3 ms·

When you show me how to safely store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to make it safe, I consider nuclear power as a safe, effecti

by 6d6b73 9y ago

When you show me how to safely store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to make it safe, I consider nuclear power as a safe, effective and economically viable option. If you care about the environment, tell me what would happen to all of the nuclear plants and the nuclear waste, if suddenly all or most of the people on this planet died?

bpodgursky 9y ago
Er... they would turn off? The 1 lizard in 10,000 years that accidentally wandered into Yucca mountain might die? I guess losing millions of acres of land and ecosystems to global warming is nothing, as long as we save that lizard.
- 6d6b73 9y ago
  Of, they will simply shut down. Right, and they not going to disintegrate within just a few decades. Even Chernobyl’s New Safe Confinement is designed to last only 100 years. With almost 500 reactors in the world, with 100 years of our disappearance at least some of them would go into meltdown, and destroy most of the life on the planet.. Nuclear indeed is a very environmental option.
  - bpodgursky 9y ago
    You need to do some research. I'm willing to debate points, but nonsense claims like "destroy most of the life on the planet" tell me you are an idealogue with no concept of the orders of magnitude involved in any failure scenario.
    - 6d6b73 9y ago
      Chernobyl and Fukushima were mostly contained by people that were around, yet they still had a profound effect on the environment. Doesn't it make sense that uncontrolled meltdowns at ~ 700 reactors world wide would release so much radiation that pretty much all higher forms of life would die off?
opo 9y ago
>...When you show me how to safely store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to make it safe, I consider nuclear power as a safe, effective and economically viable option. Right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amounts generated are manageable and in a relatively short amount of time we can use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.
- 6d6b73 9y ago
  > Right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste But it's not, and even when it was it would just reduce the amount not get rid of. Also it would make the whole nuclear energy economically unfeasible. ".Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components" From your linked article: "At present there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation". "While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least" If it's overblown why it's not a solved problem already? Nuclear power currently is not safe, waste storage is a problem, and it's not by any means economical.
  - opo 9y ago
    >But it's not, Reprocessing is done in various countries around the world though right now it is cheaper to refine new ore. >...Also it would make the whole nuclear energy economically unfeasible. The fuel cost is a small part of the cost so I am not sure why you think it would be "economically unfeasible". Over time it will likely become cheaper and as we continue to use uranium, that price will likely rise so the economics will likely shift. >...From your linked article: "At present there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation". Sigh. I was hoping that you were actually interested in having a dialogue and understanding the current state of things and where they will be in a few decades. When you ignore what I write and cherry pick responses, it looks more like you have a deeply held belief and it really doesn't matter what anyone says to you. What I wrote was "Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel:" - I did not say a 4th gen reactor that could burn waste was running right now. Most of the designs being worked on are generally not expected to be available for construction until the 2020s. Do you have any evidence that we can't store nuclear waste on site until a 4th gen reactor would be available? >...Nuclear power currently is not safe, waste storage is a problem, and it's not by any means economical. NOTHING is "safe" the way you define it. Walking across carries some risk, flying in a plane carries risk. The only thing you can do is to compare something it against its alternatives - flying a plane to go across the country is definitely safer than driving. When making a choice you need to worry about relative risk - rather than stay away from airplanes because they aren't "safe". Waste storage from any industrial process is a "problem" - the difference between nuclear and coal is that the industry and its regulators take the waste issue seriously and make sure no one is hurt by it. "and it's not by any means economical." - citation needed. France gets a majority of their power through nuclear power and has lower rates for electricity than its neighbors: >...France enjoys one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe; at 14.72 euro cents per kWh, the average cost of electricity in France is 26.5% cheaper than the EU average (20.02 euro cents per kWh). https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-cost https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-co... (France also reprocesses nuclear waste.) Your original comment was "When you show me how to safely store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to make it safe, I consider nuclear power as a safe effective and economically viable option." I have given you evidence that your original premise is false - we won't need to store high level wastes for "thousands of years". As I said, while there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from hydroelectric accidents, literally millions have died from burning fossil fuels, etc - in comparison I've never read of anyone who died from nuclear waste.

by 6d6b73 9y ago

bpodgursky 9y ago

Er... they would turn off? The 1 lizard in 10,000 years that accidentally wandered into Yucca mountain might die? I guess losing millions of acres of land and ecosystems to global warming is nothing, as long as we save that lizard.

6d6b73 9y ago
Of, they will simply shut down. Right, and they not going to disintegrate within just a few decades. Even Chernobyl’s New Safe Confinement is designed to last only 100 years. With almost 500 reactors in the world, with 100 years of our disappearance at least some of them would go into meltdown, and destroy most of the life on the planet.. Nuclear indeed is a very environmental option.
- bpodgursky 9y ago
  You need to do some research. I'm willing to debate points, but nonsense claims like "destroy most of the life on the planet" tell me you are an idealogue with no concept of the orders of magnitude involved in any failure scenario.
  - 6d6b73 9y ago
    Chernobyl and Fukushima were mostly contained by people that were around, yet they still had a profound effect on the environment. Doesn't it make sense that uncontrolled meltdowns at ~ 700 reactors world wide would release so much radiation that pretty much all higher forms of life would die off?

opo 9y ago

>...When you show me how to safely store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to make it safe, I consider nuclear power as a safe, effective and economically viable option. Right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amounts generated are manageable and in a relatively short amount of time we can use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.

6d6b73 9y ago
> Right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste But it's not, and even when it was it would just reduce the amount not get rid of. Also it would make the whole nuclear energy economically unfeasible. ".Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components" From your linked article: "At present there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation". "While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least" If it's overblown why it's not a solved problem already? Nuclear power currently is not safe, waste storage is a problem, and it's not by any means economical.
- opo 9y ago
  >But it's not, Reprocessing is done in various countries around the world though right now it is cheaper to refine new ore. >...Also it would make the whole nuclear energy economically unfeasible. The fuel cost is a small part of the cost so I am not sure why you think it would be "economically unfeasible". Over time it will likely become cheaper and as we continue to use uranium, that price will likely rise so the economics will likely shift. >...From your linked article: "At present there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation". Sigh. I was hoping that you were actually interested in having a dialogue and understanding the current state of things and where they will be in a few decades. When you ignore what I write and cherry pick responses, it looks more like you have a deeply held belief and it really doesn't matter what anyone says to you. What I wrote was "Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel:" - I did not say a 4th gen reactor that could burn waste was running right now. Most of the designs being worked on are generally not expected to be available for construction until the 2020s. Do you have any evidence that we can't store nuclear waste on site until a 4th gen reactor would be available? >...Nuclear power currently is not safe, waste storage is a problem, and it's not by any means economical. NOTHING is "safe" the way you define it. Walking across carries some risk, flying in a plane carries risk. The only thing you can do is to compare something it against its alternatives - flying a plane to go across the country is definitely safer than driving. When making a choice you need to worry about relative risk - rather than stay away from airplanes because they aren't "safe". Waste storage from any industrial process is a "problem" - the difference between nuclear and coal is that the industry and its regulators take the waste issue seriously and make sure no one is hurt by it. "and it's not by any means economical." - citation needed. France gets a majority of their power through nuclear power and has lower rates for electricity than its neighbors: >...France enjoys one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe; at 14.72 euro cents per kWh, the average cost of electricity in France is 26.5% cheaper than the EU average (20.02 euro cents per kWh). https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-cost https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-co... (France also reprocesses nuclear waste.) Your original comment was "When you show me how to safely store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to make it safe, I consider nuclear power as a safe effective and economically viable option." I have given you evidence that your original premise is false - we won't need to store high level wastes for "thousands of years". As I said, while there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from hydroelectric accidents, literally millions have died from burning fossil fuels, etc - in comparison I've never read of anyone who died from nuclear waste.