5 ms·

There is also the problem of nuclear waste being highly radioactive for thousands of years and us not knowing how to deal with it properly.

by tobib 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bargl 7y ago
These are some factiods I've been accumulating on Nuclear, which I'm still trying to refine and learn more about, so any corrections on this would be appreciated if I'm factually wrong: 1) Thorium is safer but isn't being used effectively. Mostly because development of Nuclear power coincided with nuclear weapons, and Thorium can't be used to make weapons. 2) We can re-enrich nuclear waste but don't because of regulations. My understanding here is that the waste product becomes much smaller. 3) We have no clue what were going to do with all the solar panels after we're done with them either? They contain a ton of lead. They also produces something like 1000x the waste mass as nuclear. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't go this route, but I AM saying that we really need to have a wholistic well thought out solution rather than knee jerk fear. 4) If you compare CO2 emissions of France and Germany, one who went all in Nuclear and the other who went all in Solar/Wind. France has significantly dropped their CO2 emissions. 5) Gas power plants are typically used to supplement the downturn in supply of Solar/Wind. Nuclear is a terrible supplement for this. Now Opinion: I think that it's safer in the short term (assuming Global Climate Change for deniers out there) that Nuclear power is a better option for large scale reduction of CO2 Emissions until we have repeatable large scale solutions with solar/wind that are both recyclable and work at night / when wind is down. Because to support Solar/Wind Germany has had to rely on Gas power plants to supplement their gap in supply. Which they sell the excess to their neighbors instead. As I stated above, I'm still digging around forming an opinion on this but it's why I'm at where I am now.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  Thorium, alternative reactors, reprocessing - all of this requires a lot of research and it's exceedingly expensive. Private entities won't touch it and it's difficult for governments to invest. If the numbers added up China would be doing it already, but even for them - where they can still socialize the costs of failure (i.e. if it blows up, oh well, whereas in the West there's $100B in lawsuits) - it's expensive.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    Private entities won't touch it and it's difficult for governments to invest. Not Thorium, but Bill Gates is invested in alternative nuclear, along with the US govt: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower
    - sonnyblarney 7y ago
      Yes, thorium. And everything else. Gates put $35M into it, which is peanuts. In order to transform Nuclear the R&D will have to be in the order of billions. Drug companies can put more than that into a single failed drug, for comparison.
  - keanzu 7y ago
    A nuclear meltdown in China would call into question the government’s competence. “If an event like Fukushima punctures that image of competence, that’s very, very consequential,” says William Overholt, a China expert at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. “That would delegitimize the regime.”
- mjevans 7y ago
  Nuclear likes to produce a slow, steady, constant output. If there aren't good on demand fill sources the alternative (point 5) either involves batteries (or another reservoir of some-kind, EG reverse pump hydro; which BTW exists near some river dams) OR a variable consumer. A consumer that doesn't mind getting suddenly cut without warning. This might be an electrolysis process for separating water in to hydrogen and oxygen for industrial applications / chemical fuel production, or it could be some other similar process that might benefit from a stable run cycle but isn't catastrophically affected by loss of power.
  - erentz 7y ago
    Nuclear can absolutely load follow. It's just not used that way today in the USA because the nuclear generation capacity is below the base load, the cost is completely sunk, so you as the plant owner might as well run it at 100% and sell all of the electricity into the grid. If nuclear was a much larger component of the overall generation capacity in the USA we'd see them load following up and down over the 24 hour cycle.
aeneasmackenzie 7y ago
1. Dig a hole 2. Put a fence around the hole 3. Put a sign on the fence saying "if you cross this fence you will die" 4. Put radioactive waste in the hole 5. Cover the hole It's not a complicated problem.
- Larrikin 7y ago
  How do you prevent it from raining on the fenced off area?
  - brianpgordon 7y ago
    The way around this is to put the waste in an old salt mine. Salt deposits accumulated there in the first place because it's been dry for thousands of years due to geological features like an impermeable rock dome overhead. The real problem is that nobody wants this waste dump in their state. The Yucca Mountain complex is pretty much perfect for this application but politicians killed it.
- shermozle 7y ago
  And yet it still hasn't been done. Why do you think that is?
  - user5994461 7y ago
    It's already done. What makes you think it wasn't done?
- zwerdlds 7y ago
  I hate water tables too.
- D_Alex 7y ago
  "We cannot guarantee that any simple or complex message, even when recognized and correctly interpreted, will deter a human being from inappropriate action." From https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi/1992/921382.pdf https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi... See also https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor/ https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of...
dTal 7y ago
My understanding was that waste, or indeed any radioactive substance, is either highly radioactive for a short period of time, or not very radioactive for a long time. A mole of stuff has a set number of spare neutrons, and it can release them either quickly or slowly. If it releases them quickly ("highly radioactive"), we can probably get power from it somehow.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

There is also the problem of nuclear waste being highly radioactive for thousands of years and us not knowing how to deal with it properly.

by tobib 7y ago

There is also the problem of nuclear waste being highly radioactive for thousands of years and us not knowing how to deal with it properly.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bargl 7y ago

These are some factiods I've been accumulating on Nuclear, which I'm still trying to refine and learn more about, so any corrections on this would be appreciated if I'm factually wrong: 1) Thorium is safer but isn't being used effectively. Mostly because development of Nuclear power coincided with nuclear weapons, and Thorium can't be used to make weapons. 2) We can re-enrich nuclear waste but don't because of regulations. My understanding here is that the waste product becomes much smaller. 3) We have no clue what were going to do with all the solar panels after we're done with them either? They contain a ton of lead. They also produces something like 1000x the waste mass as nuclear. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't go this route, but I AM saying that we really need to have a wholistic well thought out solution rather than knee jerk fear. 4) If you compare CO2 emissions of France and Germany, one who went all in Nuclear and the other who went all in Solar/Wind. France has significantly dropped their CO2 emissions. 5) Gas power plants are typically used to supplement the downturn in supply of Solar/Wind. Nuclear is a terrible supplement for this. Now Opinion: I think that it's safer in the short term (assuming Global Climate Change for deniers out there) that Nuclear power is a better option for large scale reduction of CO2 Emissions until we have repeatable large scale solutions with solar/wind that are both recyclable and work at night / when wind is down. Because to support Solar/Wind Germany has had to rely on Gas power plants to supplement their gap in supply. Which they sell the excess to their neighbors instead. As I stated above, I'm still digging around forming an opinion on this but it's why I'm at where I am now.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
Thorium, alternative reactors, reprocessing - all of this requires a lot of research and it's exceedingly expensive. Private entities won't touch it and it's difficult for governments to invest. If the numbers added up China would be doing it already, but even for them - where they can still socialize the costs of failure (i.e. if it blows up, oh well, whereas in the West there's $100B in lawsuits) - it's expensive.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  Private entities won't touch it and it's difficult for governments to invest. Not Thorium, but Bill Gates is invested in alternative nuclear, along with the US govt: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    Yes, thorium. And everything else. Gates put $35M into it, which is peanuts. In order to transform Nuclear the R&D will have to be in the order of billions. Drug companies can put more than that into a single failed drug, for comparison.
- keanzu 7y ago
  A nuclear meltdown in China would call into question the government’s competence. “If an event like Fukushima punctures that image of competence, that’s very, very consequential,” says William Overholt, a China expert at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. “That would delegitimize the regime.”
mjevans 7y ago
Nuclear likes to produce a slow, steady, constant output. If there aren't good on demand fill sources the alternative (point 5) either involves batteries (or another reservoir of some-kind, EG reverse pump hydro; which BTW exists near some river dams) OR a variable consumer. A consumer that doesn't mind getting suddenly cut without warning. This might be an electrolysis process for separating water in to hydrogen and oxygen for industrial applications / chemical fuel production, or it could be some other similar process that might benefit from a stable run cycle but isn't catastrophically affected by loss of power.
- erentz 7y ago
  Nuclear can absolutely load follow. It's just not used that way today in the USA because the nuclear generation capacity is below the base load, the cost is completely sunk, so you as the plant owner might as well run it at 100% and sell all of the electricity into the grid. If nuclear was a much larger component of the overall generation capacity in the USA we'd see them load following up and down over the 24 hour cycle.

aeneasmackenzie 7y ago

1. Dig a hole 2. Put a fence around the hole 3. Put a sign on the fence saying "if you cross this fence you will die" 4. Put radioactive waste in the hole 5. Cover the hole It's not a complicated problem.

Larrikin 7y ago
How do you prevent it from raining on the fenced off area?
- brianpgordon 7y ago
  The way around this is to put the waste in an old salt mine. Salt deposits accumulated there in the first place because it's been dry for thousands of years due to geological features like an impermeable rock dome overhead. The real problem is that nobody wants this waste dump in their state. The Yucca Mountain complex is pretty much perfect for this application but politicians killed it.
shermozle 7y ago
And yet it still hasn't been done. Why do you think that is?
- user5994461 7y ago
  It's already done. What makes you think it wasn't done?
zwerdlds 7y ago
I hate water tables too.
D_Alex 7y ago
"We cannot guarantee that any simple or complex message, even when recognized and correctly interpreted, will deter a human being from inappropriate action." From https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi/1992/921382.pdf https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi... See also https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor/ https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of...

dTal 7y ago

My understanding was that waste, or indeed any radioactive substance, is either highly radioactive for a short period of time, or not very radioactive for a long time. A mole of stuff has a set number of spare neutrons, and it can release them either quickly or slowly. If it releases them quickly ("highly radioactive"), we can probably get power from it somehow.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]