3 ms·

And yet we still have no place to put that "clean" energy when it is depleted.

maroonblazer 1y ago
I'd rather it be stored neatly in canisters underground than floating up into the atmosphere.
protocolture 1y ago
God I hate this argument. Casks. The answer is casks. The short term solution turns out to be a fantastic long term solution. If that isnt good enough, demand it be reprocessed with thorium or something. There. No more silly anti nuke gotcha. You can give up on that one permanently.
- zekrioca 1y ago
  Nuclear proliferation.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    I am steelmanning this, and assuming you are making a hilarious joke at the expense of anti nuke activists. Instead of defending the storage issue, this is just a pivot to another unrelated and already well resolved issue. Thats exactly what the silly anti nuke folk get up to. Well played, solid joke, 10/10.
zamadatix 1y ago
You can bury the casks in my (literal) backyard if you'd like (please put the grass back). It's an overhyped issue much less impactful than the pollution we've had waiting for an idealized answer to arrive.
- triceratops 1y ago
  > than the pollution we've had waiting for an idealized answer to arrive. As I'm fond of saying, environmentalists didn't kill nuclear. I'm not denying they had motive. But they lacked means. They can't stop anything else they've set their minds to: fossil fuels, automobiles, deforestation, industrial livestock farming. Even whaling is alive ffs. No, there was another party with both motive (competition) and means (lots of cash and political influence) to do the deed: the fossil fuel industry. And nuclear didn't help itself with accidents (and ensuing costly clean ups, one of which helped take down the Soviet Union), and budget overruns even when things went smoothly. Both found a convenient fall guy: the green movement. Tl;dr nuclear hasn't grown because of money. It cost too much, and the competition had the cash to slander its reputation.
loeg 1y ago
It can be left in canisters on site. It could be dumped in the ocean. It really doesn't matter.
- triceratops 1y ago
  > It could be dumped in the ocean FFS no. This is the reason environmentalists don't trust the nuclear industry.
  - loeg 1y ago
    This is a "no" purely for optics; it would be perfectly safe.
    - triceratops 1y ago
      Citation needed.
      - loeg 1y ago
        There's approximately 1.4 * 10^21 kg of water in the ocean. There's about 2.3 * 10^6 kg of waste per year. 10^-15 is a really small number. (Hell, seawater is already ~3.3 * 10^-9 uranium.)
        triceratops 1y ago
        Why is heavy metal concentration such a problem in fish right now?
        loeg 1y ago
        It isn't. And unlike heavy metals, nuclear waste becomes safer over time.
        triceratops 1y ago

I'd rather it be stored neatly in canisters underground than floating up into the atmosphere.

God I hate this argument. Casks. The answer is casks. The short term solution turns out to be a fantastic long term solution. If that isnt good enough, demand it be reprocessed with thorium or something. There. No more silly anti nuke gotcha. You can give up on that one permanently.

zekrioca 1y ago
Nuclear proliferation.
- protocolture 1y ago
  I am steelmanning this, and assuming you are making a hilarious joke at the expense of anti nuke activists. Instead of defending the storage issue, this is just a pivot to another unrelated and already well resolved issue. Thats exactly what the silly anti nuke folk get up to. Well played, solid joke, 10/10.

zamadatix 1y ago

You can bury the casks in my (literal) backyard if you'd like (please put the grass back). It's an overhyped issue much less impactful than the pollution we've had waiting for an idealized answer to arrive.

triceratops 1y ago
> than the pollution we've had waiting for an idealized answer to arrive. As I'm fond of saying, environmentalists didn't kill nuclear. I'm not denying they had motive. But they lacked means. They can't stop anything else they've set their minds to: fossil fuels, automobiles, deforestation, industrial livestock farming. Even whaling is alive ffs. No, there was another party with both motive (competition) and means (lots of cash and political influence) to do the deed: the fossil fuel industry. And nuclear didn't help itself with accidents (and ensuing costly clean ups, one of which helped take down the Soviet Union), and budget overruns even when things went smoothly. Both found a convenient fall guy: the green movement. Tl;dr nuclear hasn't grown because of money. It cost too much, and the competition had the cash to slander its reputation.

loeg 1y ago

It can be left in canisters on site. It could be dumped in the ocean. It really doesn't matter.

triceratops 1y ago
> It could be dumped in the ocean FFS no. This is the reason environmentalists don't trust the nuclear industry.
- loeg 1y ago
  This is a "no" purely for optics; it would be perfectly safe.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    Citation needed.
    - loeg 1y ago
      There's approximately 1.4 * 10^21 kg of water in the ocean. There's about 2.3 * 10^6 kg of waste per year. 10^-15 is a really small number. (Hell, seawater is already ~3.3 * 10^-9 uranium.)
      - triceratops 1y ago
        Why is heavy metal concentration such a problem in fish right now?
        loeg 1y ago
        It isn't. And unlike heavy metals, nuclear waste becomes safer over time.
        triceratops 1y ago