3 ms·

Why not run the world on nuclear power? With breeder reactors, there is enough uranium for more than million years of current world electricity consumption. Nuc

Why not run the world on nuclear power? With breeder reactors, there is enough uranium for more than million years of current world electricity consumption. Nuclear energy is cheap, and modern reactor designs are safe.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Yes, I agree. I might have not worded my comment clearly enough. What I meant is: I don't see the world being full of nuclear powerplants right now, so we don't have a sustainable energy surplus to stupidly waste. EDIT: Fixed wording in the original comment; I hope it's clearer now.
pjc50 11y ago
It's never cheap. It's plagued by construction cost overruns. We're having this problem with Hinkley Point C at the moment: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/11/edf-chief-executive-warns-france-over-hinkley-costs http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/11/edf-chief-ex...
- atemerev 11y ago
  Even given the cost overruns, insurance, nuclear pools, etc it is quite cheap. The only problem with nuclear power is that it is highly centralized and requires significant upfront capital expenditures. And political consequences of radiophobia are so high that investing in nuclear power is limited. I think that solar and nuclear are the only sustainable power generation methods these days. The rest are either bad for the environment, or ineffective.
  - mikepurvis 11y ago
    Radiophobe here. I can't accept the morality of handing stewardship of spent nuclear fuel to my children and their children for a thousand generations. Would you still want to be caring for a monster left to us by the people who wrote on cave walls? As far as a DGR, I'll believe it when a nation other than Finland has shovels in the ground to actually build one.
    - atemerev 11y ago
      1) Breeder reactors are reducing the amount of spent fuel to store about 100x. Existing nuclear waste can also be reprocessed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio... 2) What monster could be left by stone-age people to us that modern technology couldn't handle? Modern spent fuel processing methods are great and quite safe (vitrification / underground disposal). I can't imagine a newsworthy worst case scenario with vitrified containers.
      - mikepurvis 11y ago
        1) Sodium-based breeder reactors are terrifying, and considered by most to be a dangerous failed experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Breeder_reactor_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Breeder_reacto... 2) As long as we assume that society continues on its current trajectory forever, then yes, there's nothing to worry about. But if it's true that we're in the twilight years of US dominance or relevance as a world power, then we could be in for a significant period of upcoming political/economic turmoil. So here's another way to look at it: How would the monks and agrarian fiefdoms of the middle ages been at handling a monster leftover by the Romans?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Nuclear fuel waste is much less dangerouns than many other substances created in industrial chemical processes, and occur in much smaller amounts. Managing that is a non-problem compared to other hazardous waste. That people are afraid of radioactive waste and aren't of what their friendly neighbourhood chemical plant produces is pure FUD.
      - atemerev 11y ago
        Not exactly, unfortunately. (I am as pro-nuclear as one could be). However, all chemical waste can be neutralized and reprocessed (though this might be expensive to do so). Some nuclear waste can't be reprocessed and has to be stored safely for hundreds of years. This scares some people. However, it's not _that_ dangerous. Even if containment is breached, it generally stays in the same place and can be collected and put back (happened a lot of times).

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Yes, I agree. I might have not worded my comment clearly enough. What I meant is: I don't see the world being full of nuclear powerplants right now, so we don't have a sustainable energy surplus to stupidly waste. EDIT: Fixed wording in the original comment; I hope it's clearer now.

pjc50 11y ago

It's never cheap. It's plagued by construction cost overruns. We're having this problem with Hinkley Point C at the moment: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/11/edf-chief-executive-warns-france-over-hinkley-costs http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/11/edf-chief-ex...

atemerev 11y ago
Even given the cost overruns, insurance, nuclear pools, etc it is quite cheap. The only problem with nuclear power is that it is highly centralized and requires significant upfront capital expenditures. And political consequences of radiophobia are so high that investing in nuclear power is limited. I think that solar and nuclear are the only sustainable power generation methods these days. The rest are either bad for the environment, or ineffective.
- mikepurvis 11y ago
  Radiophobe here. I can't accept the morality of handing stewardship of spent nuclear fuel to my children and their children for a thousand generations. Would you still want to be caring for a monster left to us by the people who wrote on cave walls? As far as a DGR, I'll believe it when a nation other than Finland has shovels in the ground to actually build one.
  - atemerev 11y ago
    1) Breeder reactors are reducing the amount of spent fuel to store about 100x. Existing nuclear waste can also be reprocessed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio... 2) What monster could be left by stone-age people to us that modern technology couldn't handle? Modern spent fuel processing methods are great and quite safe (vitrification / underground disposal). I can't imagine a newsworthy worst case scenario with vitrified containers.
    - mikepurvis 11y ago
      1) Sodium-based breeder reactors are terrifying, and considered by most to be a dangerous failed experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Breeder_reactor_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Breeder_reacto... 2) As long as we assume that society continues on its current trajectory forever, then yes, there's nothing to worry about. But if it's true that we're in the twilight years of US dominance or relevance as a world power, then we could be in for a significant period of upcoming political/economic turmoil. So here's another way to look at it: How would the monks and agrarian fiefdoms of the middle ages been at handling a monster leftover by the Romans?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Nuclear fuel waste is much less dangerouns than many other substances created in industrial chemical processes, and occur in much smaller amounts. Managing that is a non-problem compared to other hazardous waste. That people are afraid of radioactive waste and aren't of what their friendly neighbourhood chemical plant produces is pure FUD.
    - atemerev 11y ago
      Not exactly, unfortunately. (I am as pro-nuclear as one could be). However, all chemical waste can be neutralized and reprocessed (though this might be expensive to do so). Some nuclear waste can't be reprocessed and has to be stored safely for hundreds of years. This scares some people. However, it's not _that_ dangerous. Even if containment is breached, it generally stays in the same place and can be collected and put back (happened a lot of times).