4 ms·

Yes we do want to trade that. The toxic carbon byproduct goes into the air and causes massive disruption to the lives of billions of people. The toxic fission

Yes we do want to trade that. The toxic carbon byproduct goes into the air and causes massive disruption to the lives of billions of people. The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives.

shafyy 5y ago
Because constructing nuclear power plants and mining uranium don't have toxic carbon byproducts? What are the toxic byproducts you are talking about specifically? > The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives. Haha, if it were that easy. Nuclear waste can be radioactive up to 1 million years. Can you give me an example of a successful long-term nuclear storage facility that exists today? All we're doing currently is storing nuclear waste in temporary storage and rolling over the need to deal with this problem to future generations.
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago
  > Can you give me an example of a successful long-term nuclear storage facility that exists today? Sure. The earth is full of radioactive material (also known as rocks) that have been 'stored' successfully for millions of years.
- ls15 5y ago
  > Can you give me an example of a successful long-term nuclear storage facility that exists today? There are natural deposits of radioactive material and there have been natural nuclear reactors on our planet.
- Fishman343 5y ago
  Nuclear power may be kicking the can down the road, but burning coal is just leaving the can for our immediate offspring already in their 20s and 30s. The article says least-cost, we're fresh out of perfect solutions.
  - shafyy 5y ago
    What are you talking about? Of course coal is worse than nuclear power. The discussion is about renewables vs. nuclear.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      There is no fight between renewables and nuclear. They need each other. It's a fight against coal.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      The discussion should be about all the ways we need to act to meet our energy needs (including efficiency measures to reduce overall demand). Pitting nuclear against only renewables offers the “nothing different can be done; continue to burn coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels” conclusion.
- Ndymium 5y ago
  Finland is building a long term storage facility[0] that is estimated to open in 2023–2025. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
- ThrustVectoring 5y ago
  If it's active for a million years it has to be less dangerous per unit mass out of mathematical necessity. At some point you wind up with something that's about as dangerous as a banana, at which point you can dispose of it however you want.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  > Nuclear waste can be radioactive up to 1 million years. You do understand that "long half-life" = "less radioactive", by definition?
  - shafyy 5y ago
    Sure, but Plutonium and Uranium have a very long radio toxicity time span still: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Spent_nuclear_fuel_decay_sievert.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Spen...
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      That graph shows it as being less toxic than the original ore, which makes sense as it's purified uranium without any of the nasty fission products that are hanging around in the ore. It gradually approaches the ore level over time, which again makes sense, as the fission products are going to build back up. The point here is that the uranium is going to decay no matter what you do, whether in the controlled environment of a reactor with some attention paid to proper disposal, or in the completely uncontrolled environment of the original ore bed, where it's quite possibly going straight into the water table.
- cameldrv 5y ago
  The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Chernobyl and Fukushima disrupted more than a few people’s lives.
- fdewnijfwg 5y ago
  I'd wager their impact will be less than that of climage change if we look a few hundred years into the future. Regardless, both those disasters were more or less man-made. Chernobyl was caused by serious design flaws, and (as far as I know) people who refused to admit something was wrong until it was too late. Fukushima was built below the line indicated by stones setup to warn about tsunamis. I don't think there's any doubt such considerations need to be taken into account when building the next-generation nuclear reactors.
- teitoklien 5y ago
  So did tons and tons of oil spills poisoning fishing grounds and coral attractions , gas leaks, rise in sea level causing many people to migrate, blasts of fuel containers, respiratory diseases from air pollution, crop destruction from acid rain, etc, etc.
- korantu 5y ago
  And still disrupted (dead) lives per energy generated nuclear is one of the safest options. There was hydroelectric fail with 160000 lives lost, and it is not even mentioned when discussing dangers of energy generation. [0]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

shafyy 5y ago

Because constructing nuclear power plants and mining uranium don't have toxic carbon byproducts? What are the toxic byproducts you are talking about specifically? > The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives. Haha, if it were that easy. Nuclear waste can be radioactive up to 1 million years. Can you give me an example of a successful long-term nuclear storage facility that exists today? All we're doing currently is storing nuclear waste in temporary storage and rolling over the need to deal with this problem to future generations.

iamstupidsimple 5y ago
> Can you give me an example of a successful long-term nuclear storage facility that exists today? Sure. The earth is full of radioactive material (also known as rocks) that have been 'stored' successfully for millions of years.
ls15 5y ago
> Can you give me an example of a successful long-term nuclear storage facility that exists today? There are natural deposits of radioactive material and there have been natural nuclear reactors on our planet.
Fishman343 5y ago
Nuclear power may be kicking the can down the road, but burning coal is just leaving the can for our immediate offspring already in their 20s and 30s. The article says least-cost, we're fresh out of perfect solutions.
- shafyy 5y ago
  What are you talking about? Of course coal is worse than nuclear power. The discussion is about renewables vs. nuclear.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    There is no fight between renewables and nuclear. They need each other. It's a fight against coal.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    The discussion should be about all the ways we need to act to meet our energy needs (including efficiency measures to reduce overall demand). Pitting nuclear against only renewables offers the “nothing different can be done; continue to burn coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels” conclusion.
Ndymium 5y ago
Finland is building a long term storage facility[0] that is estimated to open in 2023–2025. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
ThrustVectoring 5y ago
If it's active for a million years it has to be less dangerous per unit mass out of mathematical necessity. At some point you wind up with something that's about as dangerous as a banana, at which point you can dispose of it however you want.
Turing_Machine 5y ago
> Nuclear waste can be radioactive up to 1 million years. You do understand that "long half-life" = "less radioactive", by definition?
- shafyy 5y ago
  Sure, but Plutonium and Uranium have a very long radio toxicity time span still: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Spent_nuclear_fuel_decay_sievert.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Spen...
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    That graph shows it as being less toxic than the original ore, which makes sense as it's purified uranium without any of the nasty fission products that are hanging around in the ore. It gradually approaches the ore level over time, which again makes sense, as the fission products are going to build back up. The point here is that the uranium is going to decay no matter what you do, whether in the controlled environment of a reactor with some attention paid to proper disposal, or in the completely uncontrolled environment of the original ore bed, where it's quite possibly going straight into the water table.
cameldrv 5y ago
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Chernobyl and Fukushima disrupted more than a few people’s lives.

fdewnijfwg 5y ago
I'd wager their impact will be less than that of climage change if we look a few hundred years into the future. Regardless, both those disasters were more or less man-made. Chernobyl was caused by serious design flaws, and (as far as I know) people who refused to admit something was wrong until it was too late. Fukushima was built below the line indicated by stones setup to warn about tsunamis. I don't think there's any doubt such considerations need to be taken into account when building the next-generation nuclear reactors.
teitoklien 5y ago
So did tons and tons of oil spills poisoning fishing grounds and coral attractions , gas leaks, rise in sea level causing many people to migrate, blasts of fuel containers, respiratory diseases from air pollution, crop destruction from acid rain, etc, etc.
korantu 5y ago
And still disrupted (dead) lives per energy generated nuclear is one of the safest options. There was hydroelectric fail with 160000 lives lost, and it is not even mentioned when discussing dangers of energy generation. [0]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure