3 ms·

This is just incorrect on all accounts. > By stuffing them in a mountain and putting signs outside that we hope people in 10,000 years will understand means de

This is just incorrect on all accounts. > By stuffing them in a mountain and putting signs outside that we hope people in 10,000 years will understand means death is inside? You can visit the Elephants foot safely today. Nuclear fuel is no where as deadly as you make it out to be. > Renewables with battery storage can be 100% of our power. We just have to stop being distracted by the fossil fuel and nuclear industries who keep telling us we can't do it. No it cannot. 100% Battery storage would cost trillions and be beset by toxic waste that is toxic forever and since it's a consumable and need to be replaced every decade. It's a full non starter. Compare that to the tiny amount of spent nuclear waste which is solid, can be safely stored or even recycled. Nuclear is a solution which works well right now. No need for fantasy battery technologies which would be better used in transportation anyways.

PaulHoule 4y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant%27s_Foot_(Chernobyl) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant%27s_Foot_(Chernobyl)
greenthrow 4y ago
> You can visit the Elephants foot safely today. Nuclear fuel is no where as deadly as you make it out to be. Visit. No one can live there. Parts of the earth are off limits because of nuclear errors. And there will be more as long as we continue to use nuclear power. I am not overstating anything, you are buying into nuclear industry propaganda. Nuclear waste is deadly for millennia. People have ideas on how to recycle it, but none of them work today. Not one. Nor do we have any reasonable belief they will be soon. But the nuclear industry pushes these ideas to try to reduce resistance to nuclear power. > No it cannot. 100% Battery storage would cost trillions So would replacing all fossil fuel power with nuclear. > and be beset by toxic waste that is toxic forwver and since it's consumable and need to be replaced every decade. Lithium Ion batteries can be recycled today. Not some hope that a promising idea will become viable in the future. Today. When we are talking about grid load backup they do not need to be replaced every decade. They have a much longer useful life than that. My Nissan Leaf is 8 years old and still using the original battery pack which still has 100% capacity. Yes that is not a typo. I also still have a 2012 Retina MacBook Pro which still has its original battery. That does not have 100% capacity but it still functions and I have no need to replace it. When we are talking grid storage batteries they can degrade extremely significantly and still be useful. They will not degrade 100% in 10 years. When they do reach the end of their useful life they can be recycled. Lastly, that you try to claim that battery production waste is worse than nuclear waste is beyond absurd. You have bought in way too much to nuclear industry propaganda.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  The French extract plutonium and uranium from spent fuel and recycle it in their existing LWR reactors. The resulting fission products are trapped in glass with this technology https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc785510/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc785510/ the fission products are less radioactive than the original uranium in 500-1000 years.
  - jabl 4y ago
    AFAIU without fast reactors they can only recycle the fuel a couple times before the isotopic composition becomes too poor for use in thermal reactors.
- cowtools 4y ago
  >Parts of the earth are off limits because of nuclear errors. And there will be more as long as we continue to use nuclear power. How long will it be until parts of the earth are inhabitable due to climate change? There will be more as long as we continue to neglect nuclear power. >When we are talking grid storage batteries they can degrade extremely significantly and still be useful I doubt it. It will be a major blow to energy efficiency. >Lastly, that you try to claim that battery production waste is worse than nuclear waste is beyond absurd. You have bought in way too much to nuclear industry propaganda. Nuclear waste is extremely manageable compared to mining waste.
- onepointsixC 4y ago
  >Visit. No one can live there. Parts of the earth are off limits because of nuclear errors. And there will be more as long as we continue to use nuclear power. Lithium mines, rare earth mineral mines, and other mines which are used for battery technology and electric motors are contaminated, forever, with ground water contamination which is much more dangerous than the solid spent nuclear fuel of a Reactor. Those sites will never be livable for humans. >Nuclear waste is deadly for millennia. Extremely long half life's mean that a material is extremely low in radioactivity. Meaning that it's actually quite safe to be around. It's short half lives which you should be worried about, but those also become safer more quickly. Given the nature of depleted nuclear fuel, it doesn't have a risk of leaching, nor does it have a risk of accidental ingestion. You are much safer near it than you are near a coal plant. >Lastly, that you try to claim that battery production waste is worse than nuclear waste is beyond absurd. You have bought in way too much to nuclear industry propaganda. Nuclear waste is the only toxic waste in the world which becomes non toxic at some point. That's a miracle. And the fact that you only need about a coke can volume of material to provide enough power for your entire natural life is a second miracle. Compared to the literal tons of lead, lithium, neodymium, and other materials that will be required for your alternative, the numbers start stacking in one side's favor. > Lithium Ion batteries can be recycled today. Not some hope that a promising idea will become viable in the future. Today. Lithium ion battery recycling is more expensive than new battery production. The toxic batteries are melted down to extract lithium from them. But let's say that it's the same price, or even half the price of new batteries. That's still an enormous amount that will have to be spent remanufacturing the batteries. Just because your car or laptop still operates with worn down batteries and you don't mind lower capacity doesn't mean that will scale just dandy to a grid solution. The failure case of your laptop dying prematurely is not nearly as big of a deal as brown outs or black outs because it's not sunny or windy enough.

PaulHoule 4y ago

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant%27s_Foot_(Chernobyl) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant%27s_Foot_(Chernobyl)

greenthrow 4y ago

> You can visit the Elephants foot safely today. Nuclear fuel is no where as deadly as you make it out to be. Visit. No one can live there. Parts of the earth are off limits because of nuclear errors. And there will be more as long as we continue to use nuclear power. I am not overstating anything, you are buying into nuclear industry propaganda. Nuclear waste is deadly for millennia. People have ideas on how to recycle it, but none of them work today. Not one. Nor do we have any reasonable belief they will be soon. But the nuclear industry pushes these ideas to try to reduce resistance to nuclear power. > No it cannot. 100% Battery storage would cost trillions So would replacing all fossil fuel power with nuclear. > and be beset by toxic waste that is toxic forwver and since it's consumable and need to be replaced every decade. Lithium Ion batteries can be recycled today. Not some hope that a promising idea will become viable in the future. Today. When we are talking about grid load backup they do not need to be replaced every decade. They have a much longer useful life than that. My Nissan Leaf is 8 years old and still using the original battery pack which still has 100% capacity. Yes that is not a typo. I also still have a 2012 Retina MacBook Pro which still has its original battery. That does not have 100% capacity but it still functions and I have no need to replace it. When we are talking grid storage batteries they can degrade extremely significantly and still be useful. They will not degrade 100% in 10 years. When they do reach the end of their useful life they can be recycled. Lastly, that you try to claim that battery production waste is worse than nuclear waste is beyond absurd. You have bought in way too much to nuclear industry propaganda.

PaulHoule 4y ago
The French extract plutonium and uranium from spent fuel and recycle it in their existing LWR reactors. The resulting fission products are trapped in glass with this technology https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc785510/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc785510/ the fission products are less radioactive than the original uranium in 500-1000 years.
- jabl 4y ago
  AFAIU without fast reactors they can only recycle the fuel a couple times before the isotopic composition becomes too poor for use in thermal reactors.
cowtools 4y ago
>Parts of the earth are off limits because of nuclear errors. And there will be more as long as we continue to use nuclear power. How long will it be until parts of the earth are inhabitable due to climate change? There will be more as long as we continue to neglect nuclear power. >When we are talking grid storage batteries they can degrade extremely significantly and still be useful I doubt it. It will be a major blow to energy efficiency. >Lastly, that you try to claim that battery production waste is worse than nuclear waste is beyond absurd. You have bought in way too much to nuclear industry propaganda. Nuclear waste is extremely manageable compared to mining waste.
onepointsixC 4y ago
>Visit. No one can live there. Parts of the earth are off limits because of nuclear errors. And there will be more as long as we continue to use nuclear power. Lithium mines, rare earth mineral mines, and other mines which are used for battery technology and electric motors are contaminated, forever, with ground water contamination which is much more dangerous than the solid spent nuclear fuel of a Reactor. Those sites will never be livable for humans. >Nuclear waste is deadly for millennia. Extremely long half life's mean that a material is extremely low in radioactivity. Meaning that it's actually quite safe to be around. It's short half lives which you should be worried about, but those also become safer more quickly. Given the nature of depleted nuclear fuel, it doesn't have a risk of leaching, nor does it have a risk of accidental ingestion. You are much safer near it than you are near a coal plant. >Lastly, that you try to claim that battery production waste is worse than nuclear waste is beyond absurd. You have bought in way too much to nuclear industry propaganda. Nuclear waste is the only toxic waste in the world which becomes non toxic at some point. That's a miracle. And the fact that you only need about a coke can volume of material to provide enough power for your entire natural life is a second miracle. Compared to the literal tons of lead, lithium, neodymium, and other materials that will be required for your alternative, the numbers start stacking in one side's favor. > Lithium Ion batteries can be recycled today. Not some hope that a promising idea will become viable in the future. Today. Lithium ion battery recycling is more expensive than new battery production. The toxic batteries are melted down to extract lithium from them. But let's say that it's the same price, or even half the price of new batteries. That's still an enormous amount that will have to be spent remanufacturing the batteries. Just because your car or laptop still operates with worn down batteries and you don't mind lower capacity doesn't mean that will scale just dandy to a grid solution. The failure case of your laptop dying prematurely is not nearly as big of a deal as brown outs or black outs because it's not sunny or windy enough.