6 ms·

> In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. This is the type of fear mongering that ca

by mbell 7y ago

> In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. This is the type of fear mongering that caused the current situation.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Valgrim 7y ago
Long term, large scale containment of radioactive waste is an unsolved problem. Nuclear advocates have two answers to this problem: A) We'll solve it later (we should research fuel reprocessing, we have an urgency to act, etc.) B) It's not really a problem (people don't actually die from radioactive waste, most nuclear plants have proven themselves safely managed, etc.) Both answer sound like sweeping the dust under the rug. What happens when (not if) a catastrophe occurs? If a war breaks out, how can you guarantee the safety of all nuclear power plants around the world? If a country economy collapses, how will nuclear engineers get paid? If an epidemic of a deadly disease spreads worldwide, how many people can die before there is not enough people to safely operate a nuclear plant? We cannot sweep this under the rug. Nuclear energy may be theorically cheap to implement, but the potential cost of an uncontrollable failure is too great.
- ageofwant 7y ago
  What if technicolor monkeys start flying out of my arse ? Whataboutism aside, today, right now, thousands of coal fired power plants are polluting the air I breathe with more radioactive waste, particulates and CO2, to a degree not seen in the last 800k years. Your catastrophe is real and happening right now, in real time, today, this minute.
- umvi 7y ago
  A modern thorium/uranium recycling pipeline should only produce small amounts of "final" waste (and only after waste has been iteratively recycled many times). That final waste takes a few hundred years to decay, but if contained, it is harmless to the environment. So, create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste, and create a pipeline. At the end of the pipeline, the containers are empty and can be used at the start again. Who knows, we may even be able to figure out a way to extract even more energy from the "final" waste eventually. Consider that the final nuclear waste passively disappears after a few hundred years, whereas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not passively disappear in a few hundred years - it must be actively removed by plants, but the plants can't keep up with humans.
  - benj111 7y ago
    "create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste" 200 years ago the world was a very different place. I'm struggling to think of any building not including houses still used for their original purpose, from that long ago. So while I don't doubt that we could build a structure that lasts 200 years, I doubt we could build some kind of continuously used industrial building without it becoming some kind of ship of Theseus. Now that in itself isn't necessarily a problem, except what about a war or something. Unlikely? Yes, but how many countries havent had any war on their soil in the past 200 years? And I cant imagine a 2219 health and safety person green lighting the reuse of a 200 year old containment vessel for storing nuclear waste either.
    - joycian 7y ago
      An example of a building: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter%27s_Basilica https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter%27s_Basilica
      - benj111 7y ago
        Yes, and I suppose many churches in general. In the UK theres still some covered market square buildings that still hold markets also. http://www.endeavourcottage.co.uk/whitby-blog/whitby-marketplace.html http://www.endeavourcottage.co.uk/whitby-blog/whitby-marketp...
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Westminster Hall has been single purpose for a while. Since the late 11th century. Perhaps that's the answer. If waste is stored in a warehouse next to the seat of government, I doubt there will be short-cuts, neglect and cost savings to the same degree as say putting it on the Cumbrian coast. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/westminsterhall/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/pal...
      - benj111 7y ago
        You know Westminster palace is in dire need of repair and debating in the house of commons had to stop due to water flooding in through the roof recently? So yes there probably would be 'cost savings'
perfunctory 7y ago
> That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. Why not?
- jimrandomh 7y ago
  Because the site in question is the crater left by a nuclear bomb test in the 50s. There was never a power plant nearby, and the type of site, and the type of waste, is very different from what a power plant would produce.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Tepix 7y ago
The post i was answering to was talking about nuclear waste in general. So was my response.

by mbell 7y ago

> In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. This is the type of fear mongering that caused the current situation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Valgrim 7y ago

Long term, large scale containment of radioactive waste is an unsolved problem. Nuclear advocates have two answers to this problem: A) We'll solve it later (we should research fuel reprocessing, we have an urgency to act, etc.) B) It's not really a problem (people don't actually die from radioactive waste, most nuclear plants have proven themselves safely managed, etc.) Both answer sound like sweeping the dust under the rug. What happens when (not if) a catastrophe occurs? If a war breaks out, how can you guarantee the safety of all nuclear power plants around the world? If a country economy collapses, how will nuclear engineers get paid? If an epidemic of a deadly disease spreads worldwide, how many people can die before there is not enough people to safely operate a nuclear plant? We cannot sweep this under the rug. Nuclear energy may be theorically cheap to implement, but the potential cost of an uncontrollable failure is too great.

ageofwant 7y ago
What if technicolor monkeys start flying out of my arse ? Whataboutism aside, today, right now, thousands of coal fired power plants are polluting the air I breathe with more radioactive waste, particulates and CO2, to a degree not seen in the last 800k years. Your catastrophe is real and happening right now, in real time, today, this minute.
umvi 7y ago
A modern thorium/uranium recycling pipeline should only produce small amounts of "final" waste (and only after waste has been iteratively recycled many times). That final waste takes a few hundred years to decay, but if contained, it is harmless to the environment. So, create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste, and create a pipeline. At the end of the pipeline, the containers are empty and can be used at the start again. Who knows, we may even be able to figure out a way to extract even more energy from the "final" waste eventually. Consider that the final nuclear waste passively disappears after a few hundred years, whereas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not passively disappear in a few hundred years - it must be actively removed by plants, but the plants can't keep up with humans.
- benj111 7y ago
  "create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste" 200 years ago the world was a very different place. I'm struggling to think of any building not including houses still used for their original purpose, from that long ago. So while I don't doubt that we could build a structure that lasts 200 years, I doubt we could build some kind of continuously used industrial building without it becoming some kind of ship of Theseus. Now that in itself isn't necessarily a problem, except what about a war or something. Unlikely? Yes, but how many countries havent had any war on their soil in the past 200 years? And I cant imagine a 2219 health and safety person green lighting the reuse of a 200 year old containment vessel for storing nuclear waste either.
  - joycian 7y ago
    An example of a building: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter%27s_Basilica https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter%27s_Basilica
    - benj111 7y ago
      Yes, and I suppose many churches in general. In the UK theres still some covered market square buildings that still hold markets also. http://www.endeavourcottage.co.uk/whitby-blog/whitby-marketplace.html http://www.endeavourcottage.co.uk/whitby-blog/whitby-marketp...
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Westminster Hall has been single purpose for a while. Since the late 11th century. Perhaps that's the answer. If waste is stored in a warehouse next to the seat of government, I doubt there will be short-cuts, neglect and cost savings to the same degree as say putting it on the Cumbrian coast. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/westminsterhall/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/pal...
    - benj111 7y ago
      You know Westminster palace is in dire need of repair and debating in the house of commons had to stop due to water flooding in through the roof recently? So yes there probably would be 'cost savings'

perfunctory 7y ago

> That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. Why not?

jimrandomh 7y ago
Because the site in question is the crater left by a nuclear bomb test in the 50s. There was never a power plant nearby, and the type of site, and the type of waste, is very different from what a power plant would produce.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Tepix 7y ago

The post i was answering to was talking about nuclear waste in general. So was my response.