Correction to Spent Nuclear Fuel Post
Figure 12 in the recent spent nuclear fuel post does NOT show decommissioned submarine reactor cores stored at Idaho National Lab as I claimed. Rather it shows decommissioned reactor compartments after the cores have been removed landfilled at Hanford. The reactor cores are stored indoors at the Expended Core facility at INL. Mea maxima culpa.
This was not an innocent mistake. I stumbled across a mislabeled photo and immediately accepted it as Gospel since it supported the narrative I was telling. I did this despite multiple red flags in the photo and the implications did not add up. A clear case of confirmation bias. There’s a lesson here.
By the way, speaking of Hanford, what was the story on that closure? I seem to remember something about leakage into the Columbia River drainage.
As you may know, there is a big debate on whether SMRs will create more nuclear waste. Citizendium's Debate Guide on Nuclear Waste Management features a report from the National Academy of Sciences claiming that the waste volume will increase by "factors of 2 to 30".
https://citizendium.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_management/Debate_Guide#Increased_waste_from_Small_Modular_Reactors
Jack's rebuttal was excellent, but now the anti-nukers at skeptical science dot com are claiming what NAS really meant was not the waste from spent fuel, but the irradiated steel. That was not at all clear in my brief reading of the report. I have added a section on this issue to the Debate Page, but I think it could use a better response. Can't all this steel be recycled for new reactors? Why should any of it go to a landfill?
https://citizendium.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_management/Debate_Guide#Non-fuel_waste
Maybe someone in the choir can write a better rebuttal, if Jack doesnn't have time.