7 ms·

The rush out of nuclear fission power still shocks me. It's a miracle fuel. It really is wonderful. It solves climate change almost by itself, or it would ha

The rush out of nuclear fission power still shocks me. It's a miracle fuel. It really is wonderful. It solves climate change almost by itself, or it would have, had Chernobyl and Fukushima not been reported so irresponsibly.

LadyCailin 4y ago
It seems like that might be changing again though, now that non-renewable energy prices are so high.
belter 4y ago
"The history behind Germany's nuclear phase-out": https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
wasmitnetzen 4y ago
It would be miracle fuel if any country in the world would have solved the waste problem by now. Finland is close, but still not done.
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  Russia recycles nuclear waste into nuclear fuel.
- watsocd 4y ago
  Research what France does. They recycle the waste because it is not waste, it just needs processing and can be used again. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-t...
  - wasmitnetzen 4y ago
    They're not reducing their waste to zero, so that's not a full solution to the waste problem.
- atomlib 4y ago
  Well, my home is powered with a miracle then. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/BN-800-running-on-60-MOX https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/BN-800-running-o... > BN-800 running on 60% MOX > The reactor core itself was refuelled and is now using 60% mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel, supplied by TVEL and manufactured at its Zheleznogorsk site. The plutonium for this was produced from uranium during the operation of other nuclear power plants and recovered from the used fuel assemblies through reprocessing.
sveme 4y ago
No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. And please do not come up with future inventions that will magically remove that issue, that does not help. Btw, it wasn't really a rush, it was started more than 30 years ago by not building new nuclear power plants. Many of the power plants are actually at the end of their lifetime anyway.
- Mo3 4y ago
  I'm almost anxious to ask, I know very little about the topic, but I've been wondering if it wasn't a viable option to just shoot the waste into space? I know it's prohibitively expensive to do that as of now, but seeing what they're doing with Spinlaunch..
  - Auracle 4y ago
    I’m sure someone here can do the math, but it takes a lot of energy to get things not just in space, but out of the Earth’s gravity. You don’t want that nuclear waste raining back down. It’s far easier, cheaper, and more fool proof to just bury it deep.
  - kej 4y ago
    In addition to the raw costs of moving anything into space, there is the contingency cost of what happens if the launch goes wrong. A new satellite blowing up on the launchpad is bad, but a cargo of nuclear waste exploding a few seconds after liftoff is catastrophic.
    - Mo3 4y ago
      True, that sounds reasonable..
- gizmo 4y ago
  That's not true. Nuclear waste is so minimal in volume nuclear power plants can just sweep it under the carpet. Or more specifically, just store it on-site. Modern nuclear reactors can even use the waste of old reactors as fuel and reduce it by another 80% or so. Dealing with nuclear waste is really no big deal. At least for medium term storage. Storing waste so you don't have to look after it for thousands of years is admittedly more difficult. Then again, future generations are always impacted by the choices we make today and I'm pretty sure the kids 300 years from now would rather deal with the cleanup of our nuclear waste than with the consequence of global warming.
reaperducer 4y ago
It solves climate change almost by itself, or it would have, had Chernobyl and Fukushima Every energy source is the perfect energy source, if you choose to ignore its problems. Just like every operating system is the perfect operating system if you overlook its flaws. Messing with atoms is better than burning fossil fuels, but let's not pretend that it's perfect. not been reported so irresponsibly. "Blame the messenger" is an ancient, and irresponsible game.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Blame the messenger is perfectly valid if the message is not delivered accurately. I think the qualms people had with the reporting of nuclear plant problems is that they were overblown and scared people away from nuclear.
AnonCoward42 4y ago
If you ignore the radioactive waste, it really is wonderful, but we still don't have a single final depot in Germany for it and it takes some 100k years to get rid of it the natural way.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  "Takes a long time to become progressively less harmful" is, if you think about it, an improvement over "never really gets any less bad".
atq2119 4y ago
Meanwhile France, a famously pro-nuclear country, has to shut down many of its nuclear power plants in summer because they can't cool them adequately. (Yes, I'm sure issues can be fixed. Point is, nuclear has an awful lot of practical problems for supposedly being miraculous.)
- freemint 4y ago
  No, they didn't fix it but is has gone better. Today 25338 MW from nuclear. A year ago 37119 MW from nuclear. So almost 1/3rd down. Source: https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energ...
- forty 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm French and I'm a bit sad that people seems to deal with nuclear energy as if it was some kind a religious thing. Both sides, anti nuclear who seem to ignore the great benefits it can bring and the pro nuclear who can't seem to see how it sucks (not because it's dangerous or not green, but because it's expensive and doesn't work half of the time because of maintenance or heat - oh and also because we cannot build new reactor in reasonable time and budget anymore )
- kaba0 4y ago
  It still produces plenty of energy, and that much more would you have to create mostly from coal otherwise.

LadyCailin 4y ago

It seems like that might be changing again though, now that non-renewable energy prices are so high.

belter 4y ago

"The history behind Germany's nuclear phase-out": https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...

wasmitnetzen 4y ago

It would be miracle fuel if any country in the world would have solved the waste problem by now. Finland is close, but still not done.

vbezhenar 4y ago
Russia recycles nuclear waste into nuclear fuel.
watsocd 4y ago
Research what France does. They recycle the waste because it is not waste, it just needs processing and can be used again. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-t...
- wasmitnetzen 4y ago
  They're not reducing their waste to zero, so that's not a full solution to the waste problem.
atomlib 4y ago
Well, my home is powered with a miracle then. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/BN-800-running-on-60-MOX https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/BN-800-running-o... > BN-800 running on 60% MOX > The reactor core itself was refuelled and is now using 60% mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel, supplied by TVEL and manufactured at its Zheleznogorsk site. The plutonium for this was produced from uranium during the operation of other nuclear power plants and recovered from the used fuel assemblies through reprocessing.

sveme 4y ago

No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. And please do not come up with future inventions that will magically remove that issue, that does not help. Btw, it wasn't really a rush, it was started more than 30 years ago by not building new nuclear power plants. Many of the power plants are actually at the end of their lifetime anyway.

Mo3 4y ago
I'm almost anxious to ask, I know very little about the topic, but I've been wondering if it wasn't a viable option to just shoot the waste into space? I know it's prohibitively expensive to do that as of now, but seeing what they're doing with Spinlaunch..
- Auracle 4y ago
  I’m sure someone here can do the math, but it takes a lot of energy to get things not just in space, but out of the Earth’s gravity. You don’t want that nuclear waste raining back down. It’s far easier, cheaper, and more fool proof to just bury it deep.
- kej 4y ago
  In addition to the raw costs of moving anything into space, there is the contingency cost of what happens if the launch goes wrong. A new satellite blowing up on the launchpad is bad, but a cargo of nuclear waste exploding a few seconds after liftoff is catastrophic.
  - Mo3 4y ago
    True, that sounds reasonable..
gizmo 4y ago
That's not true. Nuclear waste is so minimal in volume nuclear power plants can just sweep it under the carpet. Or more specifically, just store it on-site. Modern nuclear reactors can even use the waste of old reactors as fuel and reduce it by another 80% or so. Dealing with nuclear waste is really no big deal. At least for medium term storage. Storing waste so you don't have to look after it for thousands of years is admittedly more difficult. Then again, future generations are always impacted by the choices we make today and I'm pretty sure the kids 300 years from now would rather deal with the cleanup of our nuclear waste than with the consequence of global warming.

reaperducer 4y ago

It solves climate change almost by itself, or it would have, had Chernobyl and Fukushima Every energy source is the perfect energy source, if you choose to ignore its problems. Just like every operating system is the perfect operating system if you overlook its flaws. Messing with atoms is better than burning fossil fuels, but let's not pretend that it's perfect. not been reported so irresponsibly. "Blame the messenger" is an ancient, and irresponsible game.

jjeaff 4y ago
Blame the messenger is perfectly valid if the message is not delivered accurately. I think the qualms people had with the reporting of nuclear plant problems is that they were overblown and scared people away from nuclear.

AnonCoward42 4y ago

If you ignore the radioactive waste, it really is wonderful, but we still don't have a single final depot in Germany for it and it takes some 100k years to get rid of it the natural way.

naniwaduni 4y ago
"Takes a long time to become progressively less harmful" is, if you think about it, an improvement over "never really gets any less bad".

atq2119 4y ago

Meanwhile France, a famously pro-nuclear country, has to shut down many of its nuclear power plants in summer because they can't cool them adequately. (Yes, I'm sure issues can be fixed. Point is, nuclear has an awful lot of practical problems for supposedly being miraculous.)

freemint 4y ago
No, they didn't fix it but is has gone better. Today 25338 MW from nuclear. A year ago 37119 MW from nuclear. So almost 1/3rd down. Source: https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energ...
forty 4y ago
Yeah, I'm French and I'm a bit sad that people seems to deal with nuclear energy as if it was some kind a religious thing. Both sides, anti nuclear who seem to ignore the great benefits it can bring and the pro nuclear who can't seem to see how it sucks (not because it's dangerous or not green, but because it's expensive and doesn't work half of the time because of maintenance or heat - oh and also because we cannot build new reactor in reasonable time and budget anymore )
kaba0 4y ago
It still produces plenty of energy, and that much more would you have to create mostly from coal otherwise.