3 ms·

> the public is skeptical regarding fission for good reason: history has not been kind to the kind of disasters fission reactors have wrought. It's not just th

by bhntr3 8y ago

> the public is skeptical regarding fission for good reason: history has not been kind to the kind of disasters fission reactors have wrought. It's not just that! I was pro-fission until someone educated me how horribly irresponsible we've been about our nuclear waste disposal. And how dangerous it is. Deep waste storage has been deadlocked in government since the 80s so waste is just hanging out by each reactor. If this funding and nuclear push doesn't include just finishing Yucca mountain, then imo it's a bad idea. It looks like some progress was made recently but given that it took 40 years to vet yucca mountain I hate the idea of more nuclear power concurrent with a restarted site selection process. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/looking-trash-can-nuclear-waste-management-united-states/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/looking-trash-can-nuc...

javagram 8y ago
According to the article, Bill Gates’ company is using a technology called TWR which is different from the fission reactors you mention. According to Wikipedia, “TWRs could theoretically run, self-sustained, for decades without refueling or removing spent fuel.” Agreed that the failure to finish and activate Yucca Mountain is ridiculous. Alternatively, we could be using that spent fuel in other reactors as I believe France does. Either way the current policy is irresponsible although it’s due to politics not technology.
- justatdotin 8y ago
  ah yes, those theoretical reactors are so much better than real ones.
  - 666lumberjack 8y ago
    Like the theoretical super-cheap batteries needed to make renewables actually practical as a comprehensive replacement for fossil fuel energy?
    - justatdotin 8y ago
      I'll admit the battery story has a way to go yet - I'm not relying totally on batteries yet. But battery farms are already playing a role around here.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stale2002 8y ago
The answer to the nuclear waste "problem" is that it doesn't matter. If we took all of our nuclear waste, and put it directly into our food supply, this would be a better situation than what we are in now. This is because of just how horrible coal is. Coal kills millions of people. Would taking our nuclear waste and feeding it to children cause millions of deaths? I think that's unlikely. Which means that it isn't as bad as coal. Opposing alternatives is the same exact thing as supporting the status quo. Unless the alternative also kills millions of people, then it is better than what we have now.

by bhntr3 8y ago

javagram 8y ago

According to the article, Bill Gates’ company is using a technology called TWR which is different from the fission reactors you mention. According to Wikipedia, “TWRs could theoretically run, self-sustained, for decades without refueling or removing spent fuel.” Agreed that the failure to finish and activate Yucca Mountain is ridiculous. Alternatively, we could be using that spent fuel in other reactors as I believe France does. Either way the current policy is irresponsible although it’s due to politics not technology.

justatdotin 8y ago
ah yes, those theoretical reactors are so much better than real ones.
- 666lumberjack 8y ago
  Like the theoretical super-cheap batteries needed to make renewables actually practical as a comprehensive replacement for fossil fuel energy?
  - justatdotin 8y ago
    I'll admit the battery story has a way to go yet - I'm not relying totally on batteries yet. But battery farms are already playing a role around here.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stale2002 8y ago

The answer to the nuclear waste "problem" is that it doesn't matter. If we took all of our nuclear waste, and put it directly into our food supply, this would be a better situation than what we are in now. This is because of just how horrible coal is. Coal kills millions of people. Would taking our nuclear waste and feeding it to children cause millions of deaths? I think that's unlikely. Which means that it isn't as bad as coal. Opposing alternatives is the same exact thing as supporting the status quo. Unless the alternative also kills millions of people, then it is better than what we have now.