3 ms·

> the only power generation that has a completely closed fuel life cycle What exactly are you talking about? It does not sound like it describes the way nuclea

by hannob 1y ago

> the only power generation that has a completely closed fuel life cycle What exactly are you talking about? It does not sound like it describes the way nuclear power, uranium mining, and nuclear waste storage works.

nandomrumber 1y ago
Explaine how nuclear waste is dealt with. Detail how nuclear waste is continuously pumped in to the atmosphere. Or shredded and buried like wind turbine blades which are entirely waste with no recycling value. Hint: it isn’t. There’s so little of it, it’s still all predominantly stored on site at the power plants. Highly radioactive reactive waste isn’t highly reactive for very long. And long lasting waste isn’t very reactive at all. Vitrified it’s chemically non-reactive.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  Nuclear waste is essentially a non-issue today. Even if there was a way to magically make spent nuclear fuel disappear it would not materially change the prospects for nuclear energy. And if all other issues with nuclear were resolved (the primary one being cost), storage of spent fuel in dry casks for several centuries is a fine and economical solution. The only scenario in which waste processing becomes an issue is if nuclear is so wildly successful we start running out of cheap uranium and need to do reprocessing and breeding. That is not the world we live in (this is also why thorium is a non-solution.)
- bee_rider 1y ago
  The comment they were replying to went out of its way to say “completely closed” which is, of course, not correct. If we want to say nuclear generates not much in terms of byproducts, that seems like a potentially viable argument. But then, renewables don’t consume any fuel (but the installations are a lot less durable). We’re rapidly approaching the point where we might have to admit that sweeping dramatic statements about either one being universally superior are hard to justify and the differences are complicated…

by hannob 1y ago

nandomrumber 1y ago

Explaine how nuclear waste is dealt with. Detail how nuclear waste is continuously pumped in to the atmosphere. Or shredded and buried like wind turbine blades which are entirely waste with no recycling value. Hint: it isn’t. There’s so little of it, it’s still all predominantly stored on site at the power plants. Highly radioactive reactive waste isn’t highly reactive for very long. And long lasting waste isn’t very reactive at all. Vitrified it’s chemically non-reactive.

pfdietz 1y ago
Nuclear waste is essentially a non-issue today. Even if there was a way to magically make spent nuclear fuel disappear it would not materially change the prospects for nuclear energy. And if all other issues with nuclear were resolved (the primary one being cost), storage of spent fuel in dry casks for several centuries is a fine and economical solution. The only scenario in which waste processing becomes an issue is if nuclear is so wildly successful we start running out of cheap uranium and need to do reprocessing and breeding. That is not the world we live in (this is also why thorium is a non-solution.)
bee_rider 1y ago
The comment they were replying to went out of its way to say “completely closed” which is, of course, not correct. If we want to say nuclear generates not much in terms of byproducts, that seems like a potentially viable argument. But then, renewables don’t consume any fuel (but the installations are a lot less durable). We’re rapidly approaching the point where we might have to admit that sweeping dramatic statements about either one being universally superior are hard to justify and the differences are complicated…