4 ms·

> Nuclear power is one of the few sources of clean energy well clean if you forget about the waste in the aftermath..

by merb 9y ago

briffle 9y ago
There is very little water in modern reactors, especially if we reprocess the spent rods. There is much more radioactive waste in Coal fly ash.
- bayesian_horse 9y ago
  The technology to process the spent rods is far from being commercialized and widely available. So far, "spent rods" are accumulating all over the world, mostly in temporary storage. Some in unsuitable long term storage. We can talk about acceptable nuclear waste production as soon as this changes...
  - acidburnNSA 9y ago
    We can talk about acceptable nuclear waste production right now. Reprocessing on one level has been commercialized for a long time [1]. Furthermore, geologic storage in a repository is ready to go and under construction [2]. Nuclear waste is a technically solved problem. You can get all your energy for your entire life (transportation, electricity, heat, everything) and the waste from conventional nukes would fit in 1.5 soda cans. Nasty stuff but easy to store safety. Nuclear reactors are probably the only energy source that can track the entirety of the toxic waste because the energy density is 2 million times the 2nd best. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear energy is a major life-saver, having already offset 1.8 million deaths that would have occurred had the nuclear fleet not been operational [3]. As far as I'm aware, zero or close to zero people have ever even been injured from stored commercial nuclear waste. Right? So why can't we talk about it now while hundreds of thousands are dying early right now from upper respiratory disease from fossil emissions? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA_La_Hague_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA_La_Hague_site [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... [3] https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Pr...
    - bayesian_horse 9y ago
      In reality, spent fuel rods are piling up next to the reactors they were spent in. At best they are moved to mid-term storage location, at worst the long term storage is failing. So, yes, there is some reprocessing going on. But it's obviously not even remotely on the scale which is needed to solve the issue.
mikeash 9y ago
Solar is only clean if you forget about the waste from manufacturing and end-of-life panels. Nothing is perfect. Nuclear is pretty good.
- bayesian_horse 9y ago
  To compare the waste of solar panel production with the highly radio active, highly toxic waste a nuclear reactor leaves behind, is like saying an Elefant's poop doesn't matter because a mouse poops too.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Nuclear produces far less waste, so I think your analogy is backwards. That waste is nasty, but the quantity is really small.
stcredzero 9y ago
If you look at the pollution produced by the various kinds of energy plants, nuclear looks kinda miraculous. Coal plants spew quite a bit of radiation into the environment: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... We have been spending millions looking into new technology to keep various pollutants from escaping the powerplant sites. In the case of nuclear, the pollutants stay onsite by default. So yes, nuclear could be argued to be extremely clean relative to other forms of electrical energy generation.

> Nuclear power is one of the few sources of clean energy well clean if you forget about the waste in the aftermath..

by merb 9y ago

> Nuclear power is one of the few sources of clean energy well clean if you forget about the waste in the aftermath..

There is very little water in modern reactors, especially if we reprocess the spent rods. There is much more radioactive waste in Coal fly ash.

bayesian_horse 9y ago
The technology to process the spent rods is far from being commercialized and widely available. So far, "spent rods" are accumulating all over the world, mostly in temporary storage. Some in unsuitable long term storage. We can talk about acceptable nuclear waste production as soon as this changes...
- acidburnNSA 9y ago
  We can talk about acceptable nuclear waste production right now. Reprocessing on one level has been commercialized for a long time [1]. Furthermore, geologic storage in a repository is ready to go and under construction [2]. Nuclear waste is a technically solved problem. You can get all your energy for your entire life (transportation, electricity, heat, everything) and the waste from conventional nukes would fit in 1.5 soda cans. Nasty stuff but easy to store safety. Nuclear reactors are probably the only energy source that can track the entirety of the toxic waste because the energy density is 2 million times the 2nd best. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear energy is a major life-saver, having already offset 1.8 million deaths that would have occurred had the nuclear fleet not been operational [3]. As far as I'm aware, zero or close to zero people have ever even been injured from stored commercial nuclear waste. Right? So why can't we talk about it now while hundreds of thousands are dying early right now from upper respiratory disease from fossil emissions? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA_La_Hague_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA_La_Hague_site [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... [3] https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Pr...
  - bayesian_horse 9y ago
    In reality, spent fuel rods are piling up next to the reactors they were spent in. At best they are moved to mid-term storage location, at worst the long term storage is failing. So, yes, there is some reprocessing going on. But it's obviously not even remotely on the scale which is needed to solve the issue.

mikeash 9y ago

Solar is only clean if you forget about the waste from manufacturing and end-of-life panels. Nothing is perfect. Nuclear is pretty good.

bayesian_horse 9y ago
To compare the waste of solar panel production with the highly radio active, highly toxic waste a nuclear reactor leaves behind, is like saying an Elefant's poop doesn't matter because a mouse poops too.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Nuclear produces far less waste, so I think your analogy is backwards. That waste is nasty, but the quantity is really small.

stcredzero 9y ago

If you look at the pollution produced by the various kinds of energy plants, nuclear looks kinda miraculous. Coal plants spew quite a bit of radiation into the environment: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... We have been spending millions looking into new technology to keep various pollutants from escaping the powerplant sites. In the case of nuclear, the pollutants stay onsite by default. So yes, nuclear could be argued to be extremely clean relative to other forms of electrical energy generation.