5 ms·

> nuclear accidents can make a place uninhabitable for thousands of years. Ignoring the fact that meltdown is not even possible in modern designs, even in a Fu

by Natsu 6y ago

> nuclear accidents can make a place uninhabitable for thousands of years. Ignoring the fact that meltdown is not even possible in modern designs, even in a Fukushima total power loss scenario, note that the Bikini atoll is safe to visit at this point and it was the site of repeated nuclear testing. It's hard to see how nuclear power plants, which are designed to avoid any possibility of having a critical mass, could do worse than what was done to the atoll. So becoming uninhabitable for "thousands of years" would pretty difficult, even if someone were trying to do that intentionally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll#Current_habitable_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll#Current_habitable... > peak uranium... And what of peak oil then? Didn't that happen already? Also, what's the alternative? We stop using energy to make ammonium, let agriculture scale down to nothing, and leave people starving as food production plummets? There's only so much of a solar energy budget for the planet, then we have to get it from off world (with transport costs) or use up consumable sources already on the planet like coal, nuclear, etc. The universe loses the fight with entropy eventually no matter what we do, the only question is how long we last.

corty 6y ago
Nuclear weapon use in the atmosphere, especially when not near-ground, is orders of magnitude cleaner than reactor accidents. A few hundred kg vs. tens of tons of isotopes released.
rriepe 6y ago
Did you just slippery-slope all the way to entropy? I agree with you and I'm "on your side" in the inane political sense. Just acknowledging the drawbacks.
- Natsu 6y ago
  Entropy is inevitable. I don't see that as a slippery slope but more of another way of saying "in the long run, we're all dead." So we have to have some time horizon for making our decisions, because decisions that are perfect now and forever isn't an actual option for us here and now.
DangitBobby 6y ago
I would like to hear more about "nuclear meltdowns not even possible." You mean on designs that people are actually talking about implenting, or just the state-of-the-art stuff that we are nowhere close to implementing, especially in poorer nations?
- imtringued 6y ago
  I'm also thinking what happens after you built the new thing. Ok, now we have this super advanced nuclear power plant it's super safe. So safe that it would be irresponsible to operate anything else. You know what happens? Old plants can still melt down. Fukushima was one of them and it was older than the Chernobyl plant. It is entirely possible that a new design won't increase safety because the unsafe models keep running.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    You're supposed to decommission them once you have replacement power.
- nl 6y ago
  There's a claim that molten salt reactors are meltdown free. It's not entirely true (they meltdown, but have a drainage tank which is supposed to provide containment). They remain experimental. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#Benefits_and_Drawbacks https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#...
  - shaftway 6y ago
    The use of the term "meltdown" seems disingenuous when discussing a molten reactor. If most of the fuel is already molten, and the shutdown procedure is to cut power (matching a power loss scenario) which means a plug melts to allow the fuel to flow into a safe storage container, then the thing is meant to "meltdown" fairly often. "Core damage incident" instead of "meltdown"?
    - 6y ago
nl 6y ago
> Ignoring the fact that meltdown is not even possible in modern designs You realize this claim (of molten salt reactors) is mostly untrue, right? It's true in the sense that the reactor itself can be drained into a drain tank, but this itself remains highly radioactive and liable to leakage. It also produces radioactive Tritium which is difficult to contain. See https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#Benefits_and_Drawbacks https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#... https://www.powermag.com/blog/molten-salt-reactor-claims-melt-down-under-scrutiny/ https://www.powermag.com/blog/molten-salt-reactor-claims-mel... > There's only so much of a solar energy budget for the planet, then we have to get it from off world I think the 5 billion years until that is projected to happen gives us a little bit of time to work on solutions.

by Natsu 6y ago

corty 6y ago

Nuclear weapon use in the atmosphere, especially when not near-ground, is orders of magnitude cleaner than reactor accidents. A few hundred kg vs. tens of tons of isotopes released.

rriepe 6y ago

Did you just slippery-slope all the way to entropy? I agree with you and I'm "on your side" in the inane political sense. Just acknowledging the drawbacks.

Natsu 6y ago
Entropy is inevitable. I don't see that as a slippery slope but more of another way of saying "in the long run, we're all dead." So we have to have some time horizon for making our decisions, because decisions that are perfect now and forever isn't an actual option for us here and now.

DangitBobby 6y ago

I would like to hear more about "nuclear meltdowns not even possible." You mean on designs that people are actually talking about implenting, or just the state-of-the-art stuff that we are nowhere close to implementing, especially in poorer nations?

imtringued 6y ago
I'm also thinking what happens after you built the new thing. Ok, now we have this super advanced nuclear power plant it's super safe. So safe that it would be irresponsible to operate anything else. You know what happens? Old plants can still melt down. Fukushima was one of them and it was older than the Chernobyl plant. It is entirely possible that a new design won't increase safety because the unsafe models keep running.
- Natsu 6y ago
  You're supposed to decommission them once you have replacement power.
nl 6y ago
There's a claim that molten salt reactors are meltdown free. It's not entirely true (they meltdown, but have a drainage tank which is supposed to provide containment). They remain experimental. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#Benefits_and_Drawbacks https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#...
- shaftway 6y ago
  The use of the term "meltdown" seems disingenuous when discussing a molten reactor. If most of the fuel is already molten, and the shutdown procedure is to cut power (matching a power loss scenario) which means a plug melts to allow the fuel to flow into a safe storage container, then the thing is meant to "meltdown" fairly often. "Core damage incident" instead of "meltdown"?
  - 6y ago

nl 6y ago

> Ignoring the fact that meltdown is not even possible in modern designs You realize this claim (of molten salt reactors) is mostly untrue, right? It's true in the sense that the reactor itself can be drained into a drain tank, but this itself remains highly radioactive and liable to leakage. It also produces radioactive Tritium which is difficult to contain. See https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#Benefits_and_Drawbacks https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#... https://www.powermag.com/blog/molten-salt-reactor-claims-melt-down-under-scrutiny/ https://www.powermag.com/blog/molten-salt-reactor-claims-mel... > There's only so much of a solar energy budget for the planet, then we have to get it from off world I think the 5 billion years until that is projected to happen gives us a little bit of time to work on solutions.