3 ms·

The nuclear waste argument is a purely American one. European countries (France specifically) have a multi-reactor chain where each successive step uses the "wa

The nuclear waste argument is a purely American one. European countries (France specifically) have a multi-reactor chain where each successive step uses the "waste" from the last step. While this doesn't eliminate the need for long-term storage completely, it does reduce the potency of the leftovers since they're not being discarded after using ~3% of their total stored energy (a la the US). Additionally, fission isn't the only way to get energy out of uranium. Nuclear batteries, such as the ones powering Curiosity and Perseverance, can't melt down like a traditional reactor and will continue working until all the energy stored inside it is gone. This is the type of nuclear power I'd like to see gain prevalence for many reasons, foremost of which is the ability for each household to have its own source of electricity independent of a power grid. Solar in space is all well and good, but without a way to beam that power back to Earth, a space-based solar collector is as useful as if nothing were there at all.

ben_w 6y ago
> foremost of which is the ability for each household to have its own source of electricity independent of a power grid. While I’m all in favour of each home (or apartment block) being energy independent, I very much do not want widespread access to even RTG material. Consider: average power use is about 1 kW, 1000 J/s, and that the “dead in 1-2 days with treatment” radiation absorbed dose is merely 30 J/kg, so any domestic power supply is capable of killing an adult in 2-3 seconds of full exposure… or, more likely, a tiny flake imbibed or inhaled due to either malice or incompetence would have the same effect during one night of sleep. > Solar in space is all well and good, but without a way to beam that power back to Earth, a space-based solar collector is as useful as if nothing were there at all. I’m definitely against beamed power, at least until we get a single planetary government. Anything which beams with a higher power flux than sunlight is a potential weapon. Anything which isn’t, requires so much more land than PV that it’s always better to use PV even when you have to put the PV in your nearest desert and beam it to you from there using whatever future tech you’re thinking of to get from orbit. (I assume one world government would mean that government could authorise itself to build a weapon pointed at itself without having to worry it might be secretly planning to shoot itself; I don’t see how either the USA or Russia could ever trust the other if either built one).
cletus 6y ago
So what you're saying isn't entirely true. I believe you're referring to spent fuel processing, which is just one part of it. I specifically mentioned UF6 (uranium hexaflouride) as a hazardous byproduct of centrifuge enrichment. Now France (and some other countries, including the US up until 2018 at least) do process UF6, but only to put it into a more stable form (eg UF4). That more stable form still requires long term storage.

ben_w 6y ago

> foremost of which is the ability for each household to have its own source of electricity independent of a power grid. While I’m all in favour of each home (or apartment block) being energy independent, I very much do not want widespread access to even RTG material. Consider: average power use is about 1 kW, 1000 J/s, and that the “dead in 1-2 days with treatment” radiation absorbed dose is merely 30 J/kg, so any domestic power supply is capable of killing an adult in 2-3 seconds of full exposure… or, more likely, a tiny flake imbibed or inhaled due to either malice or incompetence would have the same effect during one night of sleep. > Solar in space is all well and good, but without a way to beam that power back to Earth, a space-based solar collector is as useful as if nothing were there at all. I’m definitely against beamed power, at least until we get a single planetary government. Anything which beams with a higher power flux than sunlight is a potential weapon. Anything which isn’t, requires so much more land than PV that it’s always better to use PV even when you have to put the PV in your nearest desert and beam it to you from there using whatever future tech you’re thinking of to get from orbit. (I assume one world government would mean that government could authorise itself to build a weapon pointed at itself without having to worry it might be secretly planning to shoot itself; I don’t see how either the USA or Russia could ever trust the other if either built one).

cletus 6y ago

So what you're saying isn't entirely true. I believe you're referring to spent fuel processing, which is just one part of it. I specifically mentioned UF6 (uranium hexaflouride) as a hazardous byproduct of centrifuge enrichment. Now France (and some other countries, including the US up until 2018 at least) do process UF6, but only to put it into a more stable form (eg UF4). That more stable form still requires long term storage.