4 ms·

NIMBYism is everywhere, even for solar and wind. Maybe it's a flaw of Nuclear that you have to stuff its waste in a giant pit inside a mountain. Uranium mining

by Klinky 6y ago

NIMBYism is everywhere, even for solar and wind. Maybe it's a flaw of Nuclear that you have to stuff its waste in a giant pit inside a mountain. Uranium mining often uses leeching techniques, similar concerns to fracking and groundwater contamination, along with general mining hazards. Additionally rare-earth minerals are needed for a variety of things, even including components within a nuclear plant. I highly doubt a Nuclear plant could be built "rare earth metals free". Fuel rods also may contain a mix of rare earth metals. Rare-earth metal mining and refinement practices need to improve, but they will never go away.

umvi 6y ago
> Maybe it's a flaw of Nuclear that you have to stuff its waste in a giant pit inside a mountain. Every type of energy plant has wastes. Even wind turbine blades wear out and are dumped in landfills.[0] The difference is that the nuclear waste eventually decays into nothing, while the fiberglass/plastic blades will stay around for thousands of years... [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...
- audunw 6y ago
  But fiberglass is just silicon and hydrocarbons. The same stuff soil and sand is made of. It's not really a huge problem to bury them. There's also huge developments in fiberglass recycling/repurposing these days. Solving this issue will be extremely helpful as wind power is not the only use of fiberglass as I'm sure you know. In fact, wind power could be instrumental in setting up a supply-chain for recycling of fiberglass, since you get such huge quantities of uniform and clean fiberglass from one source. > The difference is that the nuclear waste eventually decays into nothing, while the fiberglass/plastic blades will stay around for thousands of years... This is just a ridiculously skewed perspective, and wrong - nuclear waste does not decay into nothing, though I suppose you didn't meant it very literally. And saying anything about what will happen to plastic composites over thousands of years is futile. We are already finding bacteria that break down plastic, and we've already accelerated that process by genetically modifying them to make the enzymes more efficient. Did you know that for a long time, trees did not decay? That's why we have coal. They were essentially like plastics. Bacteria and fungi didn't have the enzymes to break them down. I'm willing to bet that it'll take way less time for life to develop the ability to break down plastics. Evolution has more genetic material to draw from now, organism now spread across the globe faster, and humans can transfer genes between species and improve genes in the lab.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    For balance, consider that nuclear waste is high-energy and can be recycled with modern approaches, also. Fast neutron breeder reactors produce orders of magnitude less waste to begin with, consuming almost all their input fuel, and breeder reactors can take as input nuclear waste also. [1,2,3] > We are already finding bacteria that break down plastic, and we've already accelerated that process by genetically modifying them to make the enzymes more efficient. Interestingly enough (and I'm not pointing to this as a solution by any means - just that it's pretty cool), we've found radiotrophic fungi at the elephant foot in Chernobyl. [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor [3] https://nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf https://nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf [4] https://www.cnet.com/news/fungi-found-in-chernobyl-feeds-on-radiation-report-says/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fungi-found-in-chernobyl-feeds-on-...
  - FooHentai 6y ago
    >I'm willing to bet that it'll take way less time for life to develop the ability to break down plastics. A double-edge sword if it does occur. While it could reduce or eliminate microplastics from the environment, it would also unleash a massive amount of currently-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere. Only way around that I can see is if we re-sequester all that plastic deep underground before it happens. Sorry, a bit of a tangent I know, but it's been on my mind lately.

by Klinky 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

> Maybe it's a flaw of Nuclear that you have to stuff its waste in a giant pit inside a mountain. Every type of energy plant has wastes. Even wind turbine blades wear out and are dumped in landfills.[0] The difference is that the nuclear waste eventually decays into nothing, while the fiberglass/plastic blades will stay around for thousands of years... [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...

audunw 6y ago
But fiberglass is just silicon and hydrocarbons. The same stuff soil and sand is made of. It's not really a huge problem to bury them. There's also huge developments in fiberglass recycling/repurposing these days. Solving this issue will be extremely helpful as wind power is not the only use of fiberglass as I'm sure you know. In fact, wind power could be instrumental in setting up a supply-chain for recycling of fiberglass, since you get such huge quantities of uniform and clean fiberglass from one source. > The difference is that the nuclear waste eventually decays into nothing, while the fiberglass/plastic blades will stay around for thousands of years... This is just a ridiculously skewed perspective, and wrong - nuclear waste does not decay into nothing, though I suppose you didn't meant it very literally. And saying anything about what will happen to plastic composites over thousands of years is futile. We are already finding bacteria that break down plastic, and we've already accelerated that process by genetically modifying them to make the enzymes more efficient. Did you know that for a long time, trees did not decay? That's why we have coal. They were essentially like plastics. Bacteria and fungi didn't have the enzymes to break them down. I'm willing to bet that it'll take way less time for life to develop the ability to break down plastics. Evolution has more genetic material to draw from now, organism now spread across the globe faster, and humans can transfer genes between species and improve genes in the lab.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  For balance, consider that nuclear waste is high-energy and can be recycled with modern approaches, also. Fast neutron breeder reactors produce orders of magnitude less waste to begin with, consuming almost all their input fuel, and breeder reactors can take as input nuclear waste also. [1,2,3] > We are already finding bacteria that break down plastic, and we've already accelerated that process by genetically modifying them to make the enzymes more efficient. Interestingly enough (and I'm not pointing to this as a solution by any means - just that it's pretty cool), we've found radiotrophic fungi at the elephant foot in Chernobyl. [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor [3] https://nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf https://nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf [4] https://www.cnet.com/news/fungi-found-in-chernobyl-feeds-on-radiation-report-says/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fungi-found-in-chernobyl-feeds-on-...
- FooHentai 6y ago
  >I'm willing to bet that it'll take way less time for life to develop the ability to break down plastics. A double-edge sword if it does occur. While it could reduce or eliminate microplastics from the environment, it would also unleash a massive amount of currently-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere. Only way around that I can see is if we re-sequester all that plastic deep underground before it happens. Sorry, a bit of a tangent I know, but it's been on my mind lately.