5 ms·

This feels like it’s be a plot point for a generic action movie.

Mistletoe 2y ago
And we would think how stupid it was and a single point of failure to do it this way.
Joel_Mckay 2y ago
Until anyone proves 1 facility that doesn't leak radioactive material after 20 years, they can keep that BS in their own fall-out theme park... Fission facilities are just another 1950's loss-leader technology. Nonrenewable fuels should be saved for space/remote missions. The film was ridiculous, but fun: "Broken Arrow" (John Woo, 1996)
- jojobas 2y ago
  Nuclear has been the cheapest on the most important metrics - human lives per installed GW and human lives per produced TW-h.
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    Unless amortized over 30k years... =)
    - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
      Don't you think that 30k years of burning coal would kill more people? I'm not sure I follow you.
      - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        My point was there are more sustainable options, than repeating a detrimental pattern of leaving problems for our grandchildren to solve. There is also the folly of assuming centralized distribution grids are economically sustainable in times of scarcity. I remain unconvinced that Goat-carts are not the future for our civilization. =3
        jojobas 2y ago
        Centralized grids are cheaper, which is even more important in the times of scarcity. There's no "20 meters of horse poo on the streets" for nuclear. It was always the way to go. If Chernobyl didn't happen, KGB would have it to secure the eternal demand for gas, oil and coal.
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        "Centralized grids are cheaper" I used to believe this too, but comparing Sydney/AU to Texas/US over the past decade has changed my perspective on distributed grid viability. The end users may simply have no better options available. =/
      - metabagel 2y ago
        30k years of storage, not 30k years of electricity generation. Presumably, sometime in that 30k years, a method of reprocessing the stored nuclear waste will have been developed.
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        we can hope for Fusion solutions, but renewables are proving viable with slightly higher upfront investment required. The panemone windmills have survived several empire ages, and continue to operate. =)
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      Why? The waste can be reused multiple times. There's no political will for this but that's not a tech limitation
      - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        I agree fuel recovery programs like Frances would reduce the waste pile, but the spent part of the fuel can be more dangerous in many ways. Increasing the number of facilities poses a very real liability, as most peoples current "short term waste disposal" solution is a glorified concrete rusting shed in the back of the generation sites. I have yet to see a real long term solution that hasn't proven to be utter PR BS. I may be wrong, but I've heavily invested in Goat cart futures. =3
        Moldoteck 2y ago
        How more dangerous? The ideal method would be reprocess 95%, vitrify 5% and store underground, repeat
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        France's reclamation process reduces 17% of natural fuel needed. "How more dangerous?" Generally, the spent pellet structure and hot decay products are problematic to handle as they become a strong gamma emitter. Additionally, there are several risks from decay product dust, non-solid gases, and reactive chemistry. It would be nice if everything could be stabilized into an insoluble oxide ceramic, but this is not how many decay-products behave. I am sure there is someone around that can model the exact probabilistic details on how much and when the most risky products are significantly present. My concern is more with long run outcomes, and if it may still seriously harm some family 157 years from now. =3
- troupo 2y ago
  > Until anyone proves 1 facility that doesn't leak radioactive material after 20 years Where do you think current long-term nuclear waste is stored, and for how long?
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    In general, currently mostly held in Spent fuel pools and or moved to decommissioned facilities because no one wants it in there back yard. Even after its finished the short initial cool-down decay period. Hardly a dirty secret... There is also the 5" thick stainless-steel tanks filled with low-grade UF6 slowly decaying in the hot sun, in one of the many facilities now blurred out on google maps. There is also one of several concrete disposal facilities that leaks into the local river every time it rains. One can still find it with a kayak and a cheap Geiger counter in about 3 hours. The billions for repair mitigation have never seemed to take priority for several decades. How about you find 3 filled disposal facilities that haven't leaked within 20 years. Note, trace exposure to tritiated and heavy water isn't so bad anyway, as far as we currently know. =) "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." ('The Divine Afflatus', The New York Evening Mail, November 16, 1917) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D22pE_9LAxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D22pE_9LAxg
    - troupo 2y ago
      > Until anyone proves 1 facility that doesn't leak radioactive material after 20 years became > How about you find 3 filled disposal facilities After you yourself apparently found one. Curious. Meanwhile "As of April 2024, there are 416 operable power reactors in the world" [1] Something tells me it won't be hard to find one, or three, or ten. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors?wprov=sfti1# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
      - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        All areas I alluded to read hot to warm, and are considered well beyond prolonged exposure recommendations for above ground inhalation hazards. Active facilities themselves are kept cleaner than most places, but the disposal sites rapidly fall into neglect. Minimally 3 points show a trend, and should be trivial to find right... the key added detail was "filled" i.e. used for awhile... as an empty facility would also be considered leak free as long as it remained unused. Goat carts for the win... =3

And we would think how stupid it was and a single point of failure to do it this way.

Until anyone proves 1 facility that doesn't leak radioactive material after 20 years, they can keep that BS in their own fall-out theme park... Fission facilities are just another 1950's loss-leader technology. Nonrenewable fuels should be saved for space/remote missions. The film was ridiculous, but fun: "Broken Arrow" (John Woo, 1996)

jojobas 2y ago
Nuclear has been the cheapest on the most important metrics - human lives per installed GW and human lives per produced TW-h.
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  Unless amortized over 30k years... =)
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    Don't you think that 30k years of burning coal would kill more people? I'm not sure I follow you.
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      My point was there are more sustainable options, than repeating a detrimental pattern of leaving problems for our grandchildren to solve. There is also the folly of assuming centralized distribution grids are economically sustainable in times of scarcity. I remain unconvinced that Goat-carts are not the future for our civilization. =3
      - jojobas 2y ago
        Centralized grids are cheaper, which is even more important in the times of scarcity. There's no "20 meters of horse poo on the streets" for nuclear. It was always the way to go. If Chernobyl didn't happen, KGB would have it to secure the eternal demand for gas, oil and coal.
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        "Centralized grids are cheaper" I used to believe this too, but comparing Sydney/AU to Texas/US over the past decade has changed my perspective on distributed grid viability. The end users may simply have no better options available. =/
    - metabagel 2y ago
      30k years of storage, not 30k years of electricity generation. Presumably, sometime in that 30k years, a method of reprocessing the stored nuclear waste will have been developed.
      - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        we can hope for Fusion solutions, but renewables are proving viable with slightly higher upfront investment required. The panemone windmills have survived several empire ages, and continue to operate. =)
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    Why? The waste can be reused multiple times. There's no political will for this but that's not a tech limitation
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      I agree fuel recovery programs like Frances would reduce the waste pile, but the spent part of the fuel can be more dangerous in many ways. Increasing the number of facilities poses a very real liability, as most peoples current "short term waste disposal" solution is a glorified concrete rusting shed in the back of the generation sites. I have yet to see a real long term solution that hasn't proven to be utter PR BS. I may be wrong, but I've heavily invested in Goat cart futures. =3
      - Moldoteck 2y ago
        How more dangerous? The ideal method would be reprocess 95%, vitrify 5% and store underground, repeat
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        France's reclamation process reduces 17% of natural fuel needed. "How more dangerous?" Generally, the spent pellet structure and hot decay products are problematic to handle as they become a strong gamma emitter. Additionally, there are several risks from decay product dust, non-solid gases, and reactive chemistry. It would be nice if everything could be stabilized into an insoluble oxide ceramic, but this is not how many decay-products behave. I am sure there is someone around that can model the exact probabilistic details on how much and when the most risky products are significantly present. My concern is more with long run outcomes, and if it may still seriously harm some family 157 years from now. =3
troupo 2y ago
> Until anyone proves 1 facility that doesn't leak radioactive material after 20 years Where do you think current long-term nuclear waste is stored, and for how long?
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  In general, currently mostly held in Spent fuel pools and or moved to decommissioned facilities because no one wants it in there back yard. Even after its finished the short initial cool-down decay period. Hardly a dirty secret... There is also the 5" thick stainless-steel tanks filled with low-grade UF6 slowly decaying in the hot sun, in one of the many facilities now blurred out on google maps. There is also one of several concrete disposal facilities that leaks into the local river every time it rains. One can still find it with a kayak and a cheap Geiger counter in about 3 hours. The billions for repair mitigation have never seemed to take priority for several decades. How about you find 3 filled disposal facilities that haven't leaked within 20 years. Note, trace exposure to tritiated and heavy water isn't so bad anyway, as far as we currently know. =) "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." ('The Divine Afflatus', The New York Evening Mail, November 16, 1917) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D22pE_9LAxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D22pE_9LAxg
  - troupo 2y ago
    > Until anyone proves 1 facility that doesn't leak radioactive material after 20 years became > How about you find 3 filled disposal facilities After you yourself apparently found one. Curious. Meanwhile "As of April 2024, there are 416 operable power reactors in the world" [1] Something tells me it won't be hard to find one, or three, or ten. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors?wprov=sfti1# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      All areas I alluded to read hot to warm, and are considered well beyond prolonged exposure recommendations for above ground inhalation hazards. Active facilities themselves are kept cleaner than most places, but the disposal sites rapidly fall into neglect. Minimally 3 points show a trend, and should be trivial to find right... the key added detail was "filled" i.e. used for awhile... as an empty facility would also be considered leak free as long as it remained unused. Goat carts for the win... =3