6 ms·

I absolutely agree that nuclear is our best option as long as the reactor and the waste is located in your backyard.

wycx 11y ago
I would live next to a warehouse full of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
- satori99 11y ago
  It frustrates me as an Australian, that our government scientists invented Synroc, and we have vast amounts of uranium, and probably the most geologically stable continent on earth, but no energy creating reactors.
merpnderp 11y ago
Please build one in my backyard. Jobs, cheap power, no guilt over CO2 when I crank my AC. I'm all in.
DanBC 11y ago
I'd be happy for it all to be in my backyard. I don't know how small those Toshiba[1] mini reactors are, but I'd happily have one of those in my garden if it fits. Or any modern design right next door to me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
- zbyte64 11y ago
  Was curious how long the reactor is designed to last, seems the answer is 30 years: https://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor https://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-...
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Yep, I think I'd still have one. I think the UK learnt a few lessons from the mess of Sellafield. The clean up associated with that is pretty harsh. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-26124803 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-26124803 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117 etc etc.
Alupis 11y ago
They aren't nearly as dangerous as the popular opinion would have you believe. There has been only a single incident that I'm aware of (Chernobyl), all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). In fact, the technology and safety has come a long way since the 60's. Most US Navy ships are nuclear powered, and have not had incidents (and these are designed to go to war and survive). Japan was hit by multiple severe earthquakes and tsunamis (even at the same time!) and managed to keep the reactors from having an incident (this has got to be close to the worst possible case).
- peckrob 11y ago
  > all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_7:_Major_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." I called it a "near incident" because there was no meltdown, and the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Essentially they got it under control, and given the circumstances it took to get the plant into that situation in the first place, I'd say it's a flagship example of how far Nuclear safety has come. Today Japan is activating even more Nuclear power plants.
    - peckrob 11y ago
      > there was no meltdown Except that there totally was a meltdown. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Core_meltdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... * http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm-complete-reactor-meltdown-at-fukushima-reactor-1 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm... * http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/09/29/fukushima-watch-near-complete-meltdown-confirmed-at-reactor-2/ http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/09/29/fukushima-watc... > the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Except for the 20 mile exclusion zone that is still in place. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima... * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11916879/Inside-Fukushimas-nuclear-disaster-exclusion-zone-in-pictures.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1... I'm not an anti-nuclear person by any means, but let's not sugarcoat this disaster. It was bad.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
I'd much rather have a nuclear plant in my back yard than a coal plant, or even a natural gas plant, much less some uber-noisy bird-killing wind farm of an equivalent capacity.

wycx 11y ago

I would live next to a warehouse full of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

satori99 11y ago
It frustrates me as an Australian, that our government scientists invented Synroc, and we have vast amounts of uranium, and probably the most geologically stable continent on earth, but no energy creating reactors.

merpnderp 11y ago

Please build one in my backyard. Jobs, cheap power, no guilt over CO2 when I crank my AC. I'm all in.

DanBC 11y ago

I'd be happy for it all to be in my backyard. I don't know how small those Toshiba[1] mini reactors are, but I'd happily have one of those in my garden if it fits. Or any modern design right next door to me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

zbyte64 11y ago
Was curious how long the reactor is designed to last, seems the answer is 30 years: https://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor https://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-...
- DanBC 11y ago
  Yep, I think I'd still have one. I think the UK learnt a few lessons from the mess of Sellafield. The clean up associated with that is pretty harsh. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-26124803 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-26124803 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117 etc etc.

Alupis 11y ago

They aren't nearly as dangerous as the popular opinion would have you believe. There has been only a single incident that I'm aware of (Chernobyl), all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). In fact, the technology and safety has come a long way since the 60's. Most US Navy ships are nuclear powered, and have not had incidents (and these are designed to go to war and survive). Japan was hit by multiple severe earthquakes and tsunamis (even at the same time!) and managed to keep the reactors from having an incident (this has got to be close to the worst possible case).

peckrob 11y ago
> all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_7:_Major_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...
- Alupis 11y ago
  > I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." I called it a "near incident" because there was no meltdown, and the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Essentially they got it under control, and given the circumstances it took to get the plant into that situation in the first place, I'd say it's a flagship example of how far Nuclear safety has come. Today Japan is activating even more Nuclear power plants.
  - peckrob 11y ago
    > there was no meltdown Except that there totally was a meltdown. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Core_meltdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... * http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm-complete-reactor-meltdown-at-fukushima-reactor-1 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm... * http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/09/29/fukushima-watch-near-complete-meltdown-confirmed-at-reactor-2/ http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/09/29/fukushima-watc... > the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Except for the 20 mile exclusion zone that is still in place. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima... * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11916879/Inside-Fukushimas-nuclear-disaster-exclusion-zone-in-pictures.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1... I'm not an anti-nuclear person by any means, but let's not sugarcoat this disaster. It was bad.

Turing_Machine 11y ago

I'd much rather have a nuclear plant in my back yard than a coal plant, or even a natural gas plant, much less some uber-noisy bird-killing wind farm of an equivalent capacity.