17 ms·

I sincerely hope you realize oceans are functioning ecosystems and not conveniently located safe zones for nuclear disasters. This is the sort of cavalier attit

I sincerely hope you realize oceans are functioning ecosystems and not conveniently located safe zones for nuclear disasters. This is the sort of cavalier attitude toward the nuclear waste and accident problem that permeates nearly every HN thread on this topic — and it comes up a lot.

lucio 8y ago
Add NIMO to the list of social blockage
virmundi 8y ago
While we need to be aware of environmental impacts, the same is true of how to mitigate them using existing processes. The French recycle their fuel. Eventually it's not usable in their traditional reactors. They ship the waste to a plant that creates glass logs. The material is then safely stored, as a solid, underground. The US does a poor job of recycling due to the fact that it listened to the environmentalists and anti-terrorist groups in the 70s. Jimmy Carter was told that recycling was bad for the environment (won't someone think of the children if the train overturns), was not cost effective, and would lead to nuclear proliferation due to terrorists dropping from the sky and stealing the train to Mexico [2]. Now we can recycle, and we can reuse the fuel to breed new fuel sources. If we did this 30 years ago, even just the first half of the last clause, we would not be looking down the barrel of climate change. 1 - https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-its-nuclear-waste/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-i... 2 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-nuclear-fuel/#6c097aa390f1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-... * Edit a typo thing of the children -> think of the children.
- bdamm 8y ago
  Well, except we would, because the cost of nuclear plants didn't go to zero and still suffers from NIMBY, especially after Three Mile Island. Which is all a shame given how much better modern designs are.
- abalone 8y ago
  > (won't someone think of the children if the train overturns) > proliferation due to terrorists dropping from the sky This is exactly what I mean by a cavalier attitude towards these problems. It is dismissive, uses manipulative phrasing like the president "was told" that removes his agency, paints environmentalists as all powerful agents of manipulation, etc. France is not a perfect example. Fukushima demonstrated the kind of disaster that can happen despite best efforts and good operating records, and there is much debate in France about the risks of relying on nuclear going forward.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Symmetry 8y ago
We shouldn't ignore waste or accident problems of course but it's always important to compare them to the alternatives. Given the problem of ocean accidification it's hard to see how replacing fossil fuel plants with nuclear isn't a net ocean environmental win. And replacing a coal power plant in china with a nuclear a nuclear plant you know is going to have a Fukushima meltdown in 30 years is still better for people and the environment. Or 10 "clean coal" power plants in the US with 10 nuclear plants of which 1 will melt down. Of course, it's far better for health and the environment if we can replace them with solar and batteries. But perspective on the dangers of nuclear compared to fossil fuels is important.

lucio 8y ago

Add NIMO to the list of social blockage

virmundi 8y ago

While we need to be aware of environmental impacts, the same is true of how to mitigate them using existing processes. The French recycle their fuel. Eventually it's not usable in their traditional reactors. They ship the waste to a plant that creates glass logs. The material is then safely stored, as a solid, underground. The US does a poor job of recycling due to the fact that it listened to the environmentalists and anti-terrorist groups in the 70s. Jimmy Carter was told that recycling was bad for the environment (won't someone think of the children if the train overturns), was not cost effective, and would lead to nuclear proliferation due to terrorists dropping from the sky and stealing the train to Mexico [2]. Now we can recycle, and we can reuse the fuel to breed new fuel sources. If we did this 30 years ago, even just the first half of the last clause, we would not be looking down the barrel of climate change. 1 - https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-its-nuclear-waste/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-i... 2 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-nuclear-fuel/#6c097aa390f1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-... * Edit a typo thing of the children -> think of the children.

bdamm 8y ago
Well, except we would, because the cost of nuclear plants didn't go to zero and still suffers from NIMBY, especially after Three Mile Island. Which is all a shame given how much better modern designs are.
abalone 8y ago
> (won't someone think of the children if the train overturns) > proliferation due to terrorists dropping from the sky This is exactly what I mean by a cavalier attitude towards these problems. It is dismissive, uses manipulative phrasing like the president "was told" that removes his agency, paints environmentalists as all powerful agents of manipulation, etc. France is not a perfect example. Fukushima demonstrated the kind of disaster that can happen despite best efforts and good operating records, and there is much debate in France about the risks of relying on nuclear going forward.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Symmetry 8y ago

We shouldn't ignore waste or accident problems of course but it's always important to compare them to the alternatives. Given the problem of ocean accidification it's hard to see how replacing fossil fuel plants with nuclear isn't a net ocean environmental win. And replacing a coal power plant in china with a nuclear a nuclear plant you know is going to have a Fukushima meltdown in 30 years is still better for people and the environment. Or 10 "clean coal" power plants in the US with 10 nuclear plants of which 1 will melt down. Of course, it's far better for health and the environment if we can replace them with solar and batteries. But perspective on the dangers of nuclear compared to fossil fuels is important.