3 ms·
The whole value proposition of nuclear rests on cost because it is a pollutant too, so what would be your basis if not that
by rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
The whole value proposition of nuclear rests on cost because it is a pollutant too, so what would be your basis if not that
- _cenw 3y agoSpent fuel is a very different pollutant, one that at worst destroys local ecosystems (global impact with fossil) and the hard to handle stuff exists in quite limited quantities. Yes, it's pretty hard to put it somewhere nobody touches it, but it's not like we don't already need to find a solution to that problem.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago"Very different pollutant" is being pedantic. The point is that radioactive water is an output of nuclear reactors.
- _cenw 3y agoI was actually talking about spent fuel rods, the kind you put in concrete casks (and yet they will outlive those). Because that's the stuff that will stay dangerous for time beyond human comprehension. Radioactive water is not usually a concern. There are heat exchangers between an inner loop with a very small amount of water that is radioactive (but not forever or highly radioactive) and an outer loop with just... seawater. Maybe you're thinking about Fukushima, where they dumped a lot of water on an open core?
- Turing_Machine 3y agoYou do understand that producing zillions of square km of semiconductor and zillions of metric tons of batteries isn't going to exactly be environmentally benign, right?
- treyd 3y agoNuclear power, end-to-end, doesn't emit substantial amounts of CO2, which is the only pollutant we don't have solutions to. What are you referring to?
- byyll 3y agoCO2 is not a pollutant and when it comes to nuclear I am pretty sure the nuclear waste is what is being referred to.