4 ms·

The problem with your argument is that it is based on something that doesn't exist. There are no commercial nuclear plants even being planned to be built based

The problem with your argument is that it is based on something that doesn't exist. There are no commercial nuclear plants even being planned to be built based on any of the newer technology. (that I could find) >...the amount of nuclear waste each person would generate per year would be 39.5 grams That would be 13,850 TONS [0] of radioactive waste /every year/. Using "grams" is a manipulation tactic you seem to have fallen for. At least carbon turns back into trees and concrete. I challenge you to visit a nuclear storage facility. They are all maxing out as far as I have heard and read. There is almost not storage room left. The one place where they were making more storage was Nevada and that got shut down years ago. There's no more room in our state's current storage. And it's near sensitive water ways. It's just crazy. Storage it _the_ issue. Edit: The other source of info I have was from an uncle in-law that worked security at nuclear facility in the 90s. They were having storage issues back then even. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=39.5+grams+x+350+million https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=39.5+grams+x+350+milli...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 7y ago
> That would be 13,850 TONS [0] of radioactive waste /every year/. Using "grams" is a manipulation tactic you seem to have fallen for. At least carbon turns back into trees and concrete. Now compare this to: if we got all our electricity from coal and natural gas, expect to have over 10,000 kilograms of CO2/yr attributed to each person, not to mention other poisonous emissions directly to the biosphere (based on EIA emissions data[2]). See the difference there? Huge! https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10000+kilograms+*+350+million https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10000+kilograms+*+350+... vs. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(39.5+grams+*+350+million)+to+kilograms https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(39.5+grams+*+350+mill... 3.5 x 10^12 vs 1.383 x 10^7. 10,000 kilograms vs 39.5 grams = 0.0395 kilograms (!). Plus it is not true that it is based on something that does not exist, it very much exists. Even if we assume that it does not, this does not invalidate anything I have said. We have the technology! We should stick to the better technology, not the older ones. I mentioned it as an issue, did I not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Thorium-based_nuclear_power_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Th... Also there is ITER: "Furthermore, a fusion reactor would produce virtually no CO2 or atmospheric pollutants, and its radioactive waste products would mostly be very short-lived compared to those produced by conventional nuclear reactors (fission reactors).". I did not mention it, but it probably is going to be the future. It is under construction. > The other source of info I have was from an uncle in-law that worked security at nuclear facility in the 90s. They were having storage issues back then even. I do not deny this. It probably uses a much older technology that is doomed to fail in theory as well. Keeping it is definitely a problem. We have much better alternatives today. Again: building and sticking to shittier reactors when we have a much better technology is part of the problem!
- the_seraphim 7y ago
  Fusion is 30 years away, as it has been, for 30 years....
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  >Now compare this to: if we got all our electricity from coal and natural gas.. But we don't use only those, so you are argument is moot. You are ignoring my one point, storage is not working /right now/. Yet you seem to think that it's viable to put more of the worst waste humankind has ever produced into a failing system. Your link to thorium reactors are all "in the future", in planning or in test mode. Also, if all power is derived from thorium reactors (your quote says the waste is lowered by a factor of 2) then it's 19.75 grams of nuclear waste every year. That is almost 7,000 /TONS/ [0] of nuclear waste every year, just from the US alone. Consider how much this will be for India: 27,057 t (metric tons) every year. [1] That number is mind boggling huge, and that waste /will/ pile up. And how good is India's record on public safety? Every single year, growing and growing. Nuclear waste will kill the planet before anything else does. Where will all the nuclear pollution be? In a giant pile waiting for storms, earthquakes, terrorists, corrosion, you name it... and then entire sections of the world will become unlivable. Nuclear power is a dead end. It's a corporations wet dream for making money, not for saving the planet. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=19.75+grams+*+350+million https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=19.75+grams+*+350+mill... [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=19.75+grams+x+1.37+billion https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=19.75+grams+x+1.37+bil...
  - johnisgood 7y ago
    > Yet you seem to think that it's viable to put more of the worst waste humankind has ever produced into a failing system. With this I would like to end the discussion here. There is no point in repeating myself. This is not at all what I suggested. I suggested this: stop using old, obsolete, known-to-fail technologies when there are better (safer, cleaner, more efficient) ones! I acknowledge that most of our current reactors are shit, but we can build much better ones, and indeed they are under construction. Do you think that your preferred source of energy just appears out of thin air? Things need to be built. It takes time. Change does not happen overnight. Nuclear power; specifically nuclear fusion is definitely not a dead end. > Furthermore, a fusion reactor would produce virtually no CO2 or atmospheric pollutants, and its radioactive waste products would mostly be very short-lived compared to those produced by conventional nuclear reactors (fission reactors).[1] It definitely has a future. You are being unnecessarily dramatic especially considering that fusion reactors would produce virtually no CO2 or atmospheric pollutants, and its radioactive waste products would mostly be very short-lived. Follow the progress of construction of ITER here: https://twitter.com/iterorg https://twitter.com/iterorg [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER If I might respectfully ask, please, stop spreading FUD. Feel free to read the relevant articles I posted, and compare their efficiency, environmental impact, and so forth to your preferred technology. At this point, keep me out of it. Thank you.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

johnisgood 7y ago

> That would be 13,850 TONS [0] of radioactive waste /every year/. Using "grams" is a manipulation tactic you seem to have fallen for. At least carbon turns back into trees and concrete. Now compare this to: if we got all our electricity from coal and natural gas, expect to have over 10,000 kilograms of CO2/yr attributed to each person, not to mention other poisonous emissions directly to the biosphere (based on EIA emissions data[2]). See the difference there? Huge! https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10000+kilograms+*+350+million https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10000+kilograms+*+350+... vs. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(39.5+grams+*+350+million)+to+kilograms https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(39.5+grams+*+350+mill... 3.5 x 10^12 vs 1.383 x 10^7. 10,000 kilograms vs 39.5 grams = 0.0395 kilograms (!). Plus it is not true that it is based on something that does not exist, it very much exists. Even if we assume that it does not, this does not invalidate anything I have said. We have the technology! We should stick to the better technology, not the older ones. I mentioned it as an issue, did I not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Thorium-based_nuclear_power_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Th... Also there is ITER: "Furthermore, a fusion reactor would produce virtually no CO2 or atmospheric pollutants, and its radioactive waste products would mostly be very short-lived compared to those produced by conventional nuclear reactors (fission reactors).". I did not mention it, but it probably is going to be the future. It is under construction. > The other source of info I have was from an uncle in-law that worked security at nuclear facility in the 90s. They were having storage issues back then even. I do not deny this. It probably uses a much older technology that is doomed to fail in theory as well. Keeping it is definitely a problem. We have much better alternatives today. Again: building and sticking to shittier reactors when we have a much better technology is part of the problem!

the_seraphim 7y ago
Fusion is 30 years away, as it has been, for 30 years....
RobertRoberts 7y ago
>Now compare this to: if we got all our electricity from coal and natural gas.. But we don't use only those, so you are argument is moot. You are ignoring my one point, storage is not working /right now/. Yet you seem to think that it's viable to put more of the worst waste humankind has ever produced into a failing system. Your link to thorium reactors are all "in the future", in planning or in test mode. Also, if all power is derived from thorium reactors (your quote says the waste is lowered by a factor of 2) then it's 19.75 grams of nuclear waste every year. That is almost 7,000 /TONS/ [0] of nuclear waste every year, just from the US alone. Consider how much this will be for India: 27,057 t (metric tons) every year. [1] That number is mind boggling huge, and that waste /will/ pile up. And how good is India's record on public safety? Every single year, growing and growing. Nuclear waste will kill the planet before anything else does. Where will all the nuclear pollution be? In a giant pile waiting for storms, earthquakes, terrorists, corrosion, you name it... and then entire sections of the world will become unlivable. Nuclear power is a dead end. It's a corporations wet dream for making money, not for saving the planet. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=19.75+grams+*+350+million https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=19.75+grams+*+350+mill... [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=19.75+grams+x+1.37+billion https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=19.75+grams+x+1.37+bil...
- johnisgood 7y ago
  > Yet you seem to think that it's viable to put more of the worst waste humankind has ever produced into a failing system. With this I would like to end the discussion here. There is no point in repeating myself. This is not at all what I suggested. I suggested this: stop using old, obsolete, known-to-fail technologies when there are better (safer, cleaner, more efficient) ones! I acknowledge that most of our current reactors are shit, but we can build much better ones, and indeed they are under construction. Do you think that your preferred source of energy just appears out of thin air? Things need to be built. It takes time. Change does not happen overnight. Nuclear power; specifically nuclear fusion is definitely not a dead end. > Furthermore, a fusion reactor would produce virtually no CO2 or atmospheric pollutants, and its radioactive waste products would mostly be very short-lived compared to those produced by conventional nuclear reactors (fission reactors).[1] It definitely has a future. You are being unnecessarily dramatic especially considering that fusion reactors would produce virtually no CO2 or atmospheric pollutants, and its radioactive waste products would mostly be very short-lived. Follow the progress of construction of ITER here: https://twitter.com/iterorg https://twitter.com/iterorg [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER If I might respectfully ask, please, stop spreading FUD. Feel free to read the relevant articles I posted, and compare their efficiency, environmental impact, and so forth to your preferred technology. At this point, keep me out of it. Thank you.