4 ms·
It kind of depends on what you consider a fact. I support nuclear scientifically. I don’t think it has a chance politically. Scientifically, nuclear waste dis
by MattGaiser 4y ago
It kind of depends on what you consider a fact.
I support nuclear scientifically. I don’t think it has a chance politically.
Scientifically, nuclear waste disposal is very much solvable problem.
Politically, expect to spend billions upon billions and then have things like Yucca Mountain canned after lots of construction.
Both are true and which ones you consider lead to very different conclusions.
- worik 4y ago> Scientifically, nuclear waste disposal is very much solvable problem. No it is not. There is no place on Earth that we know is geologically stable for the time periods required We have no way of knowing what society will be like ten thousand years from now, let alone 100,000 years. How do we communicate with those people bout the danger of what we left behind? Greed. Hubris.
- Manuel_D 4y agoTectonic plates don't move nearly quick enough to be a concern in the span of 100k years. A spot square in the middle of a plate is going to be safe from earthquakes for millions of years. And not to mention, how does ground vibration bring sometimes buried under 500 meters of solid rock back onto the surface? Earthquakes shake the ground, they don't dig deep boreholes.
- oezi 4y agoYet, all the attempts to store nuclear fuel underground in Germany proved so catastrophic that they had to scrap all of them and restart the selection process.
- Manuel_D 4y agoAnd this was because of earthquakes? Germany foolishly stored it in an abandoned mine, rather than impermeable bedrock.
- elgenie 4y agoYou’re incorrect about the middle of tectonic plates being safe from earthquakes by definition. Locating naively built skyscrapers in New Madrid, MO, for example, would be a bad idea. [1] On a geological timescale, tectonic plates occasionally rift down the middle, both successfully (East Africa) and unsuccessfully (a failed plate rift produced the Great Lakes). With that said, identifying strata that are going to remain seismically stable for a looooong time is a solved problem, and earthquakes generally damage only those things not attached to the (moving) earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake
- Galaxeblaffer 4y agoIf we continue on the current path there will be no society at all. This argument is seriously f'ed up for so many reasons
- MorrisMinor 4y agoNuclear waste disposal has already been solved at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
- WalterBright 4y agoThe flora and fauna in the Chernobyl exclusion zone appear to be thriving.
- pvaldes 4y agoIn some cases, yes, in other it seems that they are sink areas that are simply constantly being nurtured with migrant animals from the surroundings (Some birds for example). Is complex. And we need to remember that some people was poisoned just a few months ago for digging trenches in Chernobyl in the middle of a war. The danger is still there forty years later.
- WalterBright 4y agoPoisoned is a relative term. The rates of cancers and deaths from the Chernobyl disaster varies by an incredible amount depending on what source you look at.
- belorn 4y agoThere are water around mines that will be toxic to human life until the sun collapse and the earth burns up. People will have to be aware of those dangers for as long human exist, unless humans mutate enough to tolerate lead and sulfur in their fresh water. How should we communicate to those people of those dangers?
- pyuser583 4y agoIn the very long run we don’t. We simply trust that people in the future check their water for safety, or avoid drinking from water sources that correlate with illness. We do this now, and humans have done it for millennia.
- pvaldes 4y agoWe need a banner that says "Don't drink the water full of dead deer" (Hum, I hope that they will not have tiktok)
- freshpots 4y agoLead and sulfur are relatively easy to remove from water. Wildlife, however, will be affected by that. We have bigger issues.
- belorn 4y agoWe can filter it out, but unless people know that the water is toxic then they might still be harmed. How do we inform the people of the future of the dangers that contaminated fresh water has, and how do we do that for billions of years into the future?
- freshpots 4y agohttps://globalnews.ca/news/5329835/canadas-nuclear-waste-to-be-buried-in-deep-underground-repository/ https://globalnews.ca/news/5329835/canadas-nuclear-waste-to-...
- throw827474737 4y agoFlying is scientifically a well understood and safe thing. Still its the FAA that makes the rules, and engineering that needs to produce robust and reliable systems, and still planes fall out of the sky sometimes.. Scientifically we already proofed that fusion works, which would be the solution for a lot... So what does "scientifically...much solavable problem" in practice really mean? Worlds apart..
- wolverine876 4y ago> Scientifically we already proofed that fusion works, which would be the solution for a lot... There is no evidence that fusion is a solution to any energy problems. The central problem of fusion power is that reactions consume more energy than they produce.
- pfdietz 4y agoThat's currently a problem, but I don't think it's the central problem. The central problem for DT is some combination of inherent complexity and very low volumetric power density.
- cma 4y agoTranslating the numbers: Billions upon billions per capita is three-dollar bills upon three-dollar bills.
- MattGaiser 4y agoIt would be one thing if billions and billions lead to success, but we are nowhere near a politically acceptable solution for nuclear waste.
- credit_guy 4y agoWho is “we” in this context? It looks like the Finns figured it out. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...