4 ms·

> expensive to build Raise the price of fossil fuels by 10x. Then we'll see how expensive nuclear is. > takes forever for ROI So, better start now! > huge l

> expensive to build Raise the price of fossil fuels by 10x. Then we'll see how expensive nuclear is. > takes forever for ROI So, better start now! > huge liability risk that likely no private company can tolerate Fuck the market. State-run reactors. Done. > logistical nightmare with waste management Dig a pit, throw it in. > major DoE energy independence project where trillions are pumped in over 25 years to do it properly Yes, exactly, this is what we need. There really is no viable alternative to nuclear energy.

a1369209993 5y ago
> > logistical nightmare with waste management > Dig a pit, throw it in. Dig a pit in non-aquiferous bedrock in a geologically stable region. It's not particularly hard, but it is nontrivial.
- Accujack 5y ago
  No need to dig a big pit, either. Almost all the radioactive waste that exists is from bomb making, not from power generation. If you also create a good plan to recycle reactor fuel into new core assemblies, the total amount of waste drops by a significant amount below the relatively small volume power generation creates now. Spent fuel rods are presently stored in casks on the grounds of power plants. There aren't mountains of them.
  - Klinky 5y ago
    Reprocessing waste is extremely expensive, something like $50 - $60 billion to copy what France does, who funded theirs through weapons research. It's not all dry cask storage, most energy sites store spent fuel in cooling pools. NRC has had to authorize plants to exceed the original design limits of their pools due to the amount of waste with nowhere to go. This is hardly a trivial problem.
    - Accujack 5y ago
      All sites in the US that I know of store spent fuel in cooling pools prior to it going to dry cask storage. That's how the system works - the radioactivity goes down/the rods cool in the pool, then when they're sufficiently low activity they get moved to dry cask. >NRC has had to authorize plants to exceed the original design limits of their pools due to the amount of waste with nowhere to go. This is hardly a trivial problem. State your source(s) for this. I do know that the NRC has to authorize all on site storage whether there's "room" or not, simply because there's that much oversight involved.

a1369209993 5y ago

> > logistical nightmare with waste management > Dig a pit, throw it in. Dig a pit in non-aquiferous bedrock in a geologically stable region. It's not particularly hard, but it is nontrivial.

Accujack 5y ago
No need to dig a big pit, either. Almost all the radioactive waste that exists is from bomb making, not from power generation. If you also create a good plan to recycle reactor fuel into new core assemblies, the total amount of waste drops by a significant amount below the relatively small volume power generation creates now. Spent fuel rods are presently stored in casks on the grounds of power plants. There aren't mountains of them.
- Klinky 5y ago
  Reprocessing waste is extremely expensive, something like $50 - $60 billion to copy what France does, who funded theirs through weapons research. It's not all dry cask storage, most energy sites store spent fuel in cooling pools. NRC has had to authorize plants to exceed the original design limits of their pools due to the amount of waste with nowhere to go. This is hardly a trivial problem.
  - Accujack 5y ago
    All sites in the US that I know of store spent fuel in cooling pools prior to it going to dry cask storage. That's how the system works - the radioactivity goes down/the rods cool in the pool, then when they're sufficiently low activity they get moved to dry cask. >NRC has had to authorize plants to exceed the original design limits of their pools due to the amount of waste with nowhere to go. This is hardly a trivial problem. State your source(s) for this. I do know that the NRC has to authorize all on site storage whether there's "room" or not, simply because there's that much oversight involved.