5 ms·

And next time we know it will definitely be different. There won’t be any ulterior motives, there won’t be any corners cut or compromises due to cost. We can to

And next time we know it will definitely be different. There won’t be any ulterior motives, there won’t be any corners cut or compromises due to cost. We can totally make nuclear generators that don’t have any value to the defense industry - we won’t even take any of their money to build them this time. We’ll make stronger standards and put in political safeguards so the cleanup problem can’t be kicked down the road to future governments. We’ve learned from experience so this can never happen again.

vlovich123 3y ago
Nice shifting of goal posts. First it was cost now it’s that defense industry has an interest in commercial power generation. Like maybe. But also countries have no problem creating nukes without commercial reactors so maybe that doesn’t matter so much? There are also reactor designs that result in fuel that can’t be reprocessed into plutonium / weaponry. Not sure the state of that research / if it’s even worth bothering to do so because generating plutonium isn’t that hard in the grand scheme of things and if the defense industry wants to do it they’ll build a reactor anyway, it’ll just maybe cost more. Not to mention that the US has all sorts of nuclear reactors already and they don’t need to rely on commercial ones so much.
snakeyjake 3y ago
> We’ve learned from experience so this can never happen again. Yes. That statement is correct. Literally, actually, and factually the techniques and technologies used in the 1940s and 1950s that led to the Windscale fire at Sellafield, which is the root of most of the cost are gone. Dead. The bulk of the cost are the remains of the Windscale Piles (1950/1951) and the Legacy Ponds (1960). Little that people did 70 years ago when it comes to nuclear waste storage and disposal is acceptable or legal today. What you yourself wrote is true.

vlovich123 3y ago

Nice shifting of goal posts. First it was cost now it’s that defense industry has an interest in commercial power generation. Like maybe. But also countries have no problem creating nukes without commercial reactors so maybe that doesn’t matter so much? There are also reactor designs that result in fuel that can’t be reprocessed into plutonium / weaponry. Not sure the state of that research / if it’s even worth bothering to do so because generating plutonium isn’t that hard in the grand scheme of things and if the defense industry wants to do it they’ll build a reactor anyway, it’ll just maybe cost more. Not to mention that the US has all sorts of nuclear reactors already and they don’t need to rely on commercial ones so much.

snakeyjake 3y ago

> We’ve learned from experience so this can never happen again. Yes. That statement is correct. Literally, actually, and factually the techniques and technologies used in the 1940s and 1950s that led to the Windscale fire at Sellafield, which is the root of most of the cost are gone. Dead. The bulk of the cost are the remains of the Windscale Piles (1950/1951) and the Legacy Ponds (1960). Little that people did 70 years ago when it comes to nuclear waste storage and disposal is acceptable or legal today. What you yourself wrote is true.