4 ms·

Meanwhile barrels of nuclear waste that are supposed to last for thousands of years are rusting, leaking or are all together missing. We really need that fusion

by panzi 12y ago

Meanwhile barrels of nuclear waste that are supposed to last for thousands of years are rusting, leaking or are all together missing. We really need that fusion thing to get going. All the waste from fission power is a disaster waiting to happen.

rwcarlsen 12y ago
And the BP oil spill leaked over 100 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. All technologies have different risks and trade-offs. Fission is no silver bullet, but I think it certainly has very real benefits - just like wind, solar, etc. Fusion would be great - but we can't do it nearly close to the scale required to use as an energy source (at least not for ~50 years ;-).
maaku 12y ago
"All that waste" ... you mean the 60 years of waste that if you amassed together would fit in the endzone of a typical football field? You mean that "waste" which could actually be separated into medically and scientifically useful radioisotopes, and a large portion of the remainder reprocessed as fuel for a 2nd or 3rd generation nuclear reactor? You mean that waste which, after having its useful components removed, reduces to less than background levels in under a hundred years?
- altcognito 12y ago
  Oh, this must be a cheap thing to do then - how much would such an operation cost? We'll have it done by this afternoon!
  - maaku 12y ago
    Oh one little snag: that reprocessed fuel for the 2nd gen reactors I referred to? It's plutonium. You know, the kind you use to make bombs and really awesome spacecraft. If we actually started doing that you might end up with a plutonium economy, where there are well guarded warehouses and armored transports full of this stuff. Then anybody with an extremely specialized remote operated machine shop for shaping explosive lenses, having insanely accurate detonators, and the balls to brazenly steal the most well guarded commodity in existence might be able to build a bomb! One big enough to take out a few city blocks! We can't have that, obviously. No, better that we just stockpile this stuff in rusting metal bins.
- panzi 12y ago
  I mean this kind of waste: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/legacy-danger-old-nuclear-waste-found-in-english-channel-a-893991.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/legacy-danger-old... http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/atommuell258_v-vierspaltig.jpg http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/atommuell25... http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Rostige-Atommuellfaesser-Diskussion-um-Bergung%2Cakwbrunsbuettel120.html http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Rostige-Ato... http://www.taz.de/!103885/ http://www.taz.de/!103885/ Even if it's just supposed to survive for 100 years this looks bad. Humans simply aren't capable of dealing with dangers that big and time spans that long. The number of reported incidents is staggering. And who knows how this all looks like in less open countries like Russia or China?

by panzi 12y ago

rwcarlsen 12y ago

And the BP oil spill leaked over 100 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. All technologies have different risks and trade-offs. Fission is no silver bullet, but I think it certainly has very real benefits - just like wind, solar, etc. Fusion would be great - but we can't do it nearly close to the scale required to use as an energy source (at least not for ~50 years ;-).

maaku 12y ago

"All that waste" ... you mean the 60 years of waste that if you amassed together would fit in the endzone of a typical football field? You mean that "waste" which could actually be separated into medically and scientifically useful radioisotopes, and a large portion of the remainder reprocessed as fuel for a 2nd or 3rd generation nuclear reactor? You mean that waste which, after having its useful components removed, reduces to less than background levels in under a hundred years?

altcognito 12y ago
Oh, this must be a cheap thing to do then - how much would such an operation cost? We'll have it done by this afternoon!
- maaku 12y ago
  Oh one little snag: that reprocessed fuel for the 2nd gen reactors I referred to? It's plutonium. You know, the kind you use to make bombs and really awesome spacecraft. If we actually started doing that you might end up with a plutonium economy, where there are well guarded warehouses and armored transports full of this stuff. Then anybody with an extremely specialized remote operated machine shop for shaping explosive lenses, having insanely accurate detonators, and the balls to brazenly steal the most well guarded commodity in existence might be able to build a bomb! One big enough to take out a few city blocks! We can't have that, obviously. No, better that we just stockpile this stuff in rusting metal bins.
panzi 12y ago
I mean this kind of waste: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/legacy-danger-old-nuclear-waste-found-in-english-channel-a-893991.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/legacy-danger-old... http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/atommuell258_v-vierspaltig.jpg http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/atommuell25... http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Rostige-Atommuellfaesser-Diskussion-um-Bergung%2Cakwbrunsbuettel120.html http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Rostige-Ato... http://www.taz.de/!103885/ http://www.taz.de/!103885/ Even if it's just supposed to survive for 100 years this looks bad. Humans simply aren't capable of dealing with dangers that big and time spans that long. The number of reported incidents is staggering. And who knows how this all looks like in less open countries like Russia or China?