3 ms·
The waste is purely a political issue. In the left corner we have a coal plant. In the right corner we have a nuclear plant with the same output, as well as a
by LorenPechtel 4y ago
The waste is purely a political issue.
In the left corner we have a coal plant. In the right corner we have a nuclear plant with the same output, as well as a reprocessing setup.
They run for a year, both have produced waste. We dig identical landfills for both of them and bury the waste.
Next year we need to dig a new landfill for the coal plant, but the nuke one has plenty of space left.
10,000 years from now the nuke landfill finally fills up--but the first waste we have put in it has decayed to ambient and no longer needs any special storage.
Accidents: The worst nuke has ever done is no worse than normal operation + unfortunate weather has done with coal many times. With even halfway decent safety measures we should be looking at Fukushima as the worst likely event--and note that the death toll ascribed to Fukushima is purely political, had they not evacuated the city the expected death toll was zero. I wouldn't advise farming around there for a while but otherwise it should have been life as normal.
Weapons: At the nation-state level you can't prevent this. At the terrorist level there's a pretty simple defense--your reprocessing plants put some of the waste back into the fuel. Most of the waste that builds up is irrelevant to the reactor, it's a few neutron absorbers that cause the problems. Take those out, put the gamma emitters back in. Even new fuel rods are therefore wickedly hot. Since both the reactors and the reprocessors already have the robotic equipment to handle the wickedly hot spent rods this causes only very minimal issues, but it makes stealing material very dangerous and very easy to spot--you can't hide a gamma emitter with any shield you can smuggle out.
I will object about the small reactors, though--we do *not* want shipboard reactors for civilian use! To keep them small enough those shipboard reactors are fueled with weapons grade uranium.
- pjc50 4y agoI don't remember coal ever rendering food unsafe to eat for 20 years. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 Your assertion is that all the precautions around Fukushima are entirely spurious, and that everyone involved is wrong about the risks, and that you're right and the risk is much lower? I can't help but feel I've heard this a lot during covid. Is there any evidence?
- LorenPechtel 4y agoRemember the advice about not eating too much top predator fish? That's not just an area, that's the whole world and it's effectively permanent. That's coal at work. As for the risks of Fukushima: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...