4 ms·

One of the major problems is we were told our current reactors would provide safe and environmentally fuel. The trouble is it's not as clean as most people thin

One of the major problems is we were told our current reactors would provide safe and environmentally fuel. The trouble is it's not as clean as most people think. Mining Uranium ore does have a significant environmental impact. There have been leaks at plants; trace amounts of tritium has been found around breeder reactors like Watts Bar (and TVA has bought up more and more of the land around the area). The waste, currently held on site at most plants, is another big issue. Engineers will tell you it's depleted and encased in half a meter of concrete that won't break down for tens of thousands of years. Some of these containers are already leaking. There have been several recent controversies recently on the Yukka Mountain facility. While newer reactors may not have these problems, the fact is there are problems we weren't aware up that cropped up from our traditional Boiling/Pressurized Water Reactors that companies will not fess up to. That's why people are apprehensive. I don't think that will go away unless someone discovered how to make Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) viable .. which would also involve understanding how/why they world, and getting them to work consistently (which no one has).

Turbots 9y ago
or, you know, get fusion to work /sarcasm
godelski 9y ago
I'm going to start off saying we NEED Yucca Mountain, BUT you seem to think this stuff is more dangerous than it is. Myself and many others that work with these technologies aren't actually happy about the new John Oliver episode. > Mining Uranium ore does have a significant environmental impact. I'm glad you bring that up. To actually understand how much of an impact we need to compare it to things. The human mind isn't good at putting into perspective raw numbers when they are that large, it's just "a lot". When you include the mining of both solar and uranium plants, you actually get around the same total environmental impact. I make this comparison because I've never heard anyone complain about the switch to solar. When we compare to coal mining, fracking, or oil drilling, uranium is tiny. Or even comparing to computers and cell phones. > The waste, currently held on site at most plants, is another big issue. I carry a vial of tritium around in my pocket? Why? Because it glows and is a fun conversation. I have no worry about it irradiating my junk because it is a beta emitter that has low penetrating power (~6mm of air). The danger of tritium is soft tissue. So just don't drink it or rub it in your eyes. Granted a leak is more worrisome, but its danger is nowhere near that of the heavy elements. There will always be some waste, but nuclear has done a pretty good job compared to other energy sources because of the fear. Some fear is healthy, especially with this tech. But, again, we NEED Yucca Mountain. There's not much waste, but we should put it in the proper place. > While newer reactors may not have these problems, the fact is there are problems we weren't aware up that cropped up... You're discussing concerns about decades old technologies. Remember, that was the same era we were arguing over lead in gasoline, asbestos, and aerosols. Sure, we have problems today, but it isn't the same magnitude. No one in their right mind would shoot a nuclear waste container, or even put it in that small of a container anymore. Things have really changed in the last 50 years, and nuclear tech has been progressing in that time too. >I don't think that will go away unless someone discovered how to make Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) viable Call it what it is, cold fusion. I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. But ITER and other fusion facilities are showing promising results. But fusion is not just a different ballpark from fission, it is a completely different game (energy and safety).
- mncharity 9y ago
  > concerns about decades old technologies. Remember [...] Things have really changed in the last 50 years A cautionary tale about this flavor of argument. I saw a panel of Boston city planners. They complained about still getting grief for the "original sin" (their phrase) of some really bad decision making (like Boston City Hall) in the 1960's and 70's. It was half a century ago they said. We're not like that anymore they said. They seemed quite miffed about it. Then they later mentioned Boston's recent Big Dig, and some of its impacts. And the description was surprisingly distorted. Not even a defensive "none of the failure was our fault!", though that was implicit. But more, almost an obliviousness towards causality. And certainly no recognition that their brief description of their field's "no longer relevant" 1960's flaws, seemed to overlap quite a bit with failure postmortems of the Big Dig. This combination of arguments was remarkably effective in trashing their perceived credibility.

Turbots 9y ago

or, you know, get fusion to work /sarcasm

godelski 9y ago

I'm going to start off saying we NEED Yucca Mountain, BUT you seem to think this stuff is more dangerous than it is. Myself and many others that work with these technologies aren't actually happy about the new John Oliver episode. > Mining Uranium ore does have a significant environmental impact. I'm glad you bring that up. To actually understand how much of an impact we need to compare it to things. The human mind isn't good at putting into perspective raw numbers when they are that large, it's just "a lot". When you include the mining of both solar and uranium plants, you actually get around the same total environmental impact. I make this comparison because I've never heard anyone complain about the switch to solar. When we compare to coal mining, fracking, or oil drilling, uranium is tiny. Or even comparing to computers and cell phones. > The waste, currently held on site at most plants, is another big issue. I carry a vial of tritium around in my pocket? Why? Because it glows and is a fun conversation. I have no worry about it irradiating my junk because it is a beta emitter that has low penetrating power (~6mm of air). The danger of tritium is soft tissue. So just don't drink it or rub it in your eyes. Granted a leak is more worrisome, but its danger is nowhere near that of the heavy elements. There will always be some waste, but nuclear has done a pretty good job compared to other energy sources because of the fear. Some fear is healthy, especially with this tech. But, again, we NEED Yucca Mountain. There's not much waste, but we should put it in the proper place. > While newer reactors may not have these problems, the fact is there are problems we weren't aware up that cropped up... You're discussing concerns about decades old technologies. Remember, that was the same era we were arguing over lead in gasoline, asbestos, and aerosols. Sure, we have problems today, but it isn't the same magnitude. No one in their right mind would shoot a nuclear waste container, or even put it in that small of a container anymore. Things have really changed in the last 50 years, and nuclear tech has been progressing in that time too. >I don't think that will go away unless someone discovered how to make Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) viable Call it what it is, cold fusion. I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. But ITER and other fusion facilities are showing promising results. But fusion is not just a different ballpark from fission, it is a completely different game (energy and safety).

mncharity 9y ago
> concerns about decades old technologies. Remember [...] Things have really changed in the last 50 years A cautionary tale about this flavor of argument. I saw a panel of Boston city planners. They complained about still getting grief for the "original sin" (their phrase) of some really bad decision making (like Boston City Hall) in the 1960's and 70's. It was half a century ago they said. We're not like that anymore they said. They seemed quite miffed about it. Then they later mentioned Boston's recent Big Dig, and some of its impacts. And the description was surprisingly distorted. Not even a defensive "none of the failure was our fault!", though that was implicit. But more, almost an obliviousness towards causality. And certainly no recognition that their brief description of their field's "no longer relevant" 1960's flaws, seemed to overlap quite a bit with failure postmortems of the Big Dig. This combination of arguments was remarkably effective in trashing their perceived credibility.