4 ms·

I am so tired of this lie being repeated endlessly. We have a perfectly safe way to handle nuclear "waste": reprocess the dirty fuel and bury the actual waste

I am so tired of this lie being repeated endlessly. We have a perfectly safe way to handle nuclear "waste": reprocess the dirty fuel and bury the actual waste deep underground like Finland is doing at the Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... And there is still very much a need for zero-carbon DISPATCHABLE electricity of witch nuclear is the ONLY choice. You simply cannot have 100% of your electricity from only solar and wind because it is far too variable and we simply don't have the technology to store electricity cheaply enough. Your attitude towards nuclear energy is as irrational as the average antivaxer towards vaccines.

worik 2y ago
> bury the actual waste deep underground How deep, to stay put thousands of generations?
- UltraSane 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
  - worik 2y ago
    No answer to the problems that: A) The area is not known to be geologically stable over the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....) B) There is no containment vessel that can last that long I get tired of the wishful thinking. Being charitable as describing it as that. In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up, perhaps people then will have forgotten us. If not, they will not forgive us And so unnecessary
    - UltraSane 2y ago
      " the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....)" This is the the lie that I'm really tired of people repeating. Nuclear waste isn't THAT dangerous and doesn't have to be kept perfectly isolated for THAT long. "In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up," You should really be more worried about the 36 billion tons of CO2 we are spewing into the atmosphere every year instead of a TINY amount of nuclear waste many thousands of years in the future. You are like someone with a malignant tumor worrying about the risks of radiation therapy.
      - worik 1y ago
        The vast majority of nuclear waste needs to be stored only hundreds of years. But there is still plenty that needs to be stored for hundreds of millennium There is no answer to that, and no amount of arguing by analogy, argumentum ad hominem nor wishful thinking can make that go away It is a very good thing we do not need nuclear power
        UltraSane 1y ago
        "But there is still plenty that needs to be stored for hundreds of millennium" Stop repeating this lie. We absolutely need Nuclear. It is the only way to eliminate CO2 emissions from electricity production completely.
        worik 1y ago
        > Stop repeating this lie. It is not a lie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product Wishful thinking on your part
        UltraSane 1y ago
        The longest lived fission products are actually the LEAST radioactive. This inverse relationship exists because of the fundamental relationship between half-life and radioactivity. The longer a radioisotope's half-life, the lower its specific activity (radioactivity per unit mass) You are like a firefighter who opposes using water (nuclear energy) to extinguish fires (reduce CO2 emissions) because people might drown.
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
hydro is also a 0 carbon dispatchable choice (which is much cheaper)
- Kubuxu 2y ago
  Majority of good spots for hydro were already built up, and if they weren’t, good luck with NIMBY.
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    meant of the good spots are already used, but we can change how they are used to greatly increase their usefulness to a 0 carbon grid. we can make them all pumped hydro, and start treating hydro as a battery rather than a generation source.
- worik 2y ago
  Geothermal

worik 2y ago

> bury the actual waste deep underground How deep, to stay put thousands of generations?

UltraSane 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
- worik 2y ago
  No answer to the problems that: A) The area is not known to be geologically stable over the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....) B) There is no containment vessel that can last that long I get tired of the wishful thinking. Being charitable as describing it as that. In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up, perhaps people then will have forgotten us. If not, they will not forgive us And so unnecessary
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    " the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....)" This is the the lie that I'm really tired of people repeating. Nuclear waste isn't THAT dangerous and doesn't have to be kept perfectly isolated for THAT long. "In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up," You should really be more worried about the 36 billion tons of CO2 we are spewing into the atmosphere every year instead of a TINY amount of nuclear waste many thousands of years in the future. You are like someone with a malignant tumor worrying about the risks of radiation therapy.
    - worik 1y ago
      The vast majority of nuclear waste needs to be stored only hundreds of years. But there is still plenty that needs to be stored for hundreds of millennium There is no answer to that, and no amount of arguing by analogy, argumentum ad hominem nor wishful thinking can make that go away It is a very good thing we do not need nuclear power
      - UltraSane 1y ago
        "But there is still plenty that needs to be stored for hundreds of millennium" Stop repeating this lie. We absolutely need Nuclear. It is the only way to eliminate CO2 emissions from electricity production completely.
        worik 1y ago
        > Stop repeating this lie. It is not a lie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product Wishful thinking on your part
        UltraSane 1y ago
        The longest lived fission products are actually the LEAST radioactive. This inverse relationship exists because of the fundamental relationship between half-life and radioactivity. The longer a radioisotope's half-life, the lower its specific activity (radioactivity per unit mass) You are like a firefighter who opposes using water (nuclear energy) to extinguish fires (reduce CO2 emissions) because people might drown.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

hydro is also a 0 carbon dispatchable choice (which is much cheaper)

Kubuxu 2y ago
Majority of good spots for hydro were already built up, and if they weren’t, good luck with NIMBY.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  meant of the good spots are already used, but we can change how they are used to greatly increase their usefulness to a 0 carbon grid. we can make them all pumped hydro, and start treating hydro as a battery rather than a generation source.
worik 2y ago
Geothermal