4 ms·

I don't have the time at the moment to source both points I want to make, but I read them both recently while reading about nuclear power. 1 - to your point ab

I don't have the time at the moment to source both points I want to make, but I read them both recently while reading about nuclear power. 1 - to your point about nuclear being the most environmentally friendly, I don't see how this is true compared to wind and solar. Nuclear power produces nuclear waste. Nuclear power requires significant amounts of fresh water. 2 - one of the primary reasons to not build a nuclear power now is that wind and solar are actually cheaper per MWh compared to operating an existing nuclear power plant. That being said in my opinion, highly influenced by the book Drawdown, is that we will need to build a lot of nuclear power plants in order to meet world electricity demands.

arcticbull 7y ago
> To your point about nuclear being the most environmentally friendly, I don't see how this is true compared to wind and solar. Pollution comes from e-waste as panels are replaced, mining/tailings and less-than-environmentally-friendly materials used to make PV panels. Most commercial PV panels are Cadmium Telluride. Cadmium is of course highly toxic and carcinogenic, and as panels get better, they're swapped out and that material has to go somewhere. Wind, pollution comes from mining and refining rare-earth metals like neodymium that are required to make the magnets in the motors. While rare earths exist all over the world the majority are mined in China because China is willing do deal with the toxic war zone left behind [1]. E-waste is a problem in this industry too although I'd wager smaller. > Nuclear power produces nuclear waste. Very small amounts relative to the amount of power generated due to its sheer unparalleled energy density. A uranium fuel pellet (1/2 in. height and diameter) contains the energy equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, one ton of coal or 149 gallons of oil. Yucca Mountain, had they opened it, would have solved this problem in perpetuity. [1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic-aftermath-of-rare-earth-mining https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic...
- phs318u 7y ago
  How do you safely and securely get the spent fuel to Yucca? Leaving aside accidents it seems securing the entire road or rail route would be a logistical nightmare. It would be quite a tempting target for bad actors. And a the kind of target against whom assymetric effort would yield “effective” results (for the bad actor)
  - yongjik 7y ago
    Attacking any bridge or tunnel will easily create more casualties, with the added benefit(?) that they are essentially sitting ducks, unlike nuclear waste (which will move only once every few years or so, following some confidential route). If you're aiming for maximum environmental damage, just attack an oil pipe or oil tanker at port. I just don't see the terrorism angle for nuclear waste. There are far more juicier targets.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      And far less protected ones. There's an entire department of the government dedicated to trucking this waste around, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

arcticbull 7y ago

> To your point about nuclear being the most environmentally friendly, I don't see how this is true compared to wind and solar. Pollution comes from e-waste as panels are replaced, mining/tailings and less-than-environmentally-friendly materials used to make PV panels. Most commercial PV panels are Cadmium Telluride. Cadmium is of course highly toxic and carcinogenic, and as panels get better, they're swapped out and that material has to go somewhere. Wind, pollution comes from mining and refining rare-earth metals like neodymium that are required to make the magnets in the motors. While rare earths exist all over the world the majority are mined in China because China is willing do deal with the toxic war zone left behind [1]. E-waste is a problem in this industry too although I'd wager smaller. > Nuclear power produces nuclear waste. Very small amounts relative to the amount of power generated due to its sheer unparalleled energy density. A uranium fuel pellet (1/2 in. height and diameter) contains the energy equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, one ton of coal or 149 gallons of oil. Yucca Mountain, had they opened it, would have solved this problem in perpetuity. [1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic-aftermath-of-rare-earth-mining https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic...

phs318u 7y ago
How do you safely and securely get the spent fuel to Yucca? Leaving aside accidents it seems securing the entire road or rail route would be a logistical nightmare. It would be quite a tempting target for bad actors. And a the kind of target against whom assymetric effort would yield “effective” results (for the bad actor)
- yongjik 7y ago
  Attacking any bridge or tunnel will easily create more casualties, with the added benefit(?) that they are essentially sitting ducks, unlike nuclear waste (which will move only once every few years or so, following some confidential route). If you're aiming for maximum environmental damage, just attack an oil pipe or oil tanker at port. I just don't see the terrorism angle for nuclear waste. There are far more juicier targets.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    And far less protected ones. There's an entire department of the government dedicated to trucking this waste around, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.