4 ms·
Yes, you can certainly be both. Climate change is an immediate existential threat as you say yourself. Seeing nuclear as the solution to that threat is very sh
by fgeiger 4y ago
Yes, you can certainly be both.
Climate change is an immediate existential threat as you say yourself. Seeing nuclear as the solution to that threat is very shortsighted IMHO.
Many commenters mention the threat of accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima. That is one aspect, yes. However, on the grand scale it seems as if humanity has limited the risk for these kind of accidents.
The much bigger problem with nuclear energy is that humanity has not yet figured out how to handle the waste on the short term. Let alone on a time scale that is beyond human comprehension.
I was quite impressed by the thorough analysis in this article:
https://bostonreview.net/articles/is-nuclear-power-our-best-bet-against-climate-change/ https://bostonreview.net/articles/is-nuclear-power-our-best-...
Piling more nuclear waste on to the already unmanageable heap is irresponsible. That is why being against nuclear energy as the stop gap solution for climate change is not only reasonable but also responsible.
- josephcsible 4y ago> The much bigger problem with nuclear energy is that humanity has not yet figured out how to handle the waste on the short term. Let alone on a time scale that is beyond human comprehension. Yes we have. Breeder reactors. We just need to start actually using them.
- pjc50 4y agoBreeder reactors turn U238 into various isotopes of plutonium, but there are other kinds of nuclear waste, both in terms of isotopes of spent fuel and normal materials that have been contaminated.
- josephcsible 4y agoWikipedia says "A breeder reactor is not restricted to using recycled plutonium and uranium. It can employ all the actinides". Which isotopes won't work in any breeder reactor, and also have half-lives in the window that makes long-term storage a concern?
- fgeiger 4y agoWhy are they not used yet? Are they safe to operate? Are they commercially viable? There are many promises for technical solutions. Yet, none of them are actually used today for a myriad of reasons.
- josephcsible 4y agoBecause of politics. Their output is useful in the production of nuclear weapons. Now it is legitimate to not want some countries to have them, but there's no reason that the NPT-designated states shouldn't be using them.
- chrisfosterelli 4y ago> The much bigger problem with nuclear energy is that humanity has not yet figured out how to handle the waste on the short term. I agree with you. The ~250,000 tons of nuclear waste we have is a problem. However, we're even less well equipped to handle the ~50,000,000,000 tons of greenhouse gas waste we are generating per year today.
- fgeiger 4y agoThe thing about greenhouse gases is: if we stop emitting them today they will still cause problems for decades. With nuclear waste the time scale is vastly different. For that we need to be able to plan for milennia.
- chrisfosterelli 4y agoThat's my point: avoiding nuclear is failing to solve a problem that will certainly have catastrophic effects within decades to avoid a problem that may effect us hundreds of years from now. It's a bad trade. It's a bad trade even assuming that we don't use those hundreds of years to innovate on the problem, but we should and are. For example, see the sibling thread, or look at TerraPower's reactor that runs off of spent nuclear fuel: https://www.terrapower.com/a-solution-to-the-nuclear-waste-problem/ https://www.terrapower.com/a-solution-to-the-nuclear-waste-p...
- yellowapple 4y ago> For that we need to be able to plan for milennia. 1. Dig a very deep hole 2. Put the bad stuff in the hole 3. Undig the hole Well hot damn I guess I've done thousands of years' worth of planning.