3 ms·

There are plans for it, use a next generation reactor that uses waste as fuel. That may take a few decades but it seems the most capitalistic way, and thus the

There are plans for it, use a next generation reactor that uses waste as fuel. That may take a few decades but it seems the most capitalistic way, and thus the most likely way.

ljf 7y ago
And if solar and wind and storage become cheap enough that the next generation reactors are never needed? Then what? A plan based on tech which either isn't created or not yet deployable is a little too handwavy for me.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Then we'll be worried about the environmental and economic implications of mining for, manufacturing, maintaining, replacing, and recycling that scale of steel, fiberglass, glass, concrete, rare earths, and 10000 skyscrapers of lithium per USA-sized-country. Recall that in winter there is 4x less sun, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow for 10 days in a row across massive multi-state regions. The storage implications of that are ludicrous. It's far cheaper to decarbonize with a good mix of variable renewables and nuclear, even with nuclear at its current high price.
pjc50 7y ago
We literally do not have time for "few decades". This is why we're building out renewables at the rate we are. (Also, the breeder reactors only use spent fuel - most "waste" by volume is lower level waste of various kinds. Especially from decommissioning.)
- ljf 7y ago
  Totally this - I've often seen it stated that all the spent nuclear fuel in the world could fit in a lorry. Great - whoop. But that ignores the huge amount of other radioactive wastes that are generated each day, and have no 'useful' future ahead of them right now - other than landfill in a 'secure' site. Totally agree that we need to stop polluting our air and needlessly killing 4 million people a year with emissions - but we really need a realistic plan if we are going to go the nuclear route.

3 ms·

There are plans for it, use a next generation reactor that uses waste as fuel. That may take a few decades but it seems the most capitalistic way, and thus the

by Dumblydorr 7y ago

There are plans for it, use a next generation reactor that uses waste as fuel. That may take a few decades but it seems the most capitalistic way, and thus the most likely way.

ljf 7y ago
And if solar and wind and storage become cheap enough that the next generation reactors are never needed? Then what? A plan based on tech which either isn't created or not yet deployable is a little too handwavy for me.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Then we'll be worried about the environmental and economic implications of mining for, manufacturing, maintaining, replacing, and recycling that scale of steel, fiberglass, glass, concrete, rare earths, and 10000 skyscrapers of lithium per USA-sized-country. Recall that in winter there is 4x less sun, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow for 10 days in a row across massive multi-state regions. The storage implications of that are ludicrous. It's far cheaper to decarbonize with a good mix of variable renewables and nuclear, even with nuclear at its current high price.
pjc50 7y ago
We literally do not have time for "few decades". This is why we're building out renewables at the rate we are. (Also, the breeder reactors only use spent fuel - most "waste" by volume is lower level waste of various kinds. Especially from decommissioning.)
- ljf 7y ago
  Totally this - I've often seen it stated that all the spent nuclear fuel in the world could fit in a lorry. Great - whoop. But that ignores the huge amount of other radioactive wastes that are generated each day, and have no 'useful' future ahead of them right now - other than landfill in a 'secure' site. Totally agree that we need to stop polluting our air and needlessly killing 4 million people a year with emissions - but we really need a realistic plan if we are going to go the nuclear route.