101–110 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many Fukushimas will we (society) accept every 150 years in order to stop climate change? That's really the only question that matters.
An infinity of them, as there are very few deaths attributable to Fukushima, whereas the coal generation plants spew pollution and radionuclides into the atmosphere which result in definitely attributable deaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like the US doesn't already have a number of remote areas like Hanford, Oak Ridge, Idaho Falls, the Savannah River Site, Rocky Flats, etc. that are already set up (and somewhat contaminated already) for handling this sort of material and process. In reality it's a political nightmare, not a pollution one.
Not every nuclear waste producing country has so much space. Actually most don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every nuclear waste producing country has so much space. Actually most don't.
I just don't get the problem, like at all. Dig a 5-6km deep shaft(we already have the technology for that depth, no issues), put the waste at the bottom. Keep drilling shafts until all waste is burried. That's far below the depth of any water sources, and unless you bury it near a tectonic fault, it's not making its way back through geological processes for eons. Like, can someone explain to me why we're not already…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of agree. There's been 4 catasrpohpic reactor meltdowns and there are ~400 reactors. That's a 1% failure rate. That's really bad. That's the status quo, which does not mandate continued low safety and lack of economic advantage. That's why there is R&D. Today what you say is true - great. Tomorrow, who knows. High energy density and human ingenuity could make genIV a reality.
What were the meltdowns?
> The idea is to transmute this nuclear waste into new forms of atoms which don’t have the problem of radioactivity. What you have to do is to change the makeup of the nucleus. Ok, but what exactly is it transmuting the atom to?
I think the best option would be to accelerate the decay. That should be relatively easy (i.e. has a net energy output) and massively reduces the radioactivity.
> The idea is to transmute this nuclear waste into new forms of atoms which don’t have the problem of radioactivity. What you have to do is to change the makeup of the nucleus. Ok, but what exactly is it transmuting the atom to?
Well, other atoms? Depending where you start from and how do it. Here is an example: http://www.ipodphysics.com/resources/trans90.jpg
Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap - both for energy and uncommon element feedstock. Just like shale used to be "garbage" until the tech to make it useful was developed, spent fuel will be seen as waste until we can make it useful. Letting this very manageable amount of waste sit in repositories until we get our shit together is utterly…
> Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap That's just hope. How convenient not having to deal with the mess! To me, it sounds like a religion. The same argument could be applied to rising CO2 levels. Just let future generations figure it out. What could go wrong?
The "safely" caveat is controversial, maybe even dubious, certainly politically charged, but there's a fundamental difference here nonetheless.
Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap - both for energy and uncommon element feedstock. Just like shale used to be "garbage" until the tech to make it useful was developed, spent fuel will be seen as waste until we can make it useful. Letting this very manageable amount of waste sit in repositories until we get our shit together is utterly…
> Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap That's just hope. How convenient not having to deal with the mess! To me, it sounds like a religion. The same argument could be applied to rising CO2 levels. Just let future generations figure it out. What could go wrong?
Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap - both for energy and uncommon element feedstock. Just like shale used to be "garbage" until the tech to make it useful was developed, spent fuel will be seen as waste until we can make it useful. Letting this very manageable amount of waste sit in repositories until we get our shit together is utterly…
> Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap That's just hope. How convenient not having to deal with the mess! To me, it sounds like a religion. The same argument could be applied to rising CO2 levels. Just let future generations figure it out. What could go wrong?
Unfortunately nuclear energy had a very bad PR for past 50 years, as a result nobody wanted to do any searcher in areas related to it).
It seems that it is slightly better now, environmental organizations at least are not trying to occupy nuclear reactors, unfortunately still they are pushing wind farms and solar farms, even though they cannot be usable on a massive scale without efficient way to store energy surplus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest source is the closure of many existing nuclear plants and the cancellation of all but one which we're planned for the US. It's not well known that the industry requires billions in government subsidies to even exist today. If taxpayers are footing the bill, that tells you that selling electricity isn't paying its own way. Fewer people still know that nuclear plants are uninsurable, for somewhat obvious r…
Nuclear plants in the USA are closing early specifically because electricity revenue dropped below what was expected (and needed) to pay for operation and maintenance costs. Revenue dropped specifically because fracked natural gas became very cheap and undercut the price in deregulated markets. The idea that nuclear plants are net energy negative is very inaccurate. A 1 GWe plant runs for 60 years releases roughly 20…
Comment of mine about utility scale solar. Those plants don't require a lot of specialized skills to keep running. And they're fundamentally redundant. There aren't oopies that take them offline for 18 months.