4 ms·

> You're describing nuclear fission as a stop gap solution. Well yes, so was oil, so is gas, until we have antimatter and fusion this will have to do. All the

> You're describing nuclear fission as a stop gap solution. Well yes, so was oil, so is gas, until we have antimatter and fusion this will have to do. All these problems will have solutions eventually, you can dump waste down a big hole. It's not like radiation is something that never existed before, dump it a couple of miles under ground, problem solved. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... No doubt at some stage we'll have an energy source that will enable us to convert high level waste into coffee, in the mean time we can just hide it in the ground. https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/high-power-sylos-laser-could-transmute-nuclear-waste https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/high-power-sylos-laser... Like we have an urgent problem now! we need to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere now! Nuclear can do this now. I don't like it either, I don't want to live near a nuclear reactor but we're out of options. Really any issues with nuclear have technological fixes, or will have in the near future. Edit: like if we treat fission as a temporary solution for say 50 years until other stuff works then we're sweet and the planet won't burn up. Sure there's a small chance of an accident that might damage a very small part of the planet, but, what's the chance if we keep using fossil fuels of things going bad - 100% Edit 2: and the waste products from coal and oil are awful and spread out, at least with nuclear the waste products are localised.

lwhi 5y ago
Just because something has been buried, doesn't mean it will stay buried. I appreciate we're in a bind, but nuclear has huge conceptual and practical problems. It would be more sensible to reduce usage and rely on 100% renewables. Not possible? The public appetite isn't there? ... Perhaps, but if that's the case we probably deserve to die out.
- chadcmulligan 5y ago
  > Just because something has been buried, doesn't mean it will stay buried. It does for a long time at least 1000 years > I appreciate we're in a bind, but nuclear has huge conceptual and practical problems. Which are? > It would be more sensible to reduce usage and rely on 100% renewables. Not possible? The public appetite isn't there? Thats not going to happen and there's no need > ... Perhaps, but if that's the case we probably deserve to die out your choice, not mine
  - lwhi 5y ago
    We're not likely to agree. If small pockets of rock, mineral, gas and oil can be found above the surface; it stands to reason that your 1000 year prophecy is optimistic.
    - chadcmulligan 5y ago
      You never know, I used to be against nuclear energy, now I'm pro - I was a member of CANE - the campaign against nuclear energy in my youth :-). The most significant problem is disposing of the waste, there's some reading on it here [1]. 1000 years is tomorrow in geologic terms, in [1] they're talking about a single canister failure in 150,000 years. Imagine the tech we'd have available by then if we're still around. There's a lot of low level waste to when you have to pull a reactor to bits - all the buildings are a bit radioactive, but its easy enough to put in a hole. The one thing you don't want is the groundwater to be contaminated by radiation leaking out, vitrification seems to be the best current solution - turning it into glass. Have a read, you never know. [1] https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pile...
      - lwhi 5y ago
        Rhetoric can be used to sell almost anything. Fundamentally; we have no solution for the waste other than bury it. > 1000 years is tomorrow in geologic terms Think what the human race was actually doing 1000 years ago, and then try to make that statement again with a straight face. The geology does not care. The terms that are important are human. > Imagine the tech we'd have available by then if we're still around. Technology will not save us. Ego and the desire for progress at any cost is going to kill us far sooner.
        chadcmulligan 5y ago
        >Rhetoric can be used to sell almost anything. Sure, but these are facts, not sure why you're having this discussion here if you want something else.

lwhi 5y ago

Just because something has been buried, doesn't mean it will stay buried. I appreciate we're in a bind, but nuclear has huge conceptual and practical problems. It would be more sensible to reduce usage and rely on 100% renewables. Not possible? The public appetite isn't there? ... Perhaps, but if that's the case we probably deserve to die out.

chadcmulligan 5y ago
> Just because something has been buried, doesn't mean it will stay buried. It does for a long time at least 1000 years > I appreciate we're in a bind, but nuclear has huge conceptual and practical problems. Which are? > It would be more sensible to reduce usage and rely on 100% renewables. Not possible? The public appetite isn't there? Thats not going to happen and there's no need > ... Perhaps, but if that's the case we probably deserve to die out your choice, not mine
- lwhi 5y ago
  We're not likely to agree. If small pockets of rock, mineral, gas and oil can be found above the surface; it stands to reason that your 1000 year prophecy is optimistic.
  - chadcmulligan 5y ago
    You never know, I used to be against nuclear energy, now I'm pro - I was a member of CANE - the campaign against nuclear energy in my youth :-). The most significant problem is disposing of the waste, there's some reading on it here [1]. 1000 years is tomorrow in geologic terms, in [1] they're talking about a single canister failure in 150,000 years. Imagine the tech we'd have available by then if we're still around. There's a lot of low level waste to when you have to pull a reactor to bits - all the buildings are a bit radioactive, but its easy enough to put in a hole. The one thing you don't want is the groundwater to be contaminated by radiation leaking out, vitrification seems to be the best current solution - turning it into glass. Have a read, you never know. [1] https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pile...
    - lwhi 5y ago
      Rhetoric can be used to sell almost anything. Fundamentally; we have no solution for the waste other than bury it. > 1000 years is tomorrow in geologic terms Think what the human race was actually doing 1000 years ago, and then try to make that statement again with a straight face. The geology does not care. The terms that are important are human. > Imagine the tech we'd have available by then if we're still around. Technology will not save us. Ego and the desire for progress at any cost is going to kill us far sooner.
      - chadcmulligan 5y ago
        >Rhetoric can be used to sell almost anything. Sure, but these are facts, not sure why you're having this discussion here if you want something else.