9 ms·

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, ev

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? I'm not totally against the technology, but storing all the nuclear waste in metal cans on parking lots (yes, thats where a majority of nuclear waste resides) is not a valid solution. The trend of externalizing cost to future generations is something that pisses me off to no end.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? "Nuclear waste" is an artificial problem. It is possible to build reactors that use the "nuclear waste" from existing reactors as fuel, which destroys it forever. We haven't done this primarily because people keep refusing to build new reactors that do this until we figure out what to do with the nuclear waste. Which obviously doesn't make any sense.
- ysleepy 6y ago
  In the same sense that we will all be saved by CO2 capturing devices? These kinds of reactors (Travelling Wave Reactor etc.) you mention are vapourware and have been for quite some time. And I highly doubt the "which destroys it forever" part, - really, no waste at all, magic you say? This is just more of "Future Tech will solve this" externalization of problems.
  - randallsquared 6y ago
    > really, no waste at all, magic you say? The core problem with nuclear waste is that it's energetic. There are a number of designs that burn up waste; if we were building and testing them, poor reactor types could be abandoned and better ones could be improved. We're not doing that primarily because "nuclear" is a scary word owing to activist efforts decades ago. > This is just more of "Future Tech will solve this" externalization of problems. That is absolutely the right plan, though. Assuming our civilization doesn't collapse or stall, future generations will be enormously wealthier than we are, and any problem we have will be proportionately smaller for them. Of course, stall or collapse isn't impossible, but I do wish people wouldn't so heavily advocate for exactly that.
    - stephenr 6y ago
      > because "nuclear" is a scary word owing to activist efforts decades ago. Right, activists... not those pesky meltdowns spewing radioactive waste across Europe and into the pacific, it was the activists.
      - randallsquared 6y ago
        All the meltdowns in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s are what explains the automatic flinch that western cultures have had since the late 60s? Huh.
      - spfzero 6y ago
        "spewing ... into the Pacific" actually dilutes it more than when it existed in ore in the first place. It had to be concentrated by orders of magnitude from ore, to make it radioactive enough to be fuel for a reactor. Before that, it was just backround that we've lived happily with for eons, and in the Pacific it is even lower level.
        stephenr 6y ago
        The plant operators measured 7.5M times the legal limit of radioactive iodine in the seawater. Complete dilution is not a given, and expecting zero consequences to marine life (and anything that then feeds on marine life) is optimistic at best.
        raxxorrax 6y ago
        because there is a lot of water on the planet? Or a hungry fish will introduce it into the food chain before it has dissolved completely homogeneously into the wide oceans of the earth.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    Recycling for spent fuels is a proven technology. Problem is ... it creates weapons grade Plutonium as the product, out of Depleted Uranium(stuffs so safe US military puts into tank shells as weights). You know, Plutonium is a highly toxic heavy metal, and a bit radioactive, so,
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > Problem is ... it creates weapons grade Plutonium as the product, out of Depleted Uranium(stuffs so safe US military puts into tank shells as weights). Calling this the problem is just more fear mongering. The hard part about building a uranium-based bomb is getting weapons-grade uranium, because the bomb is simpler but U-235 is only 0.7% of natural uranium and is hard to separate from U-238 because they're chemically identical. The hard part about building a plutonium-based bomb is getting the implosion right. Making weapons-grade plutonium is relatively easy -- you expose U-238 to neutrons and some of the uranium turns into plutonium, then you can chemically separate the plutonium. But then you need a sophisticated bomb instead of a sophisticated centrifuge. It's not actually easier. That's why most nascent programs don't generally even try to make plutonium. On top of that, you can design a reactor that produces enough other Plutonium isotopes that it makes the Plutonium-239 totally useless for a bomb, because they're even harder to separate from one another than U-235 is from U-238. Also, the nuclear waste which sticks around for 24,000 years? That's the plutonium. The existing reactors already make it, because they contain U-238 and neutrons. It's the thing we already have, don't want and newer reactors can get rid of.
      - verall 6y ago
        It sure makes an easy dirty bomb when stuck on a regular bomb though.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Dirty bombs are, to begin with, Hollywood movie plot nonsense. But long-lived isotopes aren't even what you would use because they're only mildly radioactive.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    >These kinds of reactors you mention are vapourware and have been for quite some time. Depends on a country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) >The reactor uses nitride uranium-plutonium fuel, is a breeder reactor and can burn long-term radioactive waste. I think existing BN reactors can also be used in the same way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor Yes, it's not 100% ready technology (e.g. there are problems with fuel fabrication), but I would call it last stages of development.
    - qayxc 6y ago
      The BN-800 reactor was an engineering nightmare, though. Those things had more downtime due to technical issues than operation time. The issues were indeed so severe, that the follow-up project (BN-1200) required a redesign and was put on hold indefinitely...
      - fuoqi 6y ago
        IIRC most issues were caused by problems and delays with fuel fabrication, mentioned in my post. And changes in fuel fabrication is one of the main reasons for postponing BN-1200 construction (i.e. it does not make sense to build a reactor, while fuel production line is not ready).
- bb88 6y ago
  So this falls into the category of the solution of "X" is more "X". I'm usually skeptical of arguments like these especially when "X" is complex, potentially harmful, or offered as a magic bullet. In your case in order to validate claims, I have to be a nuclear scientist to understand the potential ramifications of your argument before I can fully understand the pros/cons. If as an engineer, I cannot afford the time to do it, how our are politicians supposed to?
  - mnemonicsloth 6y ago
    The same way politicians build bridges and operate air traffic control systems: by hiring experts to do it.
    - bb88 6y ago
      I feel you're being pedantic here. When bridges fail, they don't affect potentially millions of people's health. Nor does when an ATC system fail at an airport -- traffic can just be rerouted to other airports.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        Meh, when major industry things fail, and e.g. a refinery just breaks and releases all of the oil and other stuff into the next best river, it will affect potentially millions of people's health if it's located right. That's why we're trying to make extra extra sure that it doesn't happen and hire experts, and learn from mistakes (and there were plenty, and I'm sure there will be more). "If this fails it's just too horrible, we mustn't attempt it" doesn't sound like the most helpful attitude when dealing with large projects that have gigantic benefits but can also cause gigantic issues when they explode.
        bb88 6y ago
        It seems with Nuclear we have always underestimated the risk in the risk/reward nature.
bb88 6y ago
>1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. Once the accident starts, there's maybe a handful of people that really know what's going on, if that. Worse, is if there's a "fog of war"-like scenario where they can't see inside, their sensors aren't working, and they have to send sacrificial humans in to get word back to the control. I keep thinking about this event. Some people might speculate that the fallout level would have been low across Europe as a whole. But, who's to say really until you cross that bridge? And do you really want to cross that bridge to find out? https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-...
semaj111 6y ago
You are right about the waste, it really sucks. But I still feel like abandoning nuclear energy now would be incredibly bad timing, given the urgence of reducing our carbon footprint. It's kind of ok not have a 100k years storage facility yet since it is a long term problem. Climate change is a problem we should have started tackling decades ago, and abandoning nuclear power might worsen it dramatically.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  They're not right about the waste. High level radioactive waste will fit in a space about 7 meters high and the area of a football field. That's all nuclear waste since we started operating nuclear reactors... worldwide.
  - semaj111 6y ago
    It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. At some point we will need super long term storage, and it's true that there is no viable solution out there yet. Even the most sophisticated facilities can not guarantee that no leakage will contaminate the surroundings at some point. But as I said, I think finding a solution for this should not be our main priority.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      The longer it’s radioactive lifespan, the less dangerous it is.
      - acidburnNSA 6y ago
        Exactly! In the extreme, things like mercury have an infinite half-life and are toxic forever. Yet nuclear waste always gets the bad reputation because it becomes less dangerous with time. Odd.
        tuatoru 6y ago
jonahhorowitz 6y ago
> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? This isn't a complete solution, but reprocessing the nuclear fuel gives you a significantly smaller amount of waste to deal with and also removes some of the most problematic elements - meaning you don't have to worry about 100k years of protection.[0] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
andbberger 6y ago
Waste was never really a problem and has been definitively solved. You bury it in a deep unmarked hole. [1] Go ahead and keep arguing about whether or not nuclear is a good idea. Earth doesn't care. The water will be lapping at your feet soon. How's that for externalizing a cost to future generations? I am, and will continue to be blown away that the world found out how to make rocks so spicy they can power our civilizations for thousands of years with no carbon 50+ years ago....... and decided to keep burning dead dinosaurs. Fuck big oil, fuck greenpeace, and fuck anyone who is STILL anti-nuclear energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
- carlosdp 6y ago
  Yea nuclear waste isn't actually a problem, I was surprised when I learned this since everyone seems to make a big deal about it. It's solid waste (not radioactive sludge like in many movies/shows), and requires very simple storage containers, which you can just keep on site or bury, no problem. > In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. [1] [1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
- StreamBright 6y ago
  Yep. It is quite unbelievable how we use a 1 million old technology (burning stuff) and try to argue that the new way of producing energy (which is already much safer if you check number of deaths per twh) is somehow dangerous and bad. In 50 years of nuclear energy we already made is super safe. Now we can make it safe for being used in location which have pretty serious earthquakes or as a resource for flying (even for spaceships some day).
  - labawi 6y ago
    > 1 million old technology (burning) AFAIK nuclear is older than oxidation/burning. On a more serious note, burning has been a source of power only since about the steam engine, so about 300 years.
carlosdp 6y ago
Yea nuclear waste isn't actually a problem, even barring newer reactor designs that re-use nuclear fuel. I was surprised when I learned this since it's always coached as the biggest issue with nuclear as a power source. It's solid waste (not radioactive sludge like in many movies/shows), and requires very simple storage containers, which you can just keep on site or bury, no problem. > In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. [1] [1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
- apple4ever 6y ago
  Wow I didn't realize it was that little waste. I also knew it was small, but that is minuscule all things considered.
korantu 6y ago
Have you considered cost of NOT building nuclear? France's industry was decarbonized in 10 years, long ago. Imagine the cost for future generations of not doing the same to other industrialized economies.
- godelski 6y ago
  And because of it they have a better way to renewables (+fusion). As renewables become better they can replace nuclear but because of their standing they don't have to worry about many of the issues that other countries do: base load, long term energy storage with renewables, etc. Because of this France is starting with an emission level that is lower than most countries goals. If all the major countries had went the way of France we wouldn't be in a climate crisis, though it would still be a worrying event for the future (just not a crisis). It is also worth mentioning that almost 20% of France's energy is produced from recycled nuclear (not 20% of nuclear energy, 20% of total).
sesuximo 6y ago
How about you show me where to put all the carbon waste before we build another car/gas plant? Making orders of magnitude less waste that stays in one place seems obviously better... it’s in parking lots because there isn’t much of it
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > where to put all the carbon waste Trees have been extensively proven and are reliable. Human body stores also a lot of carbon.
  - belorn 6y ago
    Im game. For the same amount of fossil fuels being burned a power plant need to plant and then for all future stored so the tree won't be burned or decomposed. Basically for ever bit of fuel burned we expand a ever expanding area of nature reserves which carbon is forbidden to be touched until it return itself as fossil fuels. It would gloriously make fossil fuels prohibitively expensive to the point where any other energy should would be more commercial viable.
  - sesuximo 6y ago
    I don’t think this is really practical or actual (isn’t tree coverage decreasing?) but I’m all for planting trees
StreamBright 6y ago
You might be surprised but burning coal also produces nuclear waste. We jut don't care. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
manfredo 6y ago
> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? Bury it in bedrock with no aquifer. The only scenarios where this results in waste being exposed are borderline hyperbolic: somehow society collapses, all knowledge of radiation is lost, and some future civilization decides to dig up a waste disposal site. The US already built one of these, but then the government killed the project for political reasons [1]. Europe is building a facility in Finland [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
pdonis 6y ago
> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste You don't need one. You reprocess the waste; then you only need about 100 years storage, not 100,000, for what's left over, and we already have plenty of storage methods that will meet that need. Every nuclear-using country other than the US already does this. The only reason the US doesn't is stupid politics.
bsder 6y ago
> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? So you'd rather breathe the waste NOW from your power source instead of storing it where something maybe, possibly might go wrong? Waste is not a good talking point if you want to be anti-nuclear given what we know about just exactly how bad air pollution is--and the medical science around air pollution just keeps bringing more and more bad news. You could have a Fukushima every year and it wouldn't match the harmful effects of fossil fuel air pollution.
mint2 6y ago
Please note the metal can parking lots is a USA thing. Other countries are actually building long term repos.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? "Nuclear waste" is an artificial problem. It is possible to build reactors that use the "nuclear waste" from existing reactors as fuel, which destroys it forever. We haven't done this primarily because people keep refusing to build new reactors that do this until we figure out what to do with the nuclear waste. Which obviously doesn't make any sense.

ysleepy 6y ago
In the same sense that we will all be saved by CO2 capturing devices? These kinds of reactors (Travelling Wave Reactor etc.) you mention are vapourware and have been for quite some time. And I highly doubt the "which destroys it forever" part, - really, no waste at all, magic you say? This is just more of "Future Tech will solve this" externalization of problems.
- randallsquared 6y ago
  > really, no waste at all, magic you say? The core problem with nuclear waste is that it's energetic. There are a number of designs that burn up waste; if we were building and testing them, poor reactor types could be abandoned and better ones could be improved. We're not doing that primarily because "nuclear" is a scary word owing to activist efforts decades ago. > This is just more of "Future Tech will solve this" externalization of problems. That is absolutely the right plan, though. Assuming our civilization doesn't collapse or stall, future generations will be enormously wealthier than we are, and any problem we have will be proportionately smaller for them. Of course, stall or collapse isn't impossible, but I do wish people wouldn't so heavily advocate for exactly that.
  - stephenr 6y ago
    > because "nuclear" is a scary word owing to activist efforts decades ago. Right, activists... not those pesky meltdowns spewing radioactive waste across Europe and into the pacific, it was the activists.
    - randallsquared 6y ago
      All the meltdowns in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s are what explains the automatic flinch that western cultures have had since the late 60s? Huh.
    - spfzero 6y ago
      "spewing ... into the Pacific" actually dilutes it more than when it existed in ore in the first place. It had to be concentrated by orders of magnitude from ore, to make it radioactive enough to be fuel for a reactor. Before that, it was just backround that we've lived happily with for eons, and in the Pacific it is even lower level.
      - stephenr 6y ago
        The plant operators measured 7.5M times the legal limit of radioactive iodine in the seawater. Complete dilution is not a given, and expecting zero consequences to marine life (and anything that then feeds on marine life) is optimistic at best.
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        because there is a lot of water on the planet? Or a hungry fish will introduce it into the food chain before it has dissolved completely homogeneously into the wide oceans of the earth.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Recycling for spent fuels is a proven technology. Problem is ... it creates weapons grade Plutonium as the product, out of Depleted Uranium(stuffs so safe US military puts into tank shells as weights). You know, Plutonium is a highly toxic heavy metal, and a bit radioactive, so,
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Problem is ... it creates weapons grade Plutonium as the product, out of Depleted Uranium(stuffs so safe US military puts into tank shells as weights). Calling this the problem is just more fear mongering. The hard part about building a uranium-based bomb is getting weapons-grade uranium, because the bomb is simpler but U-235 is only 0.7% of natural uranium and is hard to separate from U-238 because they're chemically identical. The hard part about building a plutonium-based bomb is getting the implosion right. Making weapons-grade plutonium is relatively easy -- you expose U-238 to neutrons and some of the uranium turns into plutonium, then you can chemically separate the plutonium. But then you need a sophisticated bomb instead of a sophisticated centrifuge. It's not actually easier. That's why most nascent programs don't generally even try to make plutonium. On top of that, you can design a reactor that produces enough other Plutonium isotopes that it makes the Plutonium-239 totally useless for a bomb, because they're even harder to separate from one another than U-235 is from U-238. Also, the nuclear waste which sticks around for 24,000 years? That's the plutonium. The existing reactors already make it, because they contain U-238 and neutrons. It's the thing we already have, don't want and newer reactors can get rid of.
    - verall 6y ago
      It sure makes an easy dirty bomb when stuck on a regular bomb though.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Dirty bombs are, to begin with, Hollywood movie plot nonsense. But long-lived isotopes aren't even what you would use because they're only mildly radioactive.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  >These kinds of reactors you mention are vapourware and have been for quite some time. Depends on a country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) >The reactor uses nitride uranium-plutonium fuel, is a breeder reactor and can burn long-term radioactive waste. I think existing BN reactors can also be used in the same way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor Yes, it's not 100% ready technology (e.g. there are problems with fuel fabrication), but I would call it last stages of development.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    The BN-800 reactor was an engineering nightmare, though. Those things had more downtime due to technical issues than operation time. The issues were indeed so severe, that the follow-up project (BN-1200) required a redesign and was put on hold indefinitely...
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      IIRC most issues were caused by problems and delays with fuel fabrication, mentioned in my post. And changes in fuel fabrication is one of the main reasons for postponing BN-1200 construction (i.e. it does not make sense to build a reactor, while fuel production line is not ready).
bb88 6y ago
So this falls into the category of the solution of "X" is more "X". I'm usually skeptical of arguments like these especially when "X" is complex, potentially harmful, or offered as a magic bullet. In your case in order to validate claims, I have to be a nuclear scientist to understand the potential ramifications of your argument before I can fully understand the pros/cons. If as an engineer, I cannot afford the time to do it, how our are politicians supposed to?
- mnemonicsloth 6y ago
  The same way politicians build bridges and operate air traffic control systems: by hiring experts to do it.
  - bb88 6y ago
    I feel you're being pedantic here. When bridges fail, they don't affect potentially millions of people's health. Nor does when an ATC system fail at an airport -- traffic can just be rerouted to other airports.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Meh, when major industry things fail, and e.g. a refinery just breaks and releases all of the oil and other stuff into the next best river, it will affect potentially millions of people's health if it's located right. That's why we're trying to make extra extra sure that it doesn't happen and hire experts, and learn from mistakes (and there were plenty, and I'm sure there will be more). "If this fails it's just too horrible, we mustn't attempt it" doesn't sound like the most helpful attitude when dealing with large projects that have gigantic benefits but can also cause gigantic issues when they explode.
      - bb88 6y ago
        It seems with Nuclear we have always underestimated the risk in the risk/reward nature.

bb88 6y ago

>1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. Once the accident starts, there's maybe a handful of people that really know what's going on, if that. Worse, is if there's a "fog of war"-like scenario where they can't see inside, their sensors aren't working, and they have to send sacrificial humans in to get word back to the control. I keep thinking about this event. Some people might speculate that the fallout level would have been low across Europe as a whole. But, who's to say really until you cross that bridge? And do you really want to cross that bridge to find out? https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-...

semaj111 6y ago

You are right about the waste, it really sucks. But I still feel like abandoning nuclear energy now would be incredibly bad timing, given the urgence of reducing our carbon footprint. It's kind of ok not have a 100k years storage facility yet since it is a long term problem. Climate change is a problem we should have started tackling decades ago, and abandoning nuclear power might worsen it dramatically.

ethanwillis 6y ago
They're not right about the waste. High level radioactive waste will fit in a space about 7 meters high and the area of a football field. That's all nuclear waste since we started operating nuclear reactors... worldwide.
- semaj111 6y ago
  It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. At some point we will need super long term storage, and it's true that there is no viable solution out there yet. Even the most sophisticated facilities can not guarantee that no leakage will contaminate the surroundings at some point. But as I said, I think finding a solution for this should not be our main priority.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    The longer it’s radioactive lifespan, the less dangerous it is.
    - acidburnNSA 6y ago
      Exactly! In the extreme, things like mercury have an infinite half-life and are toxic forever. Yet nuclear waste always gets the bad reputation because it becomes less dangerous with time. Odd.
      - tuatoru 6y ago

jonahhorowitz 6y ago

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? This isn't a complete solution, but reprocessing the nuclear fuel gives you a significantly smaller amount of waste to deal with and also removes some of the most problematic elements - meaning you don't have to worry about 100k years of protection.[0] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

andbberger 6y ago

Waste was never really a problem and has been definitively solved. You bury it in a deep unmarked hole. [1] Go ahead and keep arguing about whether or not nuclear is a good idea. Earth doesn't care. The water will be lapping at your feet soon. How's that for externalizing a cost to future generations? I am, and will continue to be blown away that the world found out how to make rocks so spicy they can power our civilizations for thousands of years with no carbon 50+ years ago....... and decided to keep burning dead dinosaurs. Fuck big oil, fuck greenpeace, and fuck anyone who is STILL anti-nuclear energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

carlosdp 6y ago
Yea nuclear waste isn't actually a problem, I was surprised when I learned this since everyone seems to make a big deal about it. It's solid waste (not radioactive sludge like in many movies/shows), and requires very simple storage containers, which you can just keep on site or bury, no problem. > In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. [1] [1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
StreamBright 6y ago
Yep. It is quite unbelievable how we use a 1 million old technology (burning stuff) and try to argue that the new way of producing energy (which is already much safer if you check number of deaths per twh) is somehow dangerous and bad. In 50 years of nuclear energy we already made is super safe. Now we can make it safe for being used in location which have pretty serious earthquakes or as a resource for flying (even for spaceships some day).
- labawi 6y ago
  > 1 million old technology (burning) AFAIK nuclear is older than oxidation/burning. On a more serious note, burning has been a source of power only since about the steam engine, so about 300 years.

carlosdp 6y ago

Yea nuclear waste isn't actually a problem, even barring newer reactor designs that re-use nuclear fuel. I was surprised when I learned this since it's always coached as the biggest issue with nuclear as a power source. It's solid waste (not radioactive sludge like in many movies/shows), and requires very simple storage containers, which you can just keep on site or bury, no problem. > In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. [1] [1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

apple4ever 6y ago
Wow I didn't realize it was that little waste. I also knew it was small, but that is minuscule all things considered.

korantu 6y ago

Have you considered cost of NOT building nuclear? France's industry was decarbonized in 10 years, long ago. Imagine the cost for future generations of not doing the same to other industrialized economies.

godelski 6y ago
And because of it they have a better way to renewables (+fusion). As renewables become better they can replace nuclear but because of their standing they don't have to worry about many of the issues that other countries do: base load, long term energy storage with renewables, etc. Because of this France is starting with an emission level that is lower than most countries goals. If all the major countries had went the way of France we wouldn't be in a climate crisis, though it would still be a worrying event for the future (just not a crisis). It is also worth mentioning that almost 20% of France's energy is produced from recycled nuclear (not 20% of nuclear energy, 20% of total).

sesuximo 6y ago

How about you show me where to put all the carbon waste before we build another car/gas plant? Making orders of magnitude less waste that stays in one place seems obviously better... it’s in parking lots because there isn’t much of it

pvaldes 6y ago
> where to put all the carbon waste Trees have been extensively proven and are reliable. Human body stores also a lot of carbon.
- belorn 6y ago
  Im game. For the same amount of fossil fuels being burned a power plant need to plant and then for all future stored so the tree won't be burned or decomposed. Basically for ever bit of fuel burned we expand a ever expanding area of nature reserves which carbon is forbidden to be touched until it return itself as fossil fuels. It would gloriously make fossil fuels prohibitively expensive to the point where any other energy should would be more commercial viable.
- sesuximo 6y ago
  I don’t think this is really practical or actual (isn’t tree coverage decreasing?) but I’m all for planting trees

StreamBright 6y ago

You might be surprised but burning coal also produces nuclear waste. We jut don't care. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

manfredo 6y ago

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? Bury it in bedrock with no aquifer. The only scenarios where this results in waste being exposed are borderline hyperbolic: somehow society collapses, all knowledge of radiation is lost, and some future civilization decides to dig up a waste disposal site. The US already built one of these, but then the government killed the project for political reasons [1]. Europe is building a facility in Finland [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

pdonis 6y ago

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste You don't need one. You reprocess the waste; then you only need about 100 years storage, not 100,000, for what's left over, and we already have plenty of storage methods that will meet that need. Every nuclear-using country other than the US already does this. The only reason the US doesn't is stupid politics.

bsder 6y ago

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? So you'd rather breathe the waste NOW from your power source instead of storing it where something maybe, possibly might go wrong? Waste is not a good talking point if you want to be anti-nuclear given what we know about just exactly how bad air pollution is--and the medical science around air pollution just keeps bringing more and more bad news. You could have a Fukushima every year and it wouldn't match the harmful effects of fossil fuel air pollution.

mint2 6y ago

Please note the metal can parking lots is a USA thing. Other countries are actually building long term repos.