3 ms·

> but they have nothing to do with incorrect operation of the reactor or any inherent danger or factors not being understood in the reactor design. To the cont

by onli 7y ago

> but they have nothing to do with incorrect operation of the reactor or any inherent danger or factors not being understood in the reactor design. To the contrary, society's inability to deal with the radioactive waste created by running these reactors is one of the main concerns against nuclear power.

pdonis 7y ago
> society's inability to deal with the radioactive waste This is a political problem, not a technical problem. The only country using nuclear power that even has the political problem is the US. As noted elsewhere in this thread, every other country that uses nuclear power reprocesses the spent fuel and does not have a nuclear waste problem.
- onli 7y ago
  That's completely wrong, how did you get that idea? All countries with nuclear waste I'm aware of have the same nuclear waste problem. Germany is one example and probably the worst offender, it does not even have one nuclear waste storage facility (and early tries looked like this: https://static.geo.de/bilder/51/5b/41390/article_image_big/07f40e888e72deab5b916fe082766e3f.jpg https://static.geo.de/bilder/51/5b/41390/article_image_big/0...) and just exports it to other countries (mainly France) that store it in other temporary places. Last time I looked into it not one country had the ability to reprocess the fuel (and how would that work anyway?) and there was only one country in Europe that claimed it will have a storage facility fit for storing the waste forever, highly disputed (there are multiple for weakly radioactive waste but none for the highly radioactive stuff). > This is a political problem, not a technical problem Even if that were true (it isn't) that wouldn't not make it any better. Nuclear energy would still be way too dangerous, it doesn't matter whether the cause for its danger technical or political. --- No one besides us two will read this, so I will add something I normally would not: You claim a lot of falsehoods in this thread, like this now and the navy incidents. May I politely invite you to inform yourself a little bit better about this nuclear energy question? I really think that the political power amassed on HN could influence future politics on this question, and HN loves technical solution but sometimes misses the sensitivity for the danger on nuclear energy (probably reflecting that in the US there is no proper green energy movement and knowledge about this is in general limited). You adding completely wrong information to the discussion does not help improving the situation. So, as a real honest request: Please read up a bit more on this and don't spread pro-nuclear propaganda here.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > Last time I looked into it not one country had the ability to reprocess the fuel (and how would that work anyway?) Nobody has reprocessing capacity? You don't know how reprocessing would work? Are you serious? http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cy... Note the "reprocessing capacity" table. > May I politely invite you to inform yourself a little bit better about this nuclear energy question? I think you are the one who needs to better inform yourself. I definitely think you need to do that before accusing anyone else of claiming falsehoods.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > Nuclear energy would still be way too dangerous, it doesn't matter whether the cause for its danger technical or political. Nuclear energy has caused orders of magnitude less harm per unit of energy generated than any other power source. So you have things entirely backwards here.

by onli 7y ago

pdonis 7y ago

> society's inability to deal with the radioactive waste This is a political problem, not a technical problem. The only country using nuclear power that even has the political problem is the US. As noted elsewhere in this thread, every other country that uses nuclear power reprocesses the spent fuel and does not have a nuclear waste problem.

onli 7y ago
That's completely wrong, how did you get that idea? All countries with nuclear waste I'm aware of have the same nuclear waste problem. Germany is one example and probably the worst offender, it does not even have one nuclear waste storage facility (and early tries looked like this: https://static.geo.de/bilder/51/5b/41390/article_image_big/07f40e888e72deab5b916fe082766e3f.jpg https://static.geo.de/bilder/51/5b/41390/article_image_big/0...) and just exports it to other countries (mainly France) that store it in other temporary places. Last time I looked into it not one country had the ability to reprocess the fuel (and how would that work anyway?) and there was only one country in Europe that claimed it will have a storage facility fit for storing the waste forever, highly disputed (there are multiple for weakly radioactive waste but none for the highly radioactive stuff). > This is a political problem, not a technical problem Even if that were true (it isn't) that wouldn't not make it any better. Nuclear energy would still be way too dangerous, it doesn't matter whether the cause for its danger technical or political. --- No one besides us two will read this, so I will add something I normally would not: You claim a lot of falsehoods in this thread, like this now and the navy incidents. May I politely invite you to inform yourself a little bit better about this nuclear energy question? I really think that the political power amassed on HN could influence future politics on this question, and HN loves technical solution but sometimes misses the sensitivity for the danger on nuclear energy (probably reflecting that in the US there is no proper green energy movement and knowledge about this is in general limited). You adding completely wrong information to the discussion does not help improving the situation. So, as a real honest request: Please read up a bit more on this and don't spread pro-nuclear propaganda here.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > Last time I looked into it not one country had the ability to reprocess the fuel (and how would that work anyway?) Nobody has reprocessing capacity? You don't know how reprocessing would work? Are you serious? http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cy... Note the "reprocessing capacity" table. > May I politely invite you to inform yourself a little bit better about this nuclear energy question? I think you are the one who needs to better inform yourself. I definitely think you need to do that before accusing anyone else of claiming falsehoods.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > Nuclear energy would still be way too dangerous, it doesn't matter whether the cause for its danger technical or political. Nuclear energy has caused orders of magnitude less harm per unit of energy generated than any other power source. So you have things entirely backwards here.