5 ms·

I think it's mostly just a rooted fear of anything “nuclear”, but there's an argument to be made that the damage caused by dams is localized in a way that nucle

by rue 16y ago

I think it's mostly just a rooted fear of anything “nuclear”, but there's an argument to be made that the damage caused by dams is localized in a way that nuclear disasters can't be. In reality, of course, it's quite impractical to move everything away from dam failure zones. Either way, historical data is very valuable and in that light modern nuclear plants are pretty safe but I think potential damage should play some role in the determination of course…obviously, the best thing would be to go full-tilt renewables (with pretty much only hyperlocal failures) but the question is can we get there without additional nuclear power even if everyone fully invests in it? If nuclear didn't linger such a long time after the plants are decommissioned, the risk/reward of building new nuclear to tide us over the next 20-30 years would be a no-brainer. I think it's an important discussion that I'm not quite sure can be had rationally – but even that's better than not having it at all.

pyre 16y ago
IIRC, the reason plants linger so long after decommission is because (at least in the US) it's illegal to reprocess the waste, which really isn't waste and has lots of useful stuff in it.
- rue 16y ago
  It can't all be reprocessed (which itself is somewhat hazardous not least because of the transport required) so you'll still have a sizable chunk of stuff that needs to be contained for tens of thousands of years.
lukeschlather 16y ago
>If nuclear didn't linger such a long time after the plants are decommissioned It is at least theoretically possible to eliminate nuclear waste. I'm confident that with research into yet undiscovered reactor types we can reprocess and reuse the long-lived radioactive byproducts into byproducts with lifespans measured in centuries rather than millions of years.
- sorbus 16y ago
  Or we could throw it into the sun (yes, exploding rockets, I know. It's not an especially viable option, but it exists).
- rue 16y ago
  I'd wager you're correct to an extent, at least, but I'm not sure if it's still wise to spend the research on that rather than renewables – even allowing for the fact that there're scientists and facilities that can/want only help with the nuclear side, there's funding to be considered.

by rue 16y ago

pyre 16y ago

IIRC, the reason plants linger so long after decommission is because (at least in the US) it's illegal to reprocess the waste, which really isn't waste and has lots of useful stuff in it.

rue 16y ago
It can't all be reprocessed (which itself is somewhat hazardous not least because of the transport required) so you'll still have a sizable chunk of stuff that needs to be contained for tens of thousands of years.

lukeschlather 16y ago

>If nuclear didn't linger such a long time after the plants are decommissioned It is at least theoretically possible to eliminate nuclear waste. I'm confident that with research into yet undiscovered reactor types we can reprocess and reuse the long-lived radioactive byproducts into byproducts with lifespans measured in centuries rather than millions of years.

sorbus 16y ago
Or we could throw it into the sun (yes, exploding rockets, I know. It's not an especially viable option, but it exists).
rue 16y ago
I'd wager you're correct to an extent, at least, but I'm not sure if it's still wise to spend the research on that rather than renewables – even allowing for the fact that there're scientists and facilities that can/want only help with the nuclear side, there's funding to be considered.