8 ms·
> The reality is nuclear is neither clean This argument relies on fiddling with the definition of "clean" in a way it is not otherwise used when discussing cli
by MattGaiser 5y ago
> The reality is nuclear is neither clean
This argument relies on fiddling with the definition of "clean" in a way it is not otherwise used when discussing climate change. In the context of climate change, nuclear is clean because it does not release greenhouse gases.
It is the same tactic used by climate change deniers when they go on about how a wind turbine ended up in a landfill and as a result how there is no such thing as “clean” energy.
- godelski 5y agoI really dislike how people talk about waste. We can sit on it safely for a few hundred years. But people call that passing the buck. It's not if we pursue more recycling technology. It isn't if we pursue more long term storage options. I promise you that we'll advance in technology in the next 300 years. (The waste also doesn't have a feedback loop like carbon emissions do). It's naive to think we can safely store things for tens of thousands of years for civilizations that won't be able to speak our language. There's a lot of artificial constraints on this problem that people don't understand. They also seem to not understand that there's far more dangerous materials that we dump every day that don't have half lives, meaning they are forever. Lead doesn't go away. Most heavy metals are stable. Most of the anti nuclear points that the average person knows comes from oil propaganda. The same people who brought you the "reducing your carbon footprint" propaganda. It's basically the argument for perfection. Which we know perfection is the enemy of good. Because if they can sell this notion then we'll keep doing what we've been doing because momentum is also a powerful force.
- Ourgon 5y agoFurthermore, solutions for the waste problem already exist in the form of fast breeder reactors [1] which can be used to create new fuel for (conventional) reactors. Using these the total amount of waste needing storage is reduced by a factor of 10. The remaining waste has a far shorter half life (none of the reaction products has a half-life between 100 to 210.000 years, all actinides are consumed in the reaction) which results in a relatively short (200-300 years) storage period instead of the thousands for spent fuel. This is not just some piece of fiction, there are several active FBRs with several more on the drawing board or under construction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
- dylan604 5y agoI don't think "clean" means used soap and water. ;-) Can you eat it, can you drink it, can you breath it? Does it actively destroy/damage other living things that come with in proximity of it knowingly or not? Does it pollute when used? Now we can have a similar debate on the word pollute. Does it make the air/ground/water toxic from the use of it? Can it be freely released without harmful side effects without being securely contained.
- Nicksil 5y ago> Can you eat it, can you drink it, can you breath it? Yes. > Does it actively destroy/damage other living things that come with in proximity of it knowingly or not? No. > Does it pollute when used? Now we can have a similar debate on the word pollute. No. > Does it make the air/ground/water toxic from the use of it? No. > Can it be freely released without harmful side effects without being securely contained. Yes.
- dylan604 5y agoI don't know what you're referring to, but uranium does not answer that way to any of the questions.
- MattGaiser 5y agoSoap itself would not pass your standard to be deemed clean. It can be pretty harmful as well in the environment uncontained. Most human activities, including all methods of power production except hydro (and it has other problems), would fail this standard. That is a reason to treat sewage, not ban soap.
- dylan604 5y agoNobody is talking about using soap as a fuel, so not sure the point here.