5 ms·

> Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap That's just hope. How convenient not hav

by Tepix 8y ago

> Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap That's just hope. How convenient not having to deal with the mess! To me, it sounds like a religion. The same argument could be applied to rising CO2 levels. Just let future generations figure it out. What could go wrong?

piokoch 8y ago
I think there are important differences. We know that wastes has energy (otherwise they would not radiate), there are stored in a well specified area. Unfortunately nuclear energy had a very bad PR for past 50 years, as a result nobody wanted to do any searcher in areas related to it). It seems that it is slightly better now, environmental organizations at least are not trying to occupy nuclear reactors, unfortunately still they are pushing wind farms and solar farms, even though they cannot be usable on a massive scale without efficient way to store energy surplus.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  > nuclear energy had a very bad PR for past 50 years There is not a positive way to tell people that will be forced to quit their homes, workplaces and properties when nuclear problems eventually arose but hide information or lie systematically about it does not help, neither does the "see no evil/ what could happen?/ but nobody died / your cancer is not my fault" permanent defensive stance deployed again and again. Nuclear energy sector worked hard to earn the current mistrust
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > There is not a positive way to tell people that will be forced to quit their homes, workplaces and properties when nuclear problems eventually arose ... That is an enormous problem, but the problem there is that governments aren't being held accountable for forcing people out of their homes. The Fukashima evacuation debatabley caused ~3 orders of magnitude more deaths than the Fukushima nuclear disaster ([0] see the sidebar for 2,000:1 figure and the opening paragraphs for the debatable part). When the cure is that much worse than the disease, we have to ask why we are forcing people to evacuate. Whenever the government enacts a policy there are the potential for statistical deaths. Approve a coal plant? Statistical deaths. Change safety standards? Statistical deaths. Drop speed limits? Statistical deaths. We can cope with some unidentifiable people being worse off. It happens all the time. The responses to nuclear risks are not only irrational, they are out of line with how we treat all other physical and chemical hazards. Statistical illness and deaths from nuclear are not worse than any other health issue. This is a fantastic time to use the science to make decisions, and it isn't at all obvious to what standard the exclusion zones are being managed. When the gap in damage done by the response and the crisis is that large there is a lot of room for questions to be asked (I wish I spoke Japanese so I could look up some primary reports on the subject). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
    - baud147258 8y ago
      > Drop speed limits? Statistical deaths In that case, is there an increase or decrease in statistical deaths? We had a recent change here and I'm interested on how it might change things
    - pvaldes 8y ago
      > We have to ask why we are forcing people to evacuate I guess that maybe is for things like that: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2915/2004/1600/belarus.jpg http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2915/2004/1600/belarus.jp... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#/media/File:Kiev-UkrainianNationalChernobylMuseum_15.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas...
netcan 8y ago
Rising co2 levels create problems now. Spent fuel, stored safely, doesn't. The "safely" caveat is controversial, maybe even dubious, certainly politically charged, but there's a fundamental difference here nonetheless.
cm2187 8y ago
co2 is not contained. Nuclear waste is.
08-15 8y ago
It's more than hope, it's engineering. Future generations don't need to figure anything out, because the last two generations already did. The Integral Fast Reactor was a reality in 1994, including a reprocessing scheme and inherent safety, when congress cut its funding. It's not my favorite reactor. My favorite, the molten chloride fast reactor, was theoretically investigated in 1972, including its potential for transmutation of actinides (excellent), I-129, Tc-99 (both good) and even Sr-90 and Cs-137 (both rather pointless). What could go wrong and in fact did go wrong is politics. That's what prevents the practical investigations.
- threeseed 8y ago
  It's not politics that is preventing nuclear. It's cost. Renewable is simply a cheaper, easier form of energy. And it gets cheaper every single day.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    > cheaper Renewable here are propped by subsidies even to get at the same price of nuclear-produced electricity, so I don't know how you get that.
    - aaronblohowiak 8y ago
      I believe that isn’t true if you include the externalized nuclear insurance costs
  - gwright 8y ago
    In your analysis, have you included the required base-load generation systems required when renewables aren't generating (night time, no wind) or the required storage systems (which actually don't exist) to time shift the energy supply?
    - threeseed 8y ago
      Actually the storage systems do exist. There are batteries, hydro etc. And many of the bids for power projects are including batteries as well.
manfredo 8y ago
> That's just hope. How convenient not having to deal with the mess! To me, it sounds like a religion. Er, no this is demonstrably false. France recycles >98% of its spent nuclear fuel in breeder reactors. This isn't fantasy, this is already existing technology. It's not as profitable at the moment which is why few countries recycle waste but it is absolutely something that could be done in the future. It's not like rising CO2 levels, and this comparison is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Rising CO2 in the atmosphere levels impact the environment, spent nuclear fuel buried underground does not. The possibility of contamination is either nullified by storing waste in areas already contaminated by nuclear testing, or by burying it miles underground.

by Tepix 8y ago

piokoch 8y ago

I think there are important differences. We know that wastes has energy (otherwise they would not radiate), there are stored in a well specified area. Unfortunately nuclear energy had a very bad PR for past 50 years, as a result nobody wanted to do any searcher in areas related to it). It seems that it is slightly better now, environmental organizations at least are not trying to occupy nuclear reactors, unfortunately still they are pushing wind farms and solar farms, even though they cannot be usable on a massive scale without efficient way to store energy surplus.

pvaldes 8y ago
> nuclear energy had a very bad PR for past 50 years There is not a positive way to tell people that will be forced to quit their homes, workplaces and properties when nuclear problems eventually arose but hide information or lie systematically about it does not help, neither does the "see no evil/ what could happen?/ but nobody died / your cancer is not my fault" permanent defensive stance deployed again and again. Nuclear energy sector worked hard to earn the current mistrust
- roenxi 8y ago
  > There is not a positive way to tell people that will be forced to quit their homes, workplaces and properties when nuclear problems eventually arose ... That is an enormous problem, but the problem there is that governments aren't being held accountable for forcing people out of their homes. The Fukashima evacuation debatabley caused ~3 orders of magnitude more deaths than the Fukushima nuclear disaster ([0] see the sidebar for 2,000:1 figure and the opening paragraphs for the debatable part). When the cure is that much worse than the disease, we have to ask why we are forcing people to evacuate. Whenever the government enacts a policy there are the potential for statistical deaths. Approve a coal plant? Statistical deaths. Change safety standards? Statistical deaths. Drop speed limits? Statistical deaths. We can cope with some unidentifiable people being worse off. It happens all the time. The responses to nuclear risks are not only irrational, they are out of line with how we treat all other physical and chemical hazards. Statistical illness and deaths from nuclear are not worse than any other health issue. This is a fantastic time to use the science to make decisions, and it isn't at all obvious to what standard the exclusion zones are being managed. When the gap in damage done by the response and the crisis is that large there is a lot of room for questions to be asked (I wish I spoke Japanese so I could look up some primary reports on the subject). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
  - baud147258 8y ago
    > Drop speed limits? Statistical deaths In that case, is there an increase or decrease in statistical deaths? We had a recent change here and I'm interested on how it might change things
  - pvaldes 8y ago
    > We have to ask why we are forcing people to evacuate I guess that maybe is for things like that: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2915/2004/1600/belarus.jpg http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2915/2004/1600/belarus.jp... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#/media/File:Kiev-UkrainianNationalChernobylMuseum_15.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas...

netcan 8y ago

Rising co2 levels create problems now. Spent fuel, stored safely, doesn't. The "safely" caveat is controversial, maybe even dubious, certainly politically charged, but there's a fundamental difference here nonetheless.

cm2187 8y ago

co2 is not contained. Nuclear waste is.

08-15 8y ago

It's more than hope, it's engineering. Future generations don't need to figure anything out, because the last two generations already did. The Integral Fast Reactor was a reality in 1994, including a reprocessing scheme and inherent safety, when congress cut its funding. It's not my favorite reactor. My favorite, the molten chloride fast reactor, was theoretically investigated in 1972, including its potential for transmutation of actinides (excellent), I-129, Tc-99 (both good) and even Sr-90 and Cs-137 (both rather pointless). What could go wrong and in fact did go wrong is politics. That's what prevents the practical investigations.

threeseed 8y ago
It's not politics that is preventing nuclear. It's cost. Renewable is simply a cheaper, easier form of energy. And it gets cheaper every single day.
- baud147258 8y ago
  > cheaper Renewable here are propped by subsidies even to get at the same price of nuclear-produced electricity, so I don't know how you get that.
  - aaronblohowiak 8y ago
    I believe that isn’t true if you include the externalized nuclear insurance costs
- gwright 8y ago
  In your analysis, have you included the required base-load generation systems required when renewables aren't generating (night time, no wind) or the required storage systems (which actually don't exist) to time shift the energy supply?
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Actually the storage systems do exist. There are batteries, hydro etc. And many of the bids for power projects are including batteries as well.

manfredo 8y ago

> That's just hope. How convenient not having to deal with the mess! To me, it sounds like a religion. Er, no this is demonstrably false. France recycles >98% of its spent nuclear fuel in breeder reactors. This isn't fantasy, this is already existing technology. It's not as profitable at the moment which is why few countries recycle waste but it is absolutely something that could be done in the future. It's not like rising CO2 levels, and this comparison is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Rising CO2 in the atmosphere levels impact the environment, spent nuclear fuel buried underground does not. The possibility of contamination is either nullified by storing waste in areas already contaminated by nuclear testing, or by burying it miles underground.