that results in say less than 1 millionth of the bomb potential or has some other number already been discussed? Maybe it means the bomb components have been scattered around the scene but didn’t get beyond a few local critical pops.

GeorgeInSanDiego
Reply to  Steve Case
September 6, 2026 3:33 am

In the Goldsboro broken arrow incident, the safe/arm switches in the two bombs functioned as designed.

michael fellion
Reply to  Steve Case
September 6, 2026 11:59 am

They did not “nearly detonated” that is a lie and distortion by the news to sell news.

September 5, 2026 7:17 pm

Research from the University of Texas shows that U.S. coal ash contains up to 11 million tons of rare earth elements—nearly eight times the current domestic reserves. The recoverable rare earth minerals stored in these waste sites are valued at roughly $8.4 billion. About 70% of the coal ash produced between 1985 and 2021 sits in accessible landfills and ponds, ready for potential recovery.

So there is that potential benefit.

Reply to  GoHome
September 6, 2026 1:29 am

Plenty of uranium in coal ash too

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 6, 2026 10:43 am

I read somewhere, many years ago, that there is more nuclear energy in the uranium contained in a ton of coal, then there is chemical energy in that same ton of coal.

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2026 4:26 pm

True for some coals, but IIRC for most coals the energy content of U is same order of magnitude as the chemical energy

Eng_Ian
Reply to  GoHome
September 6, 2026 2:27 am

If you were to collect the sludge from the base of a domestic landfill you could probably mine that for all sorts of metals. Some landfills leach these metals, some are mostly contained.

It might look terrible and be a biohazard but if it contained gold and/or silver at say 0.5%, how long before it would be pumped out for processing? Due to the batteries dumped in the tip, it will certainly be carrying copper, mercury and lead. In a few years time we can add lithium to that score.

MarkW
Reply to  Eng_Ian
September 6, 2026 10:44 am

I’ve said for years that dumps are merely future mines.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 5, 2026 7:45 pm

Properly used and reused nuclear waste is a fear monger/activist bread and butter.

Mr.
September 5, 2026 7:47 pm

Back in the 1980s, then-Australian Labor Party prime minister Bob Hawke (RIP) floated a proposition that Australia was well-positioned to act as the world’s biggest supplier of raw uranium and also processed fuel to client countries that joined a treaty to use safely, and then Australia would take back used fuels and safely store them in deep concrete-lined pits in vast remote central Aust desert areas.

His practical proposition was of course quickly sidelined by the ideological left-wing of his party, whose only irrational position on nuclear energy is –
“just say no!”

Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 7:55 pm

” Large amounts of nuclear radiation are also safe, when handled by professionals in a professional manner.”
Pu239 has a half-life of 24,000 years Other isotopes last millions. Can you guarantee professional handling over that period?

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 8:42 pm

Ah, you mean professionals become unprofessional. That’s what happens when STEM subjects are ignored.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  leefor
September 5, 2026 9:37 pm

I mean 24000 years. Do you know what will happen there?

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 12:07 am

Do you mean there will still be a planet earth and homo sapiens? 😉

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 1:41 am

It is clear that you do not.

Such a long half life means the radioactive flux is incredibly weak, and plutonium is safe to handle in reasonable amounts.

abolition man
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 8:20 am

Presumably the advent of another period of glacial advance; in which case nuclear power will be more necessary than ever for human survival and the preservation of nearly ALL life on Earth from the coming CO2 starvation!!

cgh
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 8:57 am

“Guarantee” is a loaded, meaningless word in this context.

As for “24.000 years”, so what? You and no one else you know will be around to care.

Your ‘what-aboutisms’ are simply standard antinuclear rhetoric that have no substance.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 2:32 pm

24,000 years of technological evolution could very well mean new better ways to handle the waste. (Even 100 years could provide this possibility). Possibly new effective ways to reprocessing it into new useful fuel sources, like fuel for Interplanetary Ships or Probes.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 9:13 pm

In 24,000 years we will be in the depth of the next glaciation and the waste will be buried under Miles thick ice sheets.
.
“24,000 years will give you such a crick in the neck”…Genie

Bryan A
Reply to  leefor
September 6, 2026 9:11 pm

I think he means the Socialist Democrat Teachers and their dumbing down of the education system. And Universities allowing students to declare majors and earn degrees in useless fields and ridiculous studies. No-one will know how to handle the waste because the education system will give them useless unassociated degrees.

Max More
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 9:41 pm

The longer the half-life, the lower the level of the radiation. Also, regular poisons have no half-life, they just stay there. You are being very silly if you are worrying about the ability of people to handle radioactive waste who are thousands of years more technologically advanced that us.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Max More
September 6, 2026 12:31 am

“the lower level per milligram. But we have prodiced about 3000 tons of plutonium.

Plutonium 239 generates enough heat to keep warm – about 2 watts/kg.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 1:44 am

Indeed it does. Handy fuel for space probes,.
Also very handy fuel for smaller nuclear reactors, especially say marine ones or onshore small modular, that may have trouble reaching criticality on the small amounts of fuel they contain

Mixed with unrefined uranium or thorium it is a great fuel for breeder reactors.

That 3000 tonnes wont last long

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 10:47 am

Pure plutonium does that, and such power generators only last a few decades when used in space craft.

I see that Nick has as little understanding about basic nuclear physics as he does basic climatology.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2026 4:07 pm

Plenty of ignorance about basic nuclear physics on display here. “Pure” plutonium comes in various isotopic mixes. The thermo generators in spacecraft use Pu238, which has a half life of 97.7 years. Nuclear power stations use Pu239. That is the isotope we produce in kiloton quantities, and which has a half life of about 24,000 years. And yes, generates about 2 Watts per kg heat, 24/7.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 9:50 pm

The longer lived an isotope is, the less dangerous it is.

Most chemical waste lasts forever.

michael fellion
Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2026 12:36 pm

All elements have been around for billions of years. Chemical wastes degrade over time when exposed to the elements so they do not last forever Treating the waste to remove the toxic part makes sense.

Alejandro
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 5, 2026 11:01 pm

Those figures are quite striking, but it’s important to put them in context. The most radioactive elements, such as Sr-90, Cs-137, and Pu-238, have short half-lives of less than a century. Long-lived actinides, such as Pu-239 and Pu-240, are less radioactive, which does not mean they are not dangerous if their dust is inhaled or ingested. Industry generates a great deal of waste that is just as dangerous if inhaled or ingested, yet it is stored without issue in places considered safe, and no one bats an eye at it. The only difference is that it doesn’t carry that dreaded “radioactive” label—even though radioactivity in and of itself does not imply any danger.
In my mineral collection, I have uraninite and pitchblende, and if I bring a Geiger counter near them, it will beep—a sound that usually causes alarm when I show the collection to people with little knowledge of mineralogy. But it won’t beep if I hold it near crocidolite or orpiment, which visitors will look at without alarm, even though both can be much more dangerous to health due to their asbestos and arsenic content.
I suppose we all agree that waste from today’s nuclear power plants, if not recycled, must be stored in secure locations until its level of radioactivity is similar to that of the radioactive minerals from which nuclear fuel is derived. The estimated time for this to happen is between 100,000 and 300,000 years. This may seem like a long time, but on our planet there are numerous rock formations that have remained stable for hundreds of millions of years and will undoubtedly remain unchanged for several million more years. For example, the Onkalo repository in Finland is excavated from metamorphic rocks that are 2,000 millions years old. The repository is located more than 400 meters underground. Furthermore, the fuel is encapsulated in ceramic. The ceramic pellets, in turn, are housed in cast-iron and graphite containers with an outer copper wall. And the containers are encased in expansive clays—bentonites—which are very compact and impermeable. The risk of a radioactive leak is zero. I suppose we could imagine something—like the impact of a large meteorite—that might penetrate all those barriers, but in that case, the radioactivity of the stored waste would be the least of our problems.
On the other hand, IV generation reactors could solve the problem of long-lived radioactive waste by converting it into usable nuclear fuel that would leave only short-lived waste, which would need to be kept isolated for only a few hundred years.
In the 1970s, I was an active, young, and ignorant activist against nuclear energy. Now I believe that its development and expansion are essential to addressing current and future energy challenges. Quite simply, in the medium term, we have nothing better.

starzmom
Reply to  Alejandro
September 6, 2026 5:42 am

Any reasonably intelligent professional of the future will figure out the something vitrified in glass or mixed into a ceramic, surrounded by highly engineered containers of cast iron, lead or graphite, with an outer layer of copper and finally embedded in deep clay geological formations is probably something to be handled with care, and treat it accordingly.

michael fellion
Reply to  starzmom
September 6, 2026 12:40 pm

Actually with cast iron, lead ,copper it is an ore body waiting be be mined.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 1:01 am

As we speak, you are breathing in and out Radon. If you go anywhere near anything granite, you are being exposed to nuclear radiation. Cosmic rays are crashing through your body having made it all the way through the atmosphere.
Every swim in the ocean bathes you in several radioactive compounds dissolved in the ocean waters. THERE IS NOWHERE SAFE FROM RADIOACTIVITY

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 6, 2026 1:50 am

Especially if you fly regularly.
In fact natural radioactivity and medical radiation usage VASTLY outweighs any radiation we get from nuclear power.

Fear of nuclear was deliberately fostered by both sides in the cold war to make nuclear deterrents – deterrent…

Russia fed enormous funds to the ‘ban the bomb’ groups and infiltrated the subsequent Green groups.

And still does.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Greens when Moscow falls

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 6, 2026 6:29 am

I just had my annual PET/CT, shot full of radioactive glucose (fluorine 18?) made just hours before.

Mr.
Reply to  Randle Dewees
September 6, 2026 11:24 am

I’ve always associated radioactivity with sensible heat effects.

So how come our radioactive glucose infusions produce a sensation of cold when we’re being injected?

After ~25 PET scans, I still haven’t managed to receive an explanation from the PET-prep people.

Usually just a smile, a shrug of the shoulders, and a throw-away “that’s just what it does” is the extent of addressing my concerns conversation-starter.

MarkW
Reply to  Mr.
September 6, 2026 7:20 pm

If the injection is less than body temperature, it’s going to feel cold going in.

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2026 7:36 pm

This cold effect is a big difference from all the other infusions.

In fact, the PET-prep people sometimes give me a heads-up that this will feel cold going in.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 1:39 am

It is perfect reactor fuel when mixed with uranium or thorium.
Outside of a reactor is is very low radioactivity, Perfectly safe to handle, as indeed Queen Elizabeth was photographed doing back in the day, That is why it is preferred fo bombs. Extremely safe to handle but just active enough to go critical if designed exactly right

No need to store it. In fact nuclear fission reactors remove more radioactivity from the world than they put into it, and by using fuel recycling that ratio improves even more.
The isotopes you want to really worry about are the ones that are both fairly radioactive (short half lives) and biologically active.

Probably the greatest killer is natural radon gas which is inhaled and turns to lead in the lungs.

Then there are radio carbon and radio potassium, both natural. that are in everything that is alive.

On the artificial front you have iodine 131, caesium 137 and strontium 90.
These feature in nuclear accidents and nuclear explosions, but they are relatively short lived. Gone in a thousand years easily,. Iodine is gone in a few days

michael fellion
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 6, 2026 1:18 pm

Radon 222 is a decay product of Uranium and decays itself in 3.8 days to lead 214 which decays to bismuth 214 which decays to polonium 214 which decays to lead 210 which decays to bismuth 210 which decays to polonium 210 which decays to lead 208 which is not radioactive. It emits an alpha particle at each decay stage. The alpha particles damage the cells DNA and cause cancer.

lewispbuckingham
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 1:47 am

The CSIRO figured that since the ancient Gondwanaland plate was stable and 40 million years old it was OK to put glassified nuclear waste into it.
They were real professionals.
Bob Hawke was always talking to the greenies about the opportunity of producing and getting back nuclear waste rather than just selling it.
He was right before his time.
Perhaps his greater legacy will be to allow the third world to produce safe cheap energy without nuclear proliferation.
We have the uranium.

SxyxS
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 2:16 am

Yes – I can , Nick,
as this article was written by a dude from South Africa .

South Africa has the deepest holes in the ground.
2.5 miles miles and counting.(Mponeng Mine).

I don’t see any volcanos or tectonic plates that may cause trouble as India is still moving to Eurasia.
This may be a very safe place to store things for the next 300 mio+ years if it gets dumped there and isolated with whatever necessary.(3000 years should actually be enough for the real dangerous stuff to decay into irrellevance -about 20 half life cycles will do)
if your beloved Co2 does not increase continental shift by a magnitude I’d say It’s safe.

And even if some geological or reactive parameters make the storage problematic.
You live on a planet with 20k nuclear warheads,people with globalist ambitions and endtime looneys throughout all 3 Abrahamic religions.
Worrying about stuff that’s so deep down that even the Tzar – Bomb couldn’t break through
is highly irrational within this scenario.(and please spare me your woke: “But after the global nuclear disarmament it’ll become a serious threat again” -knee-jerk BS)

And you are the least person to worry about radiactivity because you are save – just take another MRNA shot.
They worked so well for you the last time.
They’ll work against radiactivity even better.Contrary to viruses that mutate 10* faster than any vaccine can be created(and thus becomes obsolete way before release( that’s a conspiracy theory,of course) ) radioctive decay is generally slower and will give the experts enough time to put a new label on their former covid vaccine to save you from Pu239.

michael fellion
Reply to  SxyxS
September 6, 2026 1:26 pm

Ranting falsehood about MRNA vaccines simply destroys any comments you make turning them into the ranting of a crazy person. The vaccine is effective for about 96% of those taking the vaccine. The reduction in spread helps the 4% who cannot produce antibodies to the virus. 400,000 americans who died from covid would not have died if the meds found to prevent deaths and reduce ill effects had been allowed to be used in the USA early on within 5 days of symptoms.

starzmom
Reply to  michael fellion
September 7, 2026 5:32 am

What reduction in spread? Everybody I know that got COVID also was vaccinated, including myself, multiple times.

paul courtney
Reply to  michael fellion
September 7, 2026 1:41 pm

Mr. fellion: You may know other fields, but “reduction in spread” tells me you don’t follow the moving goalposts of St. Fauci. One of his big lies was that the mrna would stop the spread, but it didn’t. 96% effective at what? Let’s avoid this here.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 2:33 am

Did Nick miss the /s tag?

A long half life has benefits, it means that kg for kg it emits a lot less radiation, (on an hourly basis), than an isotope with a short half life.

If half life was the real measure of the danger, then don’t pick up some carbon 12. The half life of that could be as long as the current age of the universe.

I’d be more concerned about some of the medical grade materials, manufactured to have half lives measured in days or hours, that stuff is emitting many orders of magnitude above something with a half life of 24,000 years.

abolition man
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 8:15 am

Nuclear power and nuclear waste storage both involve large amounts of scientific knowledge and technical expertise; both areas where the left has been largely short changed! Now when it comes to emotions; especially negative ones like hatred, envy, and greed; they have them by the boatload! I’d guess widespread use of nuclear power for electric generation would cut the profits of the “Green” billionaires who make bank by installing Unreliable wind and solar farms, and soak the poor and middle class with higher utility rates! Sort of dooH niboR!

michael fellion
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 12:31 pm

Actually one could pick up a subcritical bar of Pu239 and put it in your pocket and walk off with it. The alpha radiation is blocked by the skin. Breathing dust is a bad idea as it gets in your lungs where the alpha radiation can damage the lung tissue. Eating it is not dangerous most of the time as the body does not absorb it. Elements like lead or arsenic are more dangerous.

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 6, 2026 4:34 pm

After ~ 24,000 years a kg of 239Pu would be about 500g of 239Pu, 498g of 235U, 2g of 4He and milligrams of 235U decay products and maybe micrograms of spontaneous fission products. Some of the waste products of “renewable energy” sources are chemically poisonous for the remainder of the life of the Earth.

Bryan A
September 5, 2026 8:03 pm

As long as they’re operated with Humble Respect and not with Hubris Disregard they are extremely safe. In fact more people have been killed since Columbime in all school shootings (535) than have ever died from nuclear generation accidents. (currently 31 from Chernobyl and that’s it)

Reply to  Bryan A
September 6, 2026 1:54 am

I think Chernobyl was nearer 75…but point taken. And 3000 cases of thyroid cancer that could have been avoided if there had been iodine pills available.

All the dire predictions of downstream cancers have never materialised, largely because the models used to predict them were based on entirely false premises.

One curious feature is that toads living in and around the reactor building have developed black melanin rich skins. Apparently this helps with high radiation levels.

Bryan A
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 6, 2026 9:03 am

I read 3 technicians in the immediate incident and 28 firefighters over the next two months from radiation exposure. But that is all I could locate.
But either way it’s comparatively miniscule relatively speaking.

Paul Redfern
September 5, 2026 8:50 pm

Breeder reactors are the way to go. They can use nuclear waste as fuel and make their own fuel so we don’t run out of uranium. The one pass reactors that we are using now have over 90% of the energy still left in the nuclear waste.

Reply to  Paul Redfern
September 6, 2026 1:56 am

They do, but its cheaper to do one pass and store waste. Breeders are more expensive to build run and maintain. If you want them you need to make it worth their while to be built. Tax nuclear waste perhaps

michael fellion
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 6, 2026 1:39 pm

They are not actually more expensive. What is expensive is the regulatory rules, laws and public nay saying on building any reactor in the USA and most of the west extremely expensive. The paper and decision and court delays are what drive up the costs not the actual reactor. The EBR1 was built in a few months in 1951. The CANDU reactor does not even use any enriched uranium to run and produce power.

Bob
September 5, 2026 8:56 pm

Very nice.

September 6, 2026 1:25 am

Nice article.
When (and if) common sense prevails we will go nuclear…
…after every other alternative has been exhausted…
It will be tricky to achieve and we will need fossils in the interim.
But we have to start somewhere

Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2026 5:00 am

There is only one reason to stop using coal for electricity: it becomes more expensive than nuclear, or other fuels. That might happen when the supply starts dwindling and mining it becomes more difficult. Currently though, supplies of it are still abundant. During the Biden and Obama years, coal was punished severely for emitting “carbon”, so now, coal power needs to be brought back. The damage that the Climate Industrial Complex has done (and continues to do) to the electric grid has been severe, and now needs to be reversed.

Harry Durham
September 6, 2026 6:57 am

Two points inspired by the comments.

First, Bryan A, you missed SL-1, 1961. Two men died from an explosion due, it is thought, to operator error. A third died later from injuries. [https://www.eastidahonews.com/2022/02/americas-only-fatal-reactor-accident-happened-in-idaho-61-years-ago-prior-nuclear-bomb-test-likely-killed-actors-in-utah/]

Second, glassification (AKA ‘vitrification’) has been and is being conducted regularly, hampered primarily by fears of people who were so turned off by ‘nuclear magnetic resonance’ they had to drop the ‘n’ word and so we now have MRI’s all over the place. [https://www.energy.gov/srs/waste-solidification]

For the long-term, all we need is anti-gravity and we can start launching unwanted nuclear waste into the Sun (I’m with the folks who want to use it as fuel, but suspect we will always have the equivalent of Luddites who own a few senators and/or representatives, at least in the US). Or for Elon to get the cost down to where it’s cheaper to send it to the Sun than bury it on Earth.

{Only a little, but: /sarc off)

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Harry Durham
September 6, 2026 7:46 am

“Two men died from an explosion due, it is thought, to operator error.”

I knew people involved with the operation and cleanup .

They ALL said it involved a love triangle and murder/suicide .

Of course the “official” story is different ….

Harry Durham
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
September 6, 2026 12:13 pm

Interesting perspective. I learned of SL-1 as part of a course conducted by the Air Force on nuclear ‘stuff,’ and “error” was the official story. Have to say, if it was murder/suicide, the murderer picked a messy way to go. But it certainly would have been horrendously difficult to do any forensics!

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Harry Durham
September 7, 2026 4:13 pm

They were on top of the unit ,inspecting it .

Husband jerked control rod up , causing steam explosion that wiped them out.

Bryan A
Reply to  Harry Durham
September 6, 2026 9:10 am

Interesting, in all the searches I’ve ever done regarding Nuclear Incidents this one has never come up. Ill definitely add it to my info. Thanks for the heads up.

Ronald Stein
September 6, 2026 7:39 am

Fortunately, worldwide nuclear generation has survived despite the demonization of it by California celebrities and politicians.

 

The World Nuclear Association shows about 80 nuclear reactors are under construction across the world.

 The list of multiple nuclear reactors under construction is as follows:
·        China              37
·        India               8
·        Russia             5
·        Egypt             4
·        Korea             4
·        Turkey            4
·        Bangladesh    2
·        Japan              2
·        Ukraine          2
·        UK                 2

 

About 120 further reactors are planned. Most reactors under construction or planned are in Asia.

 

America, President Trump has incentivized the nuclear industry with up to $300 billion in loan authorities, sponsored a slate of permitting reform legislation, and issued executive orders to modify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and streamline reactor licensing approvals from a decade to 18 months.

 

cgh
Reply to  Ronald Stein
September 6, 2026 9:03 am

Four are under construction at Darlington in Canada.

September 6, 2026 7:40 am

I literally stopped reading the above article after its second and third sentences:
“There is no doubt about it. Nuclear is the cleanest, greenest, cheapest, safest, energy source ever.”

I knew that everything that followed would be a “sales pitch” with little regard for truth.

If such claims were true, it’s really hard to explain why there are less than 100 commercial nuclear reactors in power plants spread across the US.

Also, how to explain that the last commercial nuclear reactor activated in the US was the Unit 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia, which began commercial operation in April 2024 . . . that would be, yeah, over two years ago. And this despite all the “desperate calls” for new power plants to provide electricity for coming data centers.

BTW, the cost of Vogtle Unit 4 is estimated to be $17-18 billion, and the timeline to build it and bring it on-line was 15 years (construction started in 2009 and commercial operation began 2024).

Facts matter.

abolition man
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 6, 2026 8:28 am

“Facts matter.”
Then why do you only use some of them? Are you unable to find eclectic sources of information, or does your brain only work part time due to a poor, carbohydrate rich diet?

Reply to  abolition man
September 6, 2026 2:21 pm

“(blah,blah, blah) . . . or does your brain only work part time . . . (blah, blah,blah)”

My brain only works part time . . . but that’s because I try to get a good night’s rest. You?

starzmom
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 6, 2026 12:31 pm

Maybe you have heard of TMI, a nuclear generating facility in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. After the non-fatal accident at TMI, and the inflation, high interest rates and recession of the late 1970s, many nuclear plants under construction were cancelled. Part of the reason was that the expansion of generating capacity could not be justified in the existing economic climate, and another part was the extensive and expensive TMI fixes required by the NRC before a full power operating license could be granted. Add in the anti-nuclear sentiment sweeping the country and that is why there have been few nuclear plants built in the past 50 years.

Context matters.

Reply to  starzmom
September 6, 2026 2:39 pm

Hmmmm . . . that was then, this is now (some 47+ years after the TMI nuclear “accident”). Your appear to be telling me that nuclear energy is forever “stuck in the past” . . . that’s NOT real promising!

Perhaps the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster (1986) and the Fukashima nuclear power plant disaster (2011)—both occurring after the TMI nuclear accident—entered into public and financial investment awareness and have something to do with the very low rate of acceptance of nuclear reactors in the US and most of the rest of the world? In this regard, you mentioned something about context???

Then again, the cost of the last nuclear reactor to bring on line in the US (some $17-18 billion dollars) and the time (about 15 years) from start of construction until it began providing commercial electricity into the grid might . . . just might . . . be worth consideration. /sarc

As I posted, facts matter.

sherro01
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 6, 2026 6:07 pm

TYS,
You clearly show that you are an ignorant activist by using the word ‘disaster’ for incidents with tiny or nil human fatalities. OTOH, the flooded river in Nepal earns the ‘disaster’ label more authentically because of its scale.
There is value in describing disasters only because it helps relevant people to work out how to avoid them or lessen their impact in the future.
The management of radioactivity is a mature science that has attracted a high level of expertise.
If you seek to criticise it, you have to be able to invent a better way.
Good luck with that.
In essence, all humans are born into a sea of radioactivity. We have evolved to cope with natural levels. Clever people have devised safe management of non-natural levels. These have worked. There is little reason to think they will fail.
Analogy time: If you fear being killed by the bite of a shark, do not swim in the sea. If you want to avoid death from high level radioactivity, keep 100 metres or so away from it. Don’t poke the bear.
Disclosure: I was one of the scientists involved in the discovery/development of the major Ranger Uranium orebodies in the Northern Territory of Australia. I also owned and operated a fast neutron generator. My high exposure to nuclear radiation has not claimed its victim yet as I am 85 and lucid. Perhaps hormesis helps.
Geoff S

Reply to  sherro01
September 7, 2026 8:29 am

If your want to debate the etymology of the word “disaster”, that’s OK. I can only gently suggest you first start by doing a Web search on “nuclear disasters”. If you do so, please note amongst all the hits these Wikipedia articles specifically named:
— “Chernobyl disaster”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
— “Kyshtym disaster”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

Independently, there is this:
“The five worst nuclear disasters in history”, https://www.processindustryforum.com/energy/five-worst-nuclear-disasters-history

If you prefer to just consult YouTube videos for information, you will find this:
— “The WORST Nuclear Disasters in HISTORY!”, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m3xKgzz2QwA ,
this video declares the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant destruction and spread of radiation to be a “disaster”.

IMHO, it’s a rather weak argument to conflate nuclear reactor accidents and disasters with naturally occurring events, such as the recent Nepal river flooding surge that killed thousands of people.

You state: “If you seek to criticise it, you have to be able to invent a better way.” That’s a ridiculous non sequitur, seldom enforced in reality!

sherro01
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 8, 2026 5:23 pm

TYS,
It is illogical to argue that a disaster is defined by what subjective, left-leaning Wikipedis writes, when there is an alternative or two, such as the count of human fatalities.
Geoff S

Reply to  sherro01
September 9, 2026 8:16 am

Geoff S,
You stated “It is illogical to argue that a disaster is defined by what subjective, left-leaning Wikipedis writes . . .”

1) Wikipedia used the term “disaster”, but neither of the articles I cited defined that term.

2) I provided two separate and independent links beyond just the Wikipedia links so that you might see there are multiple media publishing sites combining “disaster” with “nuclear”.

I’m sorry to see you displaying this difficulty in reading comprehension . . . but then again, I have to acknowledge that you earlier referred to me as an “ignorant activist”.

starzmom
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 7, 2026 5:52 am

I could go into all the reasons why nuclear power has not been chosen over other generating technologies over the past 50 years, and there are many. I presented the short term reasons that nuclear power stations were not constructed or were abandoned in the early 1980s. I don’t believe either Chernobyl or Fukushima had much to do with the initial or subsequent abandonment of power stations in the US, although Chernobyl stoked the fear of anything nuclear. Fukushima certainly affected how Europeans looked at nuclear power and they shut down plants left and right in Germany. To their detriment, I might add.

You state that the long lead time is one reason for abandonment. Years ago, when I performed such analyses for a major utility, we assumed a minimum 20 year lead time for a nuclear plant, and 15 years for a coal plant. Much of that time would be consumed by environmental studies. I have seen nothing in the intervening years to convince me the time would be any shorter today, and may well be longer.

It appears that the future of nuclear will be new plants at existing sites, which removes a lot of the siting studies from the timelines, and also small modular nuclear plants which may be much easier to site. The proposal to reopen TMI Unit 1 anticipates restart in about 2030. They do appear to be doing a lot of work on site, if one can judge by flying over it all the time.

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 6, 2026 7:25 pm

Of course he ignores the unnecessary costs of regulations and lawsuits that his buddies in the anti-nuclear industry have imposed on nuclear power.

Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2026 8:36 am

“He” . . . who?

Whoever you’re referring to, please define who or what organization has established that the adjective “unnecessary” is being rightfully applied to the cost of conforming with nuclear regulations.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 9, 2026 11:00 am

Hmmm . . . two days and no reply from MarkW as to a very simple question.

Why am I not surprised.

Pop Piasa
September 6, 2026 11:31 am

I wish the energy densities of solar and wind could also have been included in the comparison. I sense the difference must be orders of magnitude more immense.

michael fellion
September 6, 2026 11:52 am

The high level waste is hot, it can be used to generate power rather than sit is a barrel for a long time. The problem is very few long term places to put the waste exist. The system make sure it takes decades to build one which then gets canceled when the administration changes.

Reply to  michael fellion
September 6, 2026 2:48 pm

No, the “problem” with high-level waste (spent nuclear fuel, SNF) is two-fold:
(1) it is NOT “hot” enough thermally to be able to provide competitive-rate electricity using any known thermodynamic cycle, and
(2) it is so “hot” radiologically as to make it impractical and therefore economically unusable as a heat source compared to safer, cheaper alternatives.

sherro01
Reply to  michael fellion
September 6, 2026 6:15 pm

Michael,
What nonsense. There are thousands of square miles of vacant Australian dry desert whose surface can be used to host nuclear waste inside modest fences. The key is this: do not get close to high emitters and you are safe. Management should concentrate on levels that exist, rather than the present pie in the sky management using expensive worst case improbable scenarios devised by dumb greens. Alternatively, simply sprinkle waste into oceans from aircraft. The change in levels would be close to immeasurable.
Geoff S

Reply to  sherro01
September 7, 2026 8:52 am

“Alternatively, simply sprinkle waste into oceans from aircraft.”

Sure, no problems at all putting highly radioactive SNF into aircraft, considering the most-likely extremely heavy lead- or concrete-lined containers for such. And there would “simply” be no problem if such a loaded aircraft was to crash before it could do its “sprinkling”.

And, of course, peoples around the world certainly won’t protest the “sprinkling” of radioactive waste across the world’s oceans . . . you know, given the enormous amount of fishing, marine cargo transportation and ocean vacation cruises (amongst many other activities) ongoing at the time of such “sprinkling”.

Then too, how much of that “sprinkling” might be carried by atmospheric winds to populated land surfaces, such as cities located on ocean shores or mid-ocean populated islands,such as Hawaii and Tahiti?

Good grief!

Now, you were saying something about “nonsense” and “pie in the sky” . . .

sherro01
Reply to  ToldYouSo
September 8, 2026 5:28 pm

TYS,
I did not rule out ships to disperse unwanted radioactive material into our vast oceans.
People do not often comprehend just how tiny the amount of “spent” reactor fuel is. Its weight is not a major consideration in its management, it just helps to lower the cost when it is so tiny.
It is questionable if there is any value in gathering up lab coats used by workers for special treatment as potential radioactive hazard “for the next 200,000 years.”
This is simply an expression of massive ignorance of radioactive hazard coupled with years of green anti-nuclear publicity.
Geoff S

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  sherro01
September 9, 2026 4:13 am

Geoff

I’m sure you are familiar with Ted Ringwood’s ‘Synroc’…briefly mentioned in the main article. Can’t understand why this technology has not been adopted for high level waste disposal.

Also do you know anything about the ‘crater’ in this comment from above? Surely this is just nonsense?

Alastair Brickell

“Phillip Chalmers

Reply to 
Andrew St John
September 6, 2026 1:10 am
And, there is a crater in Western Australia. Has been downhill and downstream to natural uranium ore deposit which has worn down and been carried into stream beds over millions of years. The best guess is that one day it went critical and there was a natural atomic explosion.”

Reply to  sherro01
September 9, 2026 8:20 am

Geoff S,
You posted above: “Alternatively, simply sprinkle waste into oceans from aircraft.”

That is all. 

Reply to  sherro01
September 9, 2026 5:20 pm

“People do not often comprehend just how tiny the amount of ‘spent’ reactor fuel is. Its weight is not a major consideration in its management, it just helps to lower the cost when it is so tiny.”

Such absurd, false statements . . . made intentionally or otherwise.

The US currently has over 95,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel stored across the country.
— source: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/can-u-s-nuclear-waste-management-keep-up-with-the-nuclear-renaissance/ .

This nuclear waste is stored  in 70-80 separate sites in more than 35 states.

Furthermore,  the US produces approximately 2,000 metric tons of additional spent nuclear fuel each year from just its commercial nuclear power plant reactors.

So, if one devoted 100 airplanes each flying 2000 miles each day of each year and each “sprinkling” 1 gram of SNF per flight mile, it would take 475,000 days or about 1,300 years to disperse that existing 95,000 metric tons of SNF over the world ocean’s (and undoubtedly other locations as well).

ROTFL.

Kasmir
September 6, 2026 4:48 pm

Here’s a paper on Zenodo that discusses this issue:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22558077

September 7, 2026 5:48 am

I’d have to agree that storage is no big deal, and truck-mounted experimental nuclear reactors from China and Utah defy meltdown.  “The application of this technology can free people from ‘battery anxiety’,” says Wu Yican of the Institute of Nuclear Energy Safety Technology at the Hefei Institute of Physical Science.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
September 9, 2026 5:25 pm

” . . . says Wu Yican of the Institute of Nuclear Energy Safety Technology at the Hefei Institute of Physical Science.”

Hey, he’s my go-to guy too! /sarc

davidlavi55
September 7, 2026 6:52 am

I have a couple of questions. Is there a broader discussion of reprocessing of “spent” nuclear fuel that you could point me to? How many households could be powered by a reactor the size of the ones that power a submarine? Where are we in terms of fusion? I would appreciate any comments or suggestions. I am a supporter of nuclear power, even before the advent of data centers and I would love to see smaller plants for our neighborhoods. Thank you!

sherro01
Reply to  davidlavi55
September 8, 2026 5:29 pm

David,
It is quite easy to find answers to your questions with an ordinary Internet search.
Geoff S