5 ms·

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 hav

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).

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).