4 ms·
Ok, so another pro-nuclear puff piece. Why do I say that? Because it talks about nuclear waste without ever mentioning the other kind: fuel processing waste. N
by jmyeet 4y ago
Ok, so another pro-nuclear puff piece. Why do I say that? Because it talks about nuclear waste without ever mentioning the other kind: fuel processing waste.
Nuclear fuel needs to be enriched. Enriching is simply upping the percentage of U-235 (the rest is mostly U-238). Civilian reactors tend to have relatively low enrichment rates. So-called weapons grade is enriched to a very high percentage and requires different processes.
So U-235 and U-238 are chemically identical. So how do you enrich a sample? Centrifuges. You make a Uranium gas. The U-238 molecules will be heavier. Spin them in a centrifuge and you can extract them at a greater percentage and then pass on the gas to the next centrifuge. You do this repeatedly until you get the enrichment level you want and then extract the metal from the gas.
The gas of choice is UF6 (Uranium Hexaflouride). That itself is a toxic byproduct that needs to be stored or otherwise dealt with. We don't really have a good solution for this either. There is some reprocessing that basically turns UF6 into less toxic UF4 but it's not really economic.
As always, pro-nuclear propaganda focuses on deaths because deaths doesn't capture the negative impact of nuclear. Why? Because the Chernobyl disaster directly killed less than 100 (it also probably killed tens of thousands through cancers in the following years but that's harder to attribute and easier for people to collectively ignore).
But still the Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone, from one incident, is quite literally 1,000 square miles even now, almost 40 years later.
Deaths or deaths per TWh just doesn't capture that impact and those failure modes, which is precisely why such propaganda focuses on deaths.
But none of that is the big problem with commercial nuclear power. It's the fallibility of humans to manage, maintain, build and transport and store (fuel and waste) to a sufficient level to avoid disasters. The profit motive provides an incentive to skimp on some or all of these. Corruption is an issue with both corporations and governments.
Humans are just incredibly bad at managing long-term consequences, which is why we have the climate crisis to begin with.
- tedk-42 4y agoHow many years have France been safely operating their Nuclear plants? Germany too? You speak of a Chernobyl exclusion zone, but I don't see anyone living where they've put up large scale solar farms or next to wind turbines. You're right about humans not managing long term consequences well. From lead poisoning 40 years ago to 20 years from now when we have to deal with the waste of solar left behind (perhaps toxic waste if not dealt with right now). We need nuclear now. No nonsense blockers. Build more plants and replace the coal, oil and gas base load stations we're running now to try slow the rate of carbon we're throwing into the sky. And yes, we need more investment into solar and wind. It's a solution that is solved by multiple alternatives, not dummies getting behind one alternative and saying no to the rest.
- kitkat_new 4y ago> We need nuclear now. No nonsense blockers. Build more plants and replace the coal, oil and gas base load stations we're running now to try slow the rate of carbon we're throwing into the sky. you can't get it now. You have to wait at least 10 years to get a plant up & running. solar and wind - doesnt take even a year
- JanisErdmanis 4y agoThus the best time for nuclear to be built was 10 years ago!
- tedk-42 4y agoDo i really need to correct myself to say we need to start building now for you not to defeat my argument?
- kitkat_new 4y ago> You speak of a Chernobyl exclusion zone, but I don't see anyone living where they've put up large scale solar farms or next to wind turbines. then you need to look more carefully: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/krughuttesolar.jpg https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/krughutt... https://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/882/cached.offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/news/OPW/GermanyBavariacSiemensAG_1.jpg https://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/882/...
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agoUse HF6 as fuel for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb
- devonkim 4y agoFWIW, South Korea is quite corrupt as a system (all its presidents have gone to jail following their term minus one who was jailed already by a previous administration) yet is able to operate its nuclear reactors fine at high safety levels. It doesn’t have the kind of earthquake risks that Japan does but it does have plenty of typhoons / hurricanes hit that could impact structural integrity of its infrastructure quite regularly. This is a country where one of its largest malls collapsed killing many people while its executives hid the problems and tried to flee the country. There are not many data points in terms of number of countries using nuclear nor do I think it’s a panacea or anything for our problems, but from a realistic standpoint we need as many solutions other than fossil fuels on the table right now as a species if we’re to tackle the climate crisis with the gravity it deserves, and nuclear can buy some more options especially if we start deploying small modular reactors that can quickly shutdown fossil fuel power plants. As it stands, aging nuclear power plants tend to be replaced not with another, modern plant but with fossil fuel based plants to meet similar performance and logistical characteristics.
- panick21_ 4y agoIf we as a people actually invested in technology all those issues could easily be save. If we had invested in actual advanced breeder reactors this is a non issue. As an example, a modern molten salt thorium breeder only requires dissolved thorium. But of course if we stop innovation at the first generation and then do nothing for 50 years we are not gone have optimal technology.