3 ms·

What makes you say that? If we reprocess uranium fuel, a person’s lifetime energy waste would be barely larger than a soda can and mostly only emitting alpha ra

by ch4s3 5y ago

What makes you say that? If we reprocess uranium fuel, a person’s lifetime energy waste would be barely larger than a soda can and mostly only emitting alpha radiation. You lifetime energy waste from renewables and batteries would be much more voluminous and far more dangerous, being full of lithium.

coryrc 5y ago
Lithium and other metals will be recycled and it is trivial to do so. Currently the volume is too low: except for manufacturing/design defects, no automotive lithium battery has reached EOL yet.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  Lithium is very poisonous and dangerous to recycle. It’s also poorly regulated. Solar panels have life spans of ~30 years and presently they mostly go into landfills without anyone recovering the materials that may be dangerous in the environment. That doesn’t really matter much though. Uranium isn’t dangerous by itself, and has the highest energy density of any existing source.
  - mantaraygun 5y ago
    > Uranium isn’t dangerous by itself Well.. it's not a huge deal but don't eat it. I have a bit of uranium ore on my bookshelf, but I avoid handling it and wash my hands after I do. Besides the alpha radiation, which isn't good for your insides, it's also toxic.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    The LD50 of lithium carbonate in mice is 500 mg/kg. That's not very poisonous. In comparison, the LD50 of arsenic oxide is 8 mg/kg.
pfdietz 5y ago
The problem isn't waste or safety, it's cost. Nuclear isn't necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, and because of its cost it isn't even particularly useful to reduce CO2 emissions -- one gets more bang for the buck elsewhere, up to 100% elimination of emissions. Nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives, even with the cost of necessary storage taken into account. Moreover, renewables and storage have strong experience effects, while nuclear has shown negative experience effects, so this cost gap should only widen. The fact that no merchant nuclear plant (privately financed, selling into a competitive market) has ever been built anywhere in the world should be a clue.

by ch4s3 5y ago

coryrc 5y ago

Lithium and other metals will be recycled and it is trivial to do so. Currently the volume is too low: except for manufacturing/design defects, no automotive lithium battery has reached EOL yet.

ch4s3 5y ago
Lithium is very poisonous and dangerous to recycle. It’s also poorly regulated. Solar panels have life spans of ~30 years and presently they mostly go into landfills without anyone recovering the materials that may be dangerous in the environment. That doesn’t really matter much though. Uranium isn’t dangerous by itself, and has the highest energy density of any existing source.
- mantaraygun 5y ago
  > Uranium isn’t dangerous by itself Well.. it's not a huge deal but don't eat it. I have a bit of uranium ore on my bookshelf, but I avoid handling it and wash my hands after I do. Besides the alpha radiation, which isn't good for your insides, it's also toxic.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  The LD50 of lithium carbonate in mice is 500 mg/kg. That's not very poisonous. In comparison, the LD50 of arsenic oxide is 8 mg/kg.

pfdietz 5y ago

The problem isn't waste or safety, it's cost. Nuclear isn't necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, and because of its cost it isn't even particularly useful to reduce CO2 emissions -- one gets more bang for the buck elsewhere, up to 100% elimination of emissions. Nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives, even with the cost of necessary storage taken into account. Moreover, renewables and storage have strong experience effects, while nuclear has shown negative experience effects, so this cost gap should only widen. The fact that no merchant nuclear plant (privately financed, selling into a competitive market) has ever been built anywhere in the world should be a clue.