4 ms·

"The reality is in terms of safety there were 1000s of things happening in the 70s that damaged far more people then some nuclear waste management." Eh, no. Yo

"The reality is in terms of safety there were 1000s of things happening in the 70s that damaged far more people then some nuclear waste management." Eh, no. You are making my point for me. All the "nuclear is safe and sustainable" propoganda hinges on getting a series of highly complex reactors all built and interoperating (well), and even then I am not clear that all the fuel is re-used, or that the "unspent" portions have some amazing-yet-not-yet-known use. I am sick and tired to the argument that "it's ok lets just do thes 20 other things 5 of which don't even exist yet and have innumerable hurdles facing them and it will be fine". It's really not fine, as you state we are quite good at making mistakes and bungling things, adding more factors into the equation increases the risk of something going wrong, it doesn't reduce them. We can even see from this article, the "solutions" already involve unproven theories that we think quite possibly are wrong, and yet the plans proceed as if nothing were to go wrong.

panick21_ 3y ago
So many things wrong here. Even if you don't build any 'highly complex reactors' as you call them nuclear waste is safe. Reduction of waste threw a reusable fuel cycle would reduce the amount of waste considerably but it isn't actually a necessary condition. Geological storage is unproven and costs billions, but that you seem to ok with. That also involves a lot of steps and a lot of things that can go wrong. > portions have some amazing-yet-not-yet-known use We already know many of the potential use cases but I guess if you are not interested in production of medical isotopes to advance cancer research then I'm not sure what to tell you. Right now we build new reactors only to make these isotopes and the are incredibly limited and only available to a limited set of people. Equally the storage of nuclear batteries has run out and NASA and other space agencies are desperately to start producing them again. > It's really not fine, as you state we are quite good at making mistakes and bungling things, adding more factors into the equation increases the risk of something going wrong It also increases the risk of bringing sustainable reliable green energy, advances in nuclear technology with many application and high paying jobs in the local economy rather then putting up some solar panels produced in China. > unproven theories that we think quite possibly are wrong The theories are not unproven. Its simply a matter of doing the engineering, nobody really questions that these things are possible. Its just a matter of having the funds. Instead of every country spending billions digging a hole, investing in next generation technology is just obviously a better idea. For the price of the nuclear repository Switzerland is planning they could literally build a whole fleet of new reactors to power the country.
- smaudet 3y ago
  So many unfounded assertions.

panick21_ 3y ago

So many things wrong here. Even if you don't build any 'highly complex reactors' as you call them nuclear waste is safe. Reduction of waste threw a reusable fuel cycle would reduce the amount of waste considerably but it isn't actually a necessary condition. Geological storage is unproven and costs billions, but that you seem to ok with. That also involves a lot of steps and a lot of things that can go wrong. > portions have some amazing-yet-not-yet-known use We already know many of the potential use cases but I guess if you are not interested in production of medical isotopes to advance cancer research then I'm not sure what to tell you. Right now we build new reactors only to make these isotopes and the are incredibly limited and only available to a limited set of people. Equally the storage of nuclear batteries has run out and NASA and other space agencies are desperately to start producing them again. > It's really not fine, as you state we are quite good at making mistakes and bungling things, adding more factors into the equation increases the risk of something going wrong It also increases the risk of bringing sustainable reliable green energy, advances in nuclear technology with many application and high paying jobs in the local economy rather then putting up some solar panels produced in China. > unproven theories that we think quite possibly are wrong The theories are not unproven. Its simply a matter of doing the engineering, nobody really questions that these things are possible. Its just a matter of having the funds. Instead of every country spending billions digging a hole, investing in next generation technology is just obviously a better idea. For the price of the nuclear repository Switzerland is planning they could literally build a whole fleet of new reactors to power the country.

smaudet 3y ago
So many unfounded assertions.