A mixture of materials containing 94% uranium-238, 1% uranium-235, & 1% plutonium would not be described as "waste" in any sane world, no.

+Papirius Hello!

Not exactly. Fuel is made of uranium oxide ceramic pellets and is enclosed in zirconium tubes (fuel rods). It will definitely melt. The point made in the video is that the shipping cask is designed to dissipate heat and maintains the temperature inside well below the melting point of the fuel over a period of time. If you continued the fire, eventually the temperature would rise, but the fuel would be contained within the container anyhow.

David Heckman​ do you even know what a meme is.

why so serious?... he was joking

@@RazaQadri he probably doesn't. But he knows much more about nuclear engineering than you do

😅🤚

Looks like an ALCO MRS-1.

@crystaljon It is a MRS 1 I did some research.

Yes there is, within the plants themselves, dry cask storage.

@@janoycresva276 When the plants were built the communities were assured the plants would not become waste dumps. Under federal law nuclear waste is a federal concern. Everyone was told "Don't worry about the waste, the feds will take care of it." In spite of spending billions in Nevada there still is no large scale federally operated storage facility for high level waste. Going forward dry cask storage could be an option for new plants. I don't see it being a valid answer for the existing plants that were all built with the understanding that waste would not be stored there.

Nuclear waste doesnt kill anyone. Smog does.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense and offers nothing but your opinion. First, this is a shipping cask in the video. The storage cask is shipped inside of it. All containers, both for shipment and storage, are tested and licensed individually before they can be used. Current storage casks for storage are made of stainless steel / nickel allow and are designed and licensed to last 10,000 years. This video is from 1978-ish, but the concept hasn't changed and licensing has gotten even more demanding for these containers. Spend fuel is shipped in an NRC licensed Type B shipping container. You can read all about the testing requirements in 10 CFR Part 71. Please attempt to educate yourself.

No, David Heckman. There is zero opinion in my comment, all facts. The current storage canisters are generally about 6 ft in diameter and about 18 feet long, and are made of 1/2" to 5/8" stainless steel. They have to be put into a far larger transport overpack to protect them. They are so big and heavy that no one has actually tested a full-size canister and overpack, only scale models. The canisters they use today are optimized for local storage at nuclear plants and are too big and too hot for any permanent geologic repository. Holtec Canisters that are to be used at San Onofre have 37 fuel assemblies while Yucca Mtn is designed for canisters with only 20 assemblies. Yucca mtn can't deal with those hot canisters that have a max. temp at the cladding of 400 C. The surface of the canister can easily be 400F and can't be put in Yucca which has to be kept to 100C max. No storage cask can last 10,000 years, esp. if they are stored in a salt air environment. There, chloride-induced cracking can start as soon as the surface temp gets below 85C. In some areas, they start cracking after only 17 years.

Where do you get your information?

@@RayLutz Casks don't need to last 10 000 years. Oklo is a good example why even without high tech storage solutions, nuclear waste will not travel far in a geologically stable location.

Good point. “Note that even if the canisters begin to leak immediately, the maximum exposure occurs only after some 10 000 years (AD 12 000) as it will take time for the radioactive materials to migrate to the surface. After AD 12 000, doses will fall steadily.” jmkorhonen.net/2017/03/10/what-does-research-say-about-the-safety-of-nuclear-power/