4 ms·

Nuclear at the moment isn't scaleable. We already have more nuclear waste than is currently able to be stored.. and we're talking about stuff that is going to

Nuclear at the moment isn't scaleable. We already have more nuclear waste than is currently able to be stored.. and we're talking about stuff that is going to remain deadly for tens of thousands of years. There's nowhere to put the stuff unless we start blasting it out into outer space or develop ways to use it for more energy.

CamperBob2 10y ago
There's nowhere to put the stuff unless we start blasting it out into outer space or develop ways to use it for more energy. Put it in Antarctica.
Zardoz84 10y ago
And without founding on new kind of nuclear reactors that burns nuclear wasted. Good job!
oh_sigh 10y ago
Where are we putting waste from all the coal firing plants? Directly into the air!
- einrealist 10y ago
  Does not make it an excuse for nuclear either.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    When you have to choose one of two options, then yes it does offset.
Keyframe 10y ago
I agree that there are issues, but issues that can be solved if more research and energy is put into it. Nuclear waste being the primary concern. Space depot is an interesting option for sure. Nuclear became a priori taboo for some odd reason though. That's why it lacks political momentum behind it. Nuclear can and should be solution for this.
wang_li 10y ago
> We already have more nuclear waste than is currently able to be stored.. Don't you mean, "If only we had a place to externalize the waste storage problem." All the nuclear waste obviously has a place to store it, I mean it's somewhere right now isn't it?
ohthehugemanate 10y ago
You need baseload power from SOMEWHERE. Some lucky types live in favourable geography for geothermal or hydro, but the rest of the world still has to decide between nuclear and fossil fuels. And fossil fuels produce much more, and less controlled, waste and radiation than nuclear. Compare if we dare: one person lifetime of nuclear power generates about 350ml (one coke can) of waste, which you can keep in dry cask storage and monitor. One person lifetime of coal power produces 77 tons of carbon, and 68 tons of solid waste, plus ash containing lead, mercury, arsenic, uranium, and thorium. The solid waste we can monitor, though it poses a much bigger dumping problem than our coke can of dry storage did. The rest goes into our atmosphere and lungs. Not to mention, that thorium and uranium in the ash is radioactive. Coal ash gives off up to 100 times more radiation than the waste from equivalent nuclear power generation. And this is released into the air. Don't be a sucker for the persuasion tricj of rejecting methods because they aren't perfect in the abstract. Always compare against the real alternatives. Nuclear does produce some waste, it is not a perfect world solution. But it's vastly better than any real world alternative we have, particularly on the waste front.
keypusher 10y ago
There's plenty of space for it to be stored, just not many people who want it stored near them.
kale 10y ago
Breeder reactors run on a different cycle, and allow uranium to capture neutrons and turn into plutonium (spallation). Last time I checked the US had two breeder reactors operational, to make material for nuclear weapons, and one ready but not operational. I think we could take a vast majority of the nuclear waste we have today and turn it into fuel. But it would make plutonium as part of the process, which makes some lawmakers uncomfortable since it's easier to make small nuclear bombs from plutonium. Why can't we build a breeder reactor near Yucca mountain, have a reactor core that's completely closed off from human interaction, and breed react current nuclear waste into energy? Design it to need refueling every 10 years or so, and have local national guard present during each refueling session. Considering it should need much less interaction than a non-breeding reactor, I think the plutonium threat could be mitigated.
zamalek 10y ago
Where are storing CO2? And do we have a method to move that CO2 to another storage location? Fission isn't a perfect solution, but it's vastly better than the current one. Having to figure out what to do with the waste is a desirable quality.

CamperBob2 10y ago

There's nowhere to put the stuff unless we start blasting it out into outer space or develop ways to use it for more energy. Put it in Antarctica.

Zardoz84 10y ago

And without founding on new kind of nuclear reactors that burns nuclear wasted. Good job!

oh_sigh 10y ago

Where are we putting waste from all the coal firing plants? Directly into the air!

einrealist 10y ago
Does not make it an excuse for nuclear either.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  When you have to choose one of two options, then yes it does offset.

Keyframe 10y ago

I agree that there are issues, but issues that can be solved if more research and energy is put into it. Nuclear waste being the primary concern. Space depot is an interesting option for sure. Nuclear became a priori taboo for some odd reason though. That's why it lacks political momentum behind it. Nuclear can and should be solution for this.

wang_li 10y ago

> We already have more nuclear waste than is currently able to be stored.. Don't you mean, "If only we had a place to externalize the waste storage problem." All the nuclear waste obviously has a place to store it, I mean it's somewhere right now isn't it?

ohthehugemanate 10y ago

You need baseload power from SOMEWHERE. Some lucky types live in favourable geography for geothermal or hydro, but the rest of the world still has to decide between nuclear and fossil fuels. And fossil fuels produce much more, and less controlled, waste and radiation than nuclear. Compare if we dare: one person lifetime of nuclear power generates about 350ml (one coke can) of waste, which you can keep in dry cask storage and monitor. One person lifetime of coal power produces 77 tons of carbon, and 68 tons of solid waste, plus ash containing lead, mercury, arsenic, uranium, and thorium. The solid waste we can monitor, though it poses a much bigger dumping problem than our coke can of dry storage did. The rest goes into our atmosphere and lungs. Not to mention, that thorium and uranium in the ash is radioactive. Coal ash gives off up to 100 times more radiation than the waste from equivalent nuclear power generation. And this is released into the air. Don't be a sucker for the persuasion tricj of rejecting methods because they aren't perfect in the abstract. Always compare against the real alternatives. Nuclear does produce some waste, it is not a perfect world solution. But it's vastly better than any real world alternative we have, particularly on the waste front.

keypusher 10y ago

There's plenty of space for it to be stored, just not many people who want it stored near them.

kale 10y ago

Breeder reactors run on a different cycle, and allow uranium to capture neutrons and turn into plutonium (spallation). Last time I checked the US had two breeder reactors operational, to make material for nuclear weapons, and one ready but not operational. I think we could take a vast majority of the nuclear waste we have today and turn it into fuel. But it would make plutonium as part of the process, which makes some lawmakers uncomfortable since it's easier to make small nuclear bombs from plutonium. Why can't we build a breeder reactor near Yucca mountain, have a reactor core that's completely closed off from human interaction, and breed react current nuclear waste into energy? Design it to need refueling every 10 years or so, and have local national guard present during each refueling session. Considering it should need much less interaction than a non-breeding reactor, I think the plutonium threat could be mitigated.

zamalek 10y ago

Where are storing CO2? And do we have a method to move that CO2 to another storage location? Fission isn't a perfect solution, but it's vastly better than the current one. Having to figure out what to do with the waste is a desirable quality.