5 ms·

This is the site I always point to when the pro-nuc crowd likes to tout how safe nuclear energy is. Sure this is weapons, but I’d be a whole lot more confident

This is the site I always point to when the pro-nuc crowd likes to tout how safe nuclear energy is. Sure this is weapons, but I’d be a whole lot more confident in our ability to handle nuclear waste if we didn’t have a ~100 year old active ongoing nuclear disaster that we can’t manage to fix and we don’t even know the full extent of. Once we demonstrate ability to clean this mess up, maybe then we might be able to trust ourselves with future nuclear projects.

junofan 3y ago
What does a spill of cesium and strontium at a research site have to do with nuclear power generation?
- nikanj 3y ago
  [flagged]
- perihelions 3y ago
  The research that caused the spill was in support of nuclear power generation—for testing vitrification of spent nuclear fuel for geologic burial. From OP: - "In the 1980s one of the building’s six hot cells was being used to prepare concentrated radioactive cesium and strontium from Hanford plutonium-production waste for Germany to use for testing of a repository for radioactive waste." (And speaking generally, it's a type of work that's representative of closed nuclear fuel cycles: a type of work that'd you want to see a lot *more of*, if you want seriously to expand the nuclear fission economy. I'm no flavor of anti-nuclear; but let's not reflexively dismiss interesting discussions of technological risk—let's not fall into that polarization trap).
  - junofan 3y ago
    I mean, it’s research. Expect fuckups.
- nebalee 3y ago
  I think the poster is very clear that their objection is about how nuclear waste is handled, not where it came from.
  - flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
    I think the reply was very clear that it's not a given that the way a research site handles nuclear waste would be the same way as an actual power plant
- explaininjs 3y ago
  The same government is responsible for managing the nuclear waste at both of them, and they’ve clearly demonstrated they are unwilling and/or unable to do so. I don’t support giving the government any more nuclear waste to manage until it can finish what is already on its plate, so to speak.
crashingintoyou 3y ago
I think that safety claims re: nuclear are a bit oversold by some, but when the alternative is increased deaths from particular emissions from burning fossil fuels I still find myself leaning nuclear. e.g. Germany having decided to accelerate its nuclear powerplant shutdowns gets estimated (https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598) at leading to around 1100 additional deaths per year.
- Xylakant 3y ago
  You also need to note that the same government at the same time decided to decelerate the growth of renewable energies that were supposed to replace both nuclear and fossil plants. It’s not a choice between nuclear and fossil.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Georgelemental 3y ago
This site was used to create weapons-grade fuel, which has an order of magnitude more fissile isotopes than anything a civilian reactor uses. The dangers are not comparable
- explaininjs 3y ago
  If the government is unwilling/unable to dedicate sufficient resources to clean up this 10x mess, why should we expect them to do so for a future 1x mess?

junofan 3y ago

What does a spill of cesium and strontium at a research site have to do with nuclear power generation?

nikanj 3y ago
[flagged]
perihelions 3y ago
The research that caused the spill was in support of nuclear power generation—for testing vitrification of spent nuclear fuel for geologic burial. From OP: - "In the 1980s one of the building’s six hot cells was being used to prepare concentrated radioactive cesium and strontium from Hanford plutonium-production waste for Germany to use for testing of a repository for radioactive waste." (And speaking generally, it's a type of work that's representative of closed nuclear fuel cycles: a type of work that'd you want to see a lot *more of*, if you want seriously to expand the nuclear fission economy. I'm no flavor of anti-nuclear; but let's not reflexively dismiss interesting discussions of technological risk—let's not fall into that polarization trap).
- junofan 3y ago
  I mean, it’s research. Expect fuckups.
nebalee 3y ago
I think the poster is very clear that their objection is about how nuclear waste is handled, not where it came from.
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
  I think the reply was very clear that it's not a given that the way a research site handles nuclear waste would be the same way as an actual power plant
explaininjs 3y ago
The same government is responsible for managing the nuclear waste at both of them, and they’ve clearly demonstrated they are unwilling and/or unable to do so. I don’t support giving the government any more nuclear waste to manage until it can finish what is already on its plate, so to speak.

crashingintoyou 3y ago

I think that safety claims re: nuclear are a bit oversold by some, but when the alternative is increased deaths from particular emissions from burning fossil fuels I still find myself leaning nuclear. e.g. Germany having decided to accelerate its nuclear powerplant shutdowns gets estimated (https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598) at leading to around 1100 additional deaths per year.

Xylakant 3y ago
You also need to note that the same government at the same time decided to decelerate the growth of renewable energies that were supposed to replace both nuclear and fossil plants. It’s not a choice between nuclear and fossil.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Georgelemental 3y ago

This site was used to create weapons-grade fuel, which has an order of magnitude more fissile isotopes than anything a civilian reactor uses. The dangers are not comparable

explaininjs 3y ago
If the government is unwilling/unable to dedicate sufficient resources to clean up this 10x mess, why should we expect them to do so for a future 1x mess?