4 ms·

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

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