2 HN users recommended this explainer2 months2022score 2
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
Cited in nuclear power debates to argue that waste storage is a political rather than technical problem.
Kyle Hill explains what nuclear waste actually is and how it is stored, arguing that the problem was effectively solved decades ago. It covers solid shielded waste and deep geological storage.
Nuclear waste isn't a problem if you drill a hole that's deep enough, encase the waste in a "dry cask", and drop it in the hole. Kyle Hill did a great video on this... "We solved nuclear waste decades ago" => [this video]
Argues deep borehole storage already solves nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste, as far as I have been learning, is pretty "safe". Yeah, you need a place to deal with it, but it's mostly highly shielded solids. A video I watched recently explaining a lot: [this video]
Explains that nuclear waste is mostly highly shielded solids.
You know nuclear waste isn't green glowing leaky barrells like in cartoons, right? It's stored as solid glass. For super-duper cautious extra safety it can be stored below ground water levels. The volume of the high-level waste is relatively tiny (roughly a swimming pool per year per country). [this video]
Linked to illustrate how nuclear waste is actually stored.
> Also it's not green. The mining of the fuel isn't, nor is its transportation, vitrification, fabrication, refinement or enrichment. The concrete and cooling of the plant isn't nor is the waste stream side of the equation. It's the classic hyperfocus on a small part of the chain and writing off everything else as externalities. By the same token, no energy production technology is "green". Solar panels use rare earth metals (and require clearing land in many cases), batteries use lithium, and wind farms have to have replacement fan blades every decade or so (which are not recyclable, so much so that the current state of the art is to burn them[1]) and kill larger birds of prey as well. > The back end is a trivial cost because it Has Not Been Dealt With. There are viable solutions for this[2] and given how natural deposits of uranium fare (even without containment they move very little on geological timescales), it seems deep geological storage really is an incredibly simple solution to this problem. [1]: [link] [2]: [this video]
Cited as showing viable solutions for waste disposal.
We Solved Nuclear Waste Decades Ago - [this video] The safe long-term storage of nuclear waste is not a technical problem. It's a political problem. The public opposes even just doing research into safer storage methods for nuclear waste. In 2016, the Department of Energy test wells for deep borehole disposal were cancelled due to protests. The tests were not even going to involve nuclear material! The opposition feared that the tests might show that the area was geologically appropriate for the safe storage of nuclear waste.
Cited for claim that waste storage is political, not technical.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
5 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more