4 ms·

The waste storage problem is not solved. And looking at how much the clean up of large scale nuclear processing has and will cost it is not cheap either. Now

The waste storage problem is not solved. And looking at how much the clean up of large scale nuclear processing has and will cost it is not cheap either. Now that wind and solar are getting to the same price point there is no point in using nuclear reactors for energy generation.

lm28469 7y ago
> Now that wind and solar are getting to the same price point there is no point in using nuclear reactors for energy generation. You need 300 to 1000+ windmill to replace a single nuclear power plant. Might be doable in the US but there is no way to do that in France for example. Same for sun, good look replacing a nuclear plant in northern Europe with a solar farm, it's not Nevada. Nuclear is on demand, wind and sun are not. > The waste storage problem is not solved. Renewable energy storage is not solved.
onreact 7y ago
Thank you for adding some common sense to that debate. Safe nuclear is like "clean coal".
cogman10 7y ago
The ultimate solution to the waste problem is fusion. That's the unfortunate thing about abandoning fission reactors. Fusion is far safer and doesn't produce radioactive waste byproducts.
- Kirby64 7y ago
  Well obviously if fusion were a thing we could all switch too I don't think anyone would argue. Unfortunately the reality is for the foreseeable future, fission is the only way to generate power. If you're talking about building a reactor in the next 20 years, you build a fission one. If somehow we have a breakthrough in fusion technology to make it energy positive, then I have no doubt we'll see a huge increase in people trying to use it.
- nickik 7y ago
  Fusion solves nothing you can not solve with fission. With fission you can easily go down to 300 years of storage, this has been known since the 60s but that's often ignored. Waste is only a significant problem if you want to make it a problem.
  - cogman10 7y ago
    Breeder reactors are definitely interesting avenues that I wish we'd gone down from the beginning. Still 300 years of storage isn't great. It is still a duration of time longer than the US has been a nation.
    - nickik 7y ago
      But its not like you need tons of active management of that waste. Its literally stuff that stands around and does basically nothing. You could literally just put that waste somewhere in the desert, put it there and leave. The chance that that waste ever actually harms somebody is basically zero. Basically any cave that isn't likely to flood with massive amounts of water is fine. > Breeder reactors are definitely interesting avenues that I wish we'd gone down from the beginning. You don't even need a Breeder for this, a Burner can get there as well.
manfredo 7y ago
The waste storage problem is solved: bury it underground in an area with no groundwater. The reason why no permanent storage has been built in the US (they have been built in Finland and in Asia) is because there's actually so little waste. The entirety of the waste from US nuclear power generation fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high.

lm28469 7y ago

> Now that wind and solar are getting to the same price point there is no point in using nuclear reactors for energy generation. You need 300 to 1000+ windmill to replace a single nuclear power plant. Might be doable in the US but there is no way to do that in France for example. Same for sun, good look replacing a nuclear plant in northern Europe with a solar farm, it's not Nevada. Nuclear is on demand, wind and sun are not. > The waste storage problem is not solved. Renewable energy storage is not solved.

onreact 7y ago

Thank you for adding some common sense to that debate. Safe nuclear is like "clean coal".

cogman10 7y ago

The ultimate solution to the waste problem is fusion. That's the unfortunate thing about abandoning fission reactors. Fusion is far safer and doesn't produce radioactive waste byproducts.

Kirby64 7y ago
Well obviously if fusion were a thing we could all switch too I don't think anyone would argue. Unfortunately the reality is for the foreseeable future, fission is the only way to generate power. If you're talking about building a reactor in the next 20 years, you build a fission one. If somehow we have a breakthrough in fusion technology to make it energy positive, then I have no doubt we'll see a huge increase in people trying to use it.
nickik 7y ago
Fusion solves nothing you can not solve with fission. With fission you can easily go down to 300 years of storage, this has been known since the 60s but that's often ignored. Waste is only a significant problem if you want to make it a problem.
- cogman10 7y ago
  Breeder reactors are definitely interesting avenues that I wish we'd gone down from the beginning. Still 300 years of storage isn't great. It is still a duration of time longer than the US has been a nation.
  - nickik 7y ago
    But its not like you need tons of active management of that waste. Its literally stuff that stands around and does basically nothing. You could literally just put that waste somewhere in the desert, put it there and leave. The chance that that waste ever actually harms somebody is basically zero. Basically any cave that isn't likely to flood with massive amounts of water is fine. > Breeder reactors are definitely interesting avenues that I wish we'd gone down from the beginning. You don't even need a Breeder for this, a Burner can get there as well.

manfredo 7y ago

The waste storage problem is solved: bury it underground in an area with no groundwater. The reason why no permanent storage has been built in the US (they have been built in Finland and in Asia) is because there's actually so little waste. The entirety of the waste from US nuclear power generation fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high.