4 ms·
"But we're not going to contaminate large quantities of land," Except when we dig out all the fuel necessary for this (I know, this plan wants to use existing
by skore 13y ago
"But we're not going to contaminate large quantities of land,"
Except when we dig out all the fuel necessary for this (I know, this plan wants to use existing material, so this has already happened - but still, contamination is contamination). That part is always conveniently glanced over. Or when we need to store the waste, a problem that is still unsolved (I did not see anything mentioning that this will produce non-radioactive waste).
Yeah, apart from that, clean as anything.
"In other words, all the highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium collecting dust since the Cold War could be put to use for peaceful purposes."
So take the stuff that we are struggling to deal with now and distribute it far and wide across the land, underground. Got it.
"...this could be the source of energy that provides carbon-free electricity."
Well thank god it doesn't produce carbon emissions, one of the easiest to manage climate problems we have.
"So I really think that in the, say, 20 years it's going to take us to get fusion and make fusion a reality..."
Oh wow, it's like the six degrees of pipe dreams.
Look - I'm really all for fusion. If it ends up working - great. Throw out billions to get there? Be my guest. But how about, in the meantime, we invest money in technology that only produces pollution that we know we can manage. Because then, if our pipe dream fails, we are left with stuff that actually works. Not thousands of waste nightmares buried deep across the soils of our childrens' future.
- Filligree 13y agoDigging out uranium contaminates the land around the dig? You bet your ass it does. I wouldn't want to live within a hundred miles, but at least we only really need one such dig site for the planet. Economics being what it is, there are more, but not a lot. Now go look at a coal mine, and multiply the damage that does by the number of mines. We can't eliminate all damage. We can minimize it, for which nuclear power is helpful.
- Ras_ 13y agoYou don't always have to specifically dig uranium. Plenty of other mining products produce a side stream of uranium, which can be utilized. In larger picture these side streams don't matter much. What happens in Kazakhstan's (36% of all U production), Canada's and Australia's uranium mines does. They account for 64% of global uranium production. Australia has 23% of the world's uranium deposits, CAN 12%, KAZ 10%. About 85% of current needs are met with digging, 15% comes from secondary sources. It's interesting that two of the biggest producers of uranium do not utilize nuclear energy themselves. Even Canada produces only 12% of their electricity with nukes (France 78%). Good business even if you don't personally believe in it?
- DennisP 13y agoMost of the waste is essentially unburned fuel. Reactors like this can eat it. The rest is fission products, which go back to the radioactivity of the original ore in a couple centuries.