3 ms·

Not to mention the waste which needs an armed guard almost forever, making the total cost of the energy almost infinite.

WalterBright 6y ago
> an armed guard almost forever Things that have long half-lives are not very dangerous, as in order to have a long half-life it must be emitting radiation at correspondingly lower levels. For example, something with a half-life of 100,000 years is emitting 1/100,000 of the radiation that one with a half-life of a year is.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  I actually have no idea how long waste needs to be kept out of the hands of criminals, but I assume it's "a long time". My comment was mostly facetious, but the point I was making was serious. We never really take the full cost of disposing waste and pollution into consideration. I think, when you buy a new solar panel, you should also pay the full cost to pull it apart and dispose of it as well.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tdy721 6y ago
    That’s a carbon tax right? How much should a gallon of gas cost?
    - jay_kyburz 6y ago
      Not just carbon, but plastics and all kinds of pollution. Even the clean up of recyclables like glass and metal should be paid for upfront rather thank asking society to pickup the tab after the fact.
    - orthecreedence 6y ago
      At this point, probably $20-30. Then we'll see how "expensive" nuclear is.
  - rswail 6y ago
    The way to do that is to make the manufacturer responsible for the mandatory recycling. That works to make the manufacturer price in that externality, but it also likely leads to lease arrangements instead of outright purchase.
- godelski 6y ago
  There's an easy way to remember this with a little knowledge of nuclear. Radiation means the material is losing mass (yes, even gamma emitters. Remember Einstein). If it is putting out a lot of radiation, it is losing a lot of mass. Therefore, logically, it can't last that long. Essentially it is like having a well. If you attach a firehose to it you'll drain it overnight. If you attach a dripper to it, it'll take centuries to drain.
bananabreakfast 6y ago
Nuclear waste only lasts "forever" when it is not recycled. And even then it is not dangerous and doesn't need an "armed guard" after a few weeks when all the most radioactive material has decayed away.
smegger001 6y ago
let us weigh the damage of secured monitored nuclear waste leaking vs the uncollected nuclear isotopes into the open environment released today by the carbon burning industry. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... also we don't need to prevent 100% of the waste from leaking just enough to keep from rising the natural ambient background that would be in the environment naturally before we extracted it. Secondly we have the means disposing of in newer reactor designs that use waste from older reactors as fuel and their waste has a much lower half life (down from 100,000 to 500 years)

WalterBright 6y ago

> an armed guard almost forever Things that have long half-lives are not very dangerous, as in order to have a long half-life it must be emitting radiation at correspondingly lower levels. For example, something with a half-life of 100,000 years is emitting 1/100,000 of the radiation that one with a half-life of a year is.

jay_kyburz 6y ago
I actually have no idea how long waste needs to be kept out of the hands of criminals, but I assume it's "a long time". My comment was mostly facetious, but the point I was making was serious. We never really take the full cost of disposing waste and pollution into consideration. I think, when you buy a new solar panel, you should also pay the full cost to pull it apart and dispose of it as well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tdy721 6y ago
  That’s a carbon tax right? How much should a gallon of gas cost?
  - jay_kyburz 6y ago
    Not just carbon, but plastics and all kinds of pollution. Even the clean up of recyclables like glass and metal should be paid for upfront rather thank asking society to pickup the tab after the fact.
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    At this point, probably $20-30. Then we'll see how "expensive" nuclear is.
- rswail 6y ago
  The way to do that is to make the manufacturer responsible for the mandatory recycling. That works to make the manufacturer price in that externality, but it also likely leads to lease arrangements instead of outright purchase.
godelski 6y ago
There's an easy way to remember this with a little knowledge of nuclear. Radiation means the material is losing mass (yes, even gamma emitters. Remember Einstein). If it is putting out a lot of radiation, it is losing a lot of mass. Therefore, logically, it can't last that long. Essentially it is like having a well. If you attach a firehose to it you'll drain it overnight. If you attach a dripper to it, it'll take centuries to drain.

bananabreakfast 6y ago

Nuclear waste only lasts "forever" when it is not recycled. And even then it is not dangerous and doesn't need an "armed guard" after a few weeks when all the most radioactive material has decayed away.

smegger001 6y ago

let us weigh the damage of secured monitored nuclear waste leaking vs the uncollected nuclear isotopes into the open environment released today by the carbon burning industry. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... also we don't need to prevent 100% of the waste from leaking just enough to keep from rising the natural ambient background that would be in the environment naturally before we extracted it. Secondly we have the means disposing of in newer reactor designs that use waste from older reactors as fuel and their waste has a much lower half life (down from 100,000 to 500 years)