4 ms·

I'm generally in favor of nuclear power, but you can't argue that the (relatively) small amount of waste isn't super nasty. Last I heard we still don't have a g

I'm generally in favor of nuclear power, but you can't argue that the (relatively) small amount of waste isn't super nasty. Last I heard we still don't have a good way of dealing with it.

petre 6y ago
Dealing with waste is a policy challenge that's tied to non proliferation, not so much a technical one.
- worik 6y ago
  There is no known way to store anything safely for ~100,000 years like what the most problematic nuclear waste (and some parts of reactors, IIRC) have to be stored. It is a small amount, but a insoluble problem Selling out the future generations for cyrrent greed. Nice one
  - evgen 6y ago
    > There is no known way to store anything safely for ~100,000 years Sure there is. You may not like it, but here it is: encase it in a concrete block and put it on a boat, sail boat to middle of ocean, dump it overboard. Done and dusted. That block of problematic nuclear waste is now going to kill less people over the next 100K years than solar will kill this month.
    - worik 6y ago
      What could possibly go wrong with that?
      - evgen 6y ago
        Nothing. Prove me wrong.
  - petre 6y ago
    It's not really waste, it's mostly useful and rare stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE
toast0 6y ago
Letting it sit in place isn't actually that bad. Burning it would probably put less radiation into the atmosphere than coal, and allow it to disperse. Breeder reactor designs could reduce the amount of dangerous waste, but a fair amount of waste has piled up over the decades while it was implausible to build new reactors. As it is, with one new reactor online in 2016, and two still under construction, we're likely to see a large drop in power and waste generated by nuclear plants over the next few decades.
korantu 6y ago
The reason for nuclear is that it has proven trackrecord of decorbanizing an industrialized economy. [2] As for the waste, it pays to extend 'relative' - nuclear leaves a coke-can size of waste safely stored on site for a person's lifetime energy needs, including transportation. For comparison, other baseload energy generation methods create tens of tons of waste a lot of which ends up in atmosphere. Whole waste generated for decades of generating 10-20% of grid power in US, all of it, will fit on a football field ~ 50feet high. Then, if not for politics, one can follow France, and reprocess the waste into more fuel. France got waste reprocessing to the extent where decades of electricity provided to Paris only leave several glass slabs of waste behind [1]. [1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nu... [2] Decarbonization in 10 years: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYp2uVFVcAEWAoW?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYp2uVFVcAEWAoW?format=jpg&name=...
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
Most of it is actually low level waste. The bit of high level waste fits into a few barrels, and is easy to keep track of. What we are really arguing about is keeping track of it for millions of years, which inspires much less confidence in people. Even then, breeder reactors would solve much of that problem, but the government is afraid of that solution because it is too easy to derive bomb making material from those.
eru 6y ago
It's not more nasty than storing some kinds of heavy metals or other chemicals. Mercury never stops being nasty mercury. It doesn't have a half-life. Certain technologies, like fast breeder reactors, significantly reduce the volume of radioactive garbage coming out of your nuclear reactors at the end, because they re-use fuel multiple times.

I'm generally in favor of nuclear power, but you can't argue that the (relatively) small amount of waste isn't super nasty. Last I heard we still don't have a good way of dealing with it.

petre 6y ago

Dealing with waste is a policy challenge that's tied to non proliferation, not so much a technical one.

worik 6y ago
There is no known way to store anything safely for ~100,000 years like what the most problematic nuclear waste (and some parts of reactors, IIRC) have to be stored. It is a small amount, but a insoluble problem Selling out the future generations for cyrrent greed. Nice one
- evgen 6y ago
  > There is no known way to store anything safely for ~100,000 years Sure there is. You may not like it, but here it is: encase it in a concrete block and put it on a boat, sail boat to middle of ocean, dump it overboard. Done and dusted. That block of problematic nuclear waste is now going to kill less people over the next 100K years than solar will kill this month.
  - worik 6y ago
    What could possibly go wrong with that?
    - evgen 6y ago
      Nothing. Prove me wrong.
- petre 6y ago
  It's not really waste, it's mostly useful and rare stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE

toast0 6y ago

Letting it sit in place isn't actually that bad. Burning it would probably put less radiation into the atmosphere than coal, and allow it to disperse. Breeder reactor designs could reduce the amount of dangerous waste, but a fair amount of waste has piled up over the decades while it was implausible to build new reactors. As it is, with one new reactor online in 2016, and two still under construction, we're likely to see a large drop in power and waste generated by nuclear plants over the next few decades.

korantu 6y ago

The reason for nuclear is that it has proven trackrecord of decorbanizing an industrialized economy. [2] As for the waste, it pays to extend 'relative' - nuclear leaves a coke-can size of waste safely stored on site for a person's lifetime energy needs, including transportation. For comparison, other baseload energy generation methods create tens of tons of waste a lot of which ends up in atmosphere. Whole waste generated for decades of generating 10-20% of grid power in US, all of it, will fit on a football field ~ 50feet high. Then, if not for politics, one can follow France, and reprocess the waste into more fuel. France got waste reprocessing to the extent where decades of electricity provided to Paris only leave several glass slabs of waste behind [1]. [1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nu... [2] Decarbonization in 10 years: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYp2uVFVcAEWAoW?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYp2uVFVcAEWAoW?format=jpg&name=...

seanmcdirmid 6y ago

Most of it is actually low level waste. The bit of high level waste fits into a few barrels, and is easy to keep track of. What we are really arguing about is keeping track of it for millions of years, which inspires much less confidence in people. Even then, breeder reactors would solve much of that problem, but the government is afraid of that solution because it is too easy to derive bomb making material from those.

eru 6y ago

It's not more nasty than storing some kinds of heavy metals or other chemicals. Mercury never stops being nasty mercury. It doesn't have a half-life. Certain technologies, like fast breeder reactors, significantly reduce the volume of radioactive garbage coming out of your nuclear reactors at the end, because they re-use fuel multiple times.