3 ms·

Did you include the number of deaths caused by radioactive waste over the next few thousand years?

tobltobs 11y ago
A question to the downvoters: Whats your solution to this problem? It seems that you know a way which does exclude any risk of polluting the groundwater. I really would like to hear your ideas.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The solution? Stop labeling usable fuel as "waste". We only extract a few percent of the usable fission energy in current reactor designs. We've had plans for numerous other designs for years, but anti-nuclear hysteria and high-inertia bureaucracy have been very efficient at preventing new types of reactors from being built.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    Maybe this might be true, but it is hard to believe that if those designs would really exists that there wouldn't be one state which would enable such a project. China, Russia, most countries in Asia not exactly full of "anti-nuclear hysteria and high-inertia bureaucracy". They just would build one of your magic nuclear reactors. At the moment there are over 60 new reactors being constructed in 13 countries (eg. in China, South Korea, UAE and Russia). And they are all not of this magic type. I think you are falling to some crude propaganda of the nuclear industry which would love to get more tax money. But yeah, stop labeling deadly waste as waste is an easy way to avoid handling waste.
    - yongjik 11y ago
      Can't speak of other countries, but anti-nuclear paranoia is alive and strong in South Korea. (After all, we're right next to Japan.) Also bear in mind that it involves the same technology that could be used in preparing nuclear weapons. You don't just have to overcome your garden variety environmentalists. You also have to get the approval of Uncle Sam. (Well, maybe not for China or Russia, but in their case, they have enough unused land and a forceful government, so they can just shove the "waste" somewhere deep in the desert and that will be last anybody hears about it.)
      - tobltobs 11y ago
        Nice cherry picking. And what about Finland? They are building currently a new reactor. It is a Type 3 with an improved fuel technology, but still far away of one of those green, magic, waste free types which are supposed to solve the waste problems. What is the reason the Finns do not build one of those supa dupa waste free reactors? Have they been forced by some environmentalists to ignore the wonderful new technology. Or do they plan to throw the waste, aeh sorry "fuel", into the baltic sea as this is cheaper?
        yongjik 11y ago
        Sigh. "We can develop the technology" does not equal "There is an available commercial prototype". Creating a new kind of commercial reactor requires $$$ and time, and good luck developing one (which can probably double as nuclear weapon factory) in the current political climate. Anyway, nuclear waste can stay, safely, in underground facilities for a very long time, so it's not like anybody's in a hurry to use them before they rot away or something.
        tobltobs 11y ago
        Please give me an example for one of those safe underground facilities which do not cost millions to maintain them safely. Are you talking about salt domes?
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > I think you are falling to some crude propaganda of the nuclear industry This rhetorical tactic is rather insulting, especially when you're repeating several well-known anti-nuclear talking points. Fuel reprocessing has existed in various forms for decades. There is still work to do, of course. Why isn't it being used? Well, China is building several new reactor designs right now as part of their long-term power plans. This includes alternate fuel cycle reactors (thorium) that have far less waste in addition to reprocessing. Building reactors takes time, of course, so this is an ongoing project. Also, you seem to think the nuclear industry supports reprocessing. After radiophobia, the existing nuclear industry is the biggest impediment to new reactor designs and reprocessing. Isotopic enrichment is expensive; why would e.g. Westinghouse make propaganda in support of technologies that disrupted their primary source of profit? > stop labeling deadly waste as waste That isn't what I said. You talk about falling for propaganda, but you're arguing with your own "straw man".
      - tobltobs 11y ago
        Ah, the Thorium dream. Would be great if this will work one day. But there are still lots of unsolved problems like the reprocessing, the energy required to start the process and preventing corrosion, to mention only the biggest ones. Those problems are far from being solved. Currently this is not more than a well known nuclear dream. What the chinese are building at the moment are prototypes which do not even count as proof of concept. They are far away from building real usable reactors. And yes fuel reprocessing exists but to make the "waste" problem bearable they would need to reduce waste by far more than they do since decades. The nuclear industry has much more players than only the fuel provider. The ones which build the reactors do not care too much for the fate of Westinghouse.
    - witty_username 11y ago
      > most countries in Asia not exactly full of "anti-nuclear hysteria and high-inertia bureaucracy" Here in India, a fair number of people are anti-nuclear.

A question to the downvoters: Whats your solution to this problem? It seems that you know a way which does exclude any risk of polluting the groundwater. I really would like to hear your ideas.

pdkl95 11y ago
The solution? Stop labeling usable fuel as "waste". We only extract a few percent of the usable fission energy in current reactor designs. We've had plans for numerous other designs for years, but anti-nuclear hysteria and high-inertia bureaucracy have been very efficient at preventing new types of reactors from being built.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  Maybe this might be true, but it is hard to believe that if those designs would really exists that there wouldn't be one state which would enable such a project. China, Russia, most countries in Asia not exactly full of "anti-nuclear hysteria and high-inertia bureaucracy". They just would build one of your magic nuclear reactors. At the moment there are over 60 new reactors being constructed in 13 countries (eg. in China, South Korea, UAE and Russia). And they are all not of this magic type. I think you are falling to some crude propaganda of the nuclear industry which would love to get more tax money. But yeah, stop labeling deadly waste as waste is an easy way to avoid handling waste.
  - yongjik 11y ago
    Can't speak of other countries, but anti-nuclear paranoia is alive and strong in South Korea. (After all, we're right next to Japan.) Also bear in mind that it involves the same technology that could be used in preparing nuclear weapons. You don't just have to overcome your garden variety environmentalists. You also have to get the approval of Uncle Sam. (Well, maybe not for China or Russia, but in their case, they have enough unused land and a forceful government, so they can just shove the "waste" somewhere deep in the desert and that will be last anybody hears about it.)
    - tobltobs 11y ago
      Nice cherry picking. And what about Finland? They are building currently a new reactor. It is a Type 3 with an improved fuel technology, but still far away of one of those green, magic, waste free types which are supposed to solve the waste problems. What is the reason the Finns do not build one of those supa dupa waste free reactors? Have they been forced by some environmentalists to ignore the wonderful new technology. Or do they plan to throw the waste, aeh sorry "fuel", into the baltic sea as this is cheaper?
      - yongjik 11y ago
        Sigh. "We can develop the technology" does not equal "There is an available commercial prototype". Creating a new kind of commercial reactor requires $$$ and time, and good luck developing one (which can probably double as nuclear weapon factory) in the current political climate. Anyway, nuclear waste can stay, safely, in underground facilities for a very long time, so it's not like anybody's in a hurry to use them before they rot away or something.
        tobltobs 11y ago
        Please give me an example for one of those safe underground facilities which do not cost millions to maintain them safely. Are you talking about salt domes?
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > I think you are falling to some crude propaganda of the nuclear industry This rhetorical tactic is rather insulting, especially when you're repeating several well-known anti-nuclear talking points. Fuel reprocessing has existed in various forms for decades. There is still work to do, of course. Why isn't it being used? Well, China is building several new reactor designs right now as part of their long-term power plans. This includes alternate fuel cycle reactors (thorium) that have far less waste in addition to reprocessing. Building reactors takes time, of course, so this is an ongoing project. Also, you seem to think the nuclear industry supports reprocessing. After radiophobia, the existing nuclear industry is the biggest impediment to new reactor designs and reprocessing. Isotopic enrichment is expensive; why would e.g. Westinghouse make propaganda in support of technologies that disrupted their primary source of profit? > stop labeling deadly waste as waste That isn't what I said. You talk about falling for propaganda, but you're arguing with your own "straw man".
    - tobltobs 11y ago
      Ah, the Thorium dream. Would be great if this will work one day. But there are still lots of unsolved problems like the reprocessing, the energy required to start the process and preventing corrosion, to mention only the biggest ones. Those problems are far from being solved. Currently this is not more than a well known nuclear dream. What the chinese are building at the moment are prototypes which do not even count as proof of concept. They are far away from building real usable reactors. And yes fuel reprocessing exists but to make the "waste" problem bearable they would need to reduce waste by far more than they do since decades. The nuclear industry has much more players than only the fuel provider. The ones which build the reactors do not care too much for the fate of Westinghouse.
  - witty_username 11y ago
    > most countries in Asia not exactly full of "anti-nuclear hysteria and high-inertia bureaucracy" Here in India, a fair number of people are anti-nuclear.