4 ms·
Nuclear plants produce waste, this means now deciding that humans will have to not mess that up for the next ~100.000 years. Sure, maybe we'll find a way to pro
by PavlovsCat 7y ago
Nuclear plants produce waste, this means now deciding that humans will have to not mess that up for the next ~100.000 years. Sure, maybe we'll find a way to process it all (or shoot it into the sun with a super safe space elevator?), but right now, this is what we got, and it's really not much:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...
> There is a debate over what should constitute an acceptable scientific and engineering foundation for proceeding with radioactive waste disposal strategies. There are those who have argued, on the basis of complex geochemical simulation models, that relinquishing control over radioactive materials to geohydrologic processes at repository closure is an acceptable risk. They maintain that so-called "natural analogues" inhibit subterranean movement of radionuclides, making disposal of radioactive wastes in stable geologic formations unnecessary. However, existing models of these processes are empirically underdetermined: due to the subterranean nature of such processes in solid geologic formations, the accuracy of computer simulation models has not been verified by empirical observation, certainly not over periods of time equivalent to the lethal half-lives of high-level radioactive waste. On the other hand, some insist deep geologic repositories in stable geologic formations are necessary. National management plans of various countries display a variety of approaches to resolving this debate.
We're the species that used x-ray machines in shoe shops, to sell more shoes than the other guy. We put the guy who discovered the usefulness of washing hands into an asylum, out of sheer pride and arrogance. So great, we have a bunch of "complex models", and that's what we want to gamble it on? The weather forecast also keeps getting more accurate, but few people would bet their own life on the forecast for even tomorrow. But we'll do it on behalf of people who don't get a say?
- javagram 7y agoNuclear waste doesn’t seem like a big issue compared to climate change. Let’s recall the man-made global climate change is supposed to be a continuous worldwide disaster leading to starvation, wars, and so on. Meanwhile, nuclear waste can be buried in a mountain with today’s technology, taking up only a very small portion of our planet to house it. Nuclear disaster zones like Chernobyl have, after only a few decades, been considered to have turned into nature reserves where animals and plants are flourishing, while global climate change caused by the carbon dioxide released by coal plants is expected to have all sorts of bad effects on nature. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclus...
- tekproxy 7y agoWe found a way. It's called thorium. Waste is only radioactive for a century and iirc it's a lower energy. They can also use current waste as fuel. Reactor tech is 40 years old. If your phone is 4 years old, one might consider it trash. Imagine how good they'd be if the industry innovated even as slow and conservatively as medicine. Oh, there's also liquid sodium and fast breeders. FUD keeps the tech from advancing.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago> Imagine how good they'd be I'm talking about today and the facts, saying "we found a solution" is simply ignoring everything.