6 ms·

> the storage of the nuclear waste is very far from a solved engineering problem. Nuclear waste is small and solid, not a leaky green ooze like you see in the

> the storage of the nuclear waste is very far from a solved engineering problem. Nuclear waste is small and solid, not a leaky green ooze like you see in the Simpsons. You can just bury it deep in a mountain, which is where you extracted the uranium from in the first place. - https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... - https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11...

frm88 5mo ago
Nuclear waste is small and solid That would depend on the category of the waste: - High level waste - Transuranic waste - Low level waste where high level waste comes in two classes: spent fuel and reprocessing waste, the latter being liquid (possibly not green). https://ieer.org/resource/classroom/classifications-nuclear-waste/ https://ieer.org/resource/classroom/classifications-nuclear-... You can just bury it deep in a mountain Belgium is notably lacking in mountains, which is why they now start building a site for low level nuclear waste storage, adding to the cost. For high level nuclear waste they have to build deep underground, waterproof, bomb-proof facilities at high expense: https://www.nirasondraf.be/ https://www.nirasondraf.be/ As for the article by Shellenberger you linked, please note that he is a right winger criticising wokeism etc, who claims eternal growth can continue like until now without ecoogical impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger Edit: I just found out that Shellenberger now works on finding the Aliens: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth", Shellenberger claimed sources have told him that intelligence communities "are sitting on a huge amount of visual and other information" about Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Same wiki.
- DeusExMachina 5mo ago
  > please note that he is a right winger criticising wokeism Ad hominem. Criticize the argument. Your opinion about Shellenberger or even his other opinions are irrelevant. I don't particularly like him, but that does not mean all his points are invalid.
  - frm88 5mo ago
    This is not my opinion, I just paraphrased the wiki. From wokeism to the quote about aliens, it's all in there. As for the validity of his statements, please read his Congressional Testimonies in said wiki and see if that changes your mind.
    - DeusExMachina 5mo ago
      It is your opinion that it is a bad thing and that it affects all his other points. That's why you felt the need to cite those points. And you did the same in this comment, which is again an ad hominem.
      - maybewhenthesun 5mo ago
        When a debater makes a lot of bad points, extrapolating to be suspicious of any point he makes is not and ad-hominem. And ad hominem is when you dismiss his points because he might have done something immoral in a completely unrelated field.
maybewhenthesun 5mo ago
I know it's not a green ooze. But thinking it is possible to store something safely for >10000 years is just wishful thinking. The waste is a lot more dangerous than the uranium we dug out and packaging it in a way where you are sure it won't surface for sure is really not a solved problem. > Nuclear waste is small and solid As long as all goes well. Fukushima has a slightly different experience. > You can just bury it deep in a mountain, which is where you extracted the uranium from in the first place. Imo it's stupid to put nuclear waste in a place where you can't get at it anymore. In the ideal case we invent better reactors where you recycle all radioactive parts as usable fuel and the output is truly 'spent'. I don't disagree with you that the pros of nuclear (as opposed to fossil) outweigh the cons. But there are cons, and eventually we'd be better off harvesting our energy from the sun.
- DeusExMachina 5mo ago
  > But thinking it is possible to store something safely for >10000 years is just wishful thinking. > Imo it's stupid to put nuclear waste in a place where you can't get at it anymore. Things obviously need to be weighed against each other. Burying it in a mountain does make it safe to store indefinitely, but obviously not easily accessible. It can be dug out again, however, if it becomes useful again. It's going to be more expensive, but you pay for the safety. > As long as all goes well. Fukushima has a slightly different experience. One of the articles I linked makes the argument that Fukushima is not as tragic as people think. Quote: > But now, eight years after Fukushima, the best-available science clearly shows that Caldicott’s estimate of the number of people killed by nuclear accidents was off by one million. Radiation from Chernobyl will kill, at most, 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile Island will kill zero people.
- Moldoteck 5mo ago
  what has fukushima to do with storing nuclear waste. I'll go further and ask how many did fukushima kill with radioation or will kill per unscear? Better reactors were already invented (superphenix, snr300). Both killed by greens.
  - maybewhenthesun 5mo ago

frm88 5mo ago

Nuclear waste is small and solid That would depend on the category of the waste: - High level waste - Transuranic waste - Low level waste where high level waste comes in two classes: spent fuel and reprocessing waste, the latter being liquid (possibly not green). https://ieer.org/resource/classroom/classifications-nuclear-waste/ https://ieer.org/resource/classroom/classifications-nuclear-... You can just bury it deep in a mountain Belgium is notably lacking in mountains, which is why they now start building a site for low level nuclear waste storage, adding to the cost. For high level nuclear waste they have to build deep underground, waterproof, bomb-proof facilities at high expense: https://www.nirasondraf.be/ https://www.nirasondraf.be/ As for the article by Shellenberger you linked, please note that he is a right winger criticising wokeism etc, who claims eternal growth can continue like until now without ecoogical impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger Edit: I just found out that Shellenberger now works on finding the Aliens: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth", Shellenberger claimed sources have told him that intelligence communities "are sitting on a huge amount of visual and other information" about Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Same wiki.

DeusExMachina 5mo ago
> please note that he is a right winger criticising wokeism Ad hominem. Criticize the argument. Your opinion about Shellenberger or even his other opinions are irrelevant. I don't particularly like him, but that does not mean all his points are invalid.
- frm88 5mo ago
  This is not my opinion, I just paraphrased the wiki. From wokeism to the quote about aliens, it's all in there. As for the validity of his statements, please read his Congressional Testimonies in said wiki and see if that changes your mind.
  - DeusExMachina 5mo ago
    It is your opinion that it is a bad thing and that it affects all his other points. That's why you felt the need to cite those points. And you did the same in this comment, which is again an ad hominem.
    - maybewhenthesun 5mo ago
      When a debater makes a lot of bad points, extrapolating to be suspicious of any point he makes is not and ad-hominem. And ad hominem is when you dismiss his points because he might have done something immoral in a completely unrelated field.

maybewhenthesun 5mo ago

I know it's not a green ooze. But thinking it is possible to store something safely for >10000 years is just wishful thinking. The waste is a lot more dangerous than the uranium we dug out and packaging it in a way where you are sure it won't surface for sure is really not a solved problem. > Nuclear waste is small and solid As long as all goes well. Fukushima has a slightly different experience. > You can just bury it deep in a mountain, which is where you extracted the uranium from in the first place. Imo it's stupid to put nuclear waste in a place where you can't get at it anymore. In the ideal case we invent better reactors where you recycle all radioactive parts as usable fuel and the output is truly 'spent'. I don't disagree with you that the pros of nuclear (as opposed to fossil) outweigh the cons. But there are cons, and eventually we'd be better off harvesting our energy from the sun.

DeusExMachina 5mo ago
> But thinking it is possible to store something safely for >10000 years is just wishful thinking. > Imo it's stupid to put nuclear waste in a place where you can't get at it anymore. Things obviously need to be weighed against each other. Burying it in a mountain does make it safe to store indefinitely, but obviously not easily accessible. It can be dug out again, however, if it becomes useful again. It's going to be more expensive, but you pay for the safety. > As long as all goes well. Fukushima has a slightly different experience. One of the articles I linked makes the argument that Fukushima is not as tragic as people think. Quote: > But now, eight years after Fukushima, the best-available science clearly shows that Caldicott’s estimate of the number of people killed by nuclear accidents was off by one million. Radiation from Chernobyl will kill, at most, 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile Island will kill zero people.
Moldoteck 5mo ago
what has fukushima to do with storing nuclear waste. I'll go further and ask how many did fukushima kill with radioation or will kill per unscear? Better reactors were already invented (superphenix, snr300). Both killed by greens.
- maybewhenthesun 5mo ago