3 ms·

Nuclear power is the only real option we have to limit climate change, that we can put into motion right now. The downsides are the politics associated, glacial

Nuclear power is the only real option we have to limit climate change, that we can put into motion right now. The downsides are the politics associated, glacial construction times, and the fact we still lack proper disposal sites. Critical thinking skills and more statistics education is something the world sorely needs.

option 7y ago
waste disposal is not as big of a problem for modern reactors
p_l 7y ago
You don't need waste disposal sites if you have full reprocessing chain. Which was made nearly-illegal and an invitation for us-sanctioned airstrike for several decades even if you abide by NPT, so...
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  My apologies, I was under the impression that waste was an order of magnitude lower on modern designs, but I was unaware it's effectively eliminated.
  - mimixco 7y ago
    The waste problem has in no way been solved. Reprocessing is, itself, horribly polluting and its waste byproducts are more dangerous than the original spent fuel rods. I'll also add here that Fukushima is still pouring radiation into the Pacific Ocean while we pontificate.
  - p_l 7y ago
    It's not so much eliminated, so much as we can reprocess a lot of what we now have as "waste". Yes, it still involves possibly polluting reagents (some common reagents are the same as in microchip production, btw). However, it enables use of different types of reactors and different total economy of nuclear power generation. The end result is that properly managed, you can limit remaining waste as well as extend usability of each kilogram of fissile material several times. Reprocessing of waste is also how several crucial isotopes are produced - for example, Canadian CANDU reactors are famous for producing important resources for medicine (radiation sources mainly). Similarly, Polish research reactors near Warsaw partially pay for their upkeep by reprocessing the spent fuel into medical isotopes and weapons-grade plutonium (which is then milled with uranium into MOX fuel for civilian reactors)
pfdietz 7y ago
Given its cost, nuclear is a less plausible alternative to limit climate change than renewables. This would not have been true even ten years ago, but times change. And some people have not adjusted their mental models to reflect that change.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Ten years ago I didn't even have an opinion on this. Evidence has lead me to this conclusion. Renewables have their own set of problems which need solving first, like battery storage. I think that's a much larger challenge than replacing coal with nuclear.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    No, I don't think that's true at all. Renewables are pulling away from nuclear. The cost advantage of renewables, and the continuing cost declines of renewables and of storage, have put nuclear into an almost impossible position. Everything is going to have break just right for nuclear to not go extinct as a practical technology for power generation.

option 7y ago

waste disposal is not as big of a problem for modern reactors

p_l 7y ago

You don't need waste disposal sites if you have full reprocessing chain. Which was made nearly-illegal and an invitation for us-sanctioned airstrike for several decades even if you abide by NPT, so...

cameronbrown 7y ago
My apologies, I was under the impression that waste was an order of magnitude lower on modern designs, but I was unaware it's effectively eliminated.
- mimixco 7y ago
  The waste problem has in no way been solved. Reprocessing is, itself, horribly polluting and its waste byproducts are more dangerous than the original spent fuel rods. I'll also add here that Fukushima is still pouring radiation into the Pacific Ocean while we pontificate.
- p_l 7y ago
  It's not so much eliminated, so much as we can reprocess a lot of what we now have as "waste". Yes, it still involves possibly polluting reagents (some common reagents are the same as in microchip production, btw). However, it enables use of different types of reactors and different total economy of nuclear power generation. The end result is that properly managed, you can limit remaining waste as well as extend usability of each kilogram of fissile material several times. Reprocessing of waste is also how several crucial isotopes are produced - for example, Canadian CANDU reactors are famous for producing important resources for medicine (radiation sources mainly). Similarly, Polish research reactors near Warsaw partially pay for their upkeep by reprocessing the spent fuel into medical isotopes and weapons-grade plutonium (which is then milled with uranium into MOX fuel for civilian reactors)

pfdietz 7y ago

Given its cost, nuclear is a less plausible alternative to limit climate change than renewables. This would not have been true even ten years ago, but times change. And some people have not adjusted their mental models to reflect that change.

cameronbrown 7y ago
Ten years ago I didn't even have an opinion on this. Evidence has lead me to this conclusion. Renewables have their own set of problems which need solving first, like battery storage. I think that's a much larger challenge than replacing coal with nuclear.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  No, I don't think that's true at all. Renewables are pulling away from nuclear. The cost advantage of renewables, and the continuing cost declines of renewables and of storage, have put nuclear into an almost impossible position. Everything is going to have break just right for nuclear to not go extinct as a practical technology for power generation.