Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I changed my mind about nuclear waste

zionlights.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#21

Post by archgoon »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #18

The author, who gives every appearance of being funded by the industry, founded an activist group that claims: > Aim for 50% nuclear at least, as per the science. Which suggests a pretty cavalier attitude to "the science". edit: I take it back, she's in cahoots with Shellenberger and GWPF so it's the fossil fuel industry that she's supporting. I thought the timing was mysteriously exact for both her and Shellenberger…

The author gave a fairly detailed account of how nuclear waste is processed and its general safety. Which claims do you take issue with?

As it stands, I have learned considerably more from her post.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#22

Post by db48x »

supermatt wrote: post #10

Can nuclear waste undergo fusion to turn it back into whatever it was before by using energy from renewables, thereby acting as a form of energy storage?

No, that would cost more energy than we extracted from it. However, what we call “spent fuel” isn’t fully used up. It can no longer be used in a normal reactor, but reactors can be build which can continue extracting energy from it. In fact, only about 2% of the usable energy has been extracted from the fuel by the time we start calling it waste. Most of the high–level waste from today’s reactors is really just fuel for reactors that we haven’t built yet, due to over–regulation.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#24

Post by whatshisface »

willnonya wrote: post #19
whatshisface wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're fortunate to have very cheap and extremely sensitive instruments that can detect the tiniest leaks. This allows the nuclear industry to be held to a much higher standard than most other industries. The military has no problems detecting the chemicals that get leaked around bases, taking soil samples might be more expensive than walking around with a Geiger counter but it's well within the budgets of even loca…

You're confusing ignorance and apathy of individuals with institutional apathy.

The soldiers who got sick from the burn pits often knew it was bad for them, but had to follow orders. Personal apathy on the part of people who are giving the orders is institutional apathy.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#25

Post by yCombLinks »

pflenker wrote: post #9
glitchc wrote: post #5

Thank you. I believe all environmentalists need to curb their fear and absorb a healthy dose of science. It would limit the outpouring of outrageous, fear-mongering statements to leave some room for serious adult discussions on how to tackle the energy problems we face as a species.

I think it’s condescending to claim that environmentalists are guided mainly by emotions and people who share your view are guided by science. The problems surrounding nuclear waste is not as clear cut as the article suggests.

The condescension is deserved. The green movement has done more harm than help to clean energy by blocking nuclear power trying to push energy sources that were not economically viable. This was mainly due to emotional backlash against nuclear energy.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#26

Post by LarryMullins »

whatshisface wrote: post #14
LarryMullins wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too It tends to be a lot harder to detect too. With radioactive waste, we're fortunate to have very cheap and extremely sensitive instruments that can detect the tiniest leaks. This allows the nuclear industry to be held to a much higher standard than most other industries. This is also the reason we can say with a high degree of confidence that first-world militaries hav…

> we're fortunate to have very cheap and extremely sensitive instruments that can detect the tiniest leaks. This allows the nuclear industry to be held to a much higher standard than most other industries. The military has no problems detecting the chemicals that get leaked around bases, taking soil samples might be more expensive than walking around with a Geiger counter but it's well within the budgets of even loca…

> The military has no problems detecting the chemicals that get leaked around bases

Even they will be hard pressed to detect chemical polutants at the extremely low concentrations that radiation can be trivially detected. But also, they know what to look for. What about everybody else in the area who don't even know what they should be looking for in the first place? With radioactive leaks it's easy, but DOW's chemical catalogue is thicker than a phonebook; you've got to be looking for something in particular or looking for half a billion different things all at once.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#28

Post by pdonis »

supermatt wrote: post #10

Can nuclear waste undergo fusion to turn it back into whatever it was before by using energy from renewables, thereby acting as a form of energy storage?

In principle, this might be possible since any reaction can in principle be run in reverse, given a sufficient supply of energy.

In practice, I don't think this would be at all viable, and certainly would not be competitive with other much more straightforward forms of energy storage.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#29

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

glitchc wrote: post #17
pflenker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s condescending to claim that environmentalists are guided mainly by emotions and people who share your view are guided by science. The problems surrounding nuclear waste is not as clear cut as the article suggests.

The fact that you feel personally attacked by my statement suggests that your beliefs are well, beliefs, and not necessarily grounded in fact. I recommend you read "The Wizard and The Prophet" as it chronicles the dawn of the environmentalist movement in an engaging and insightful way. That environmentalism was largely funded by wealthy folks, most of whom had only a rudimentary understanding of science, should be a…

This is a bogus argument. If want to discuss the relative level of science in current beliefs about, say, nuclear waste, then go ahead and do so. But please do not impugne current "environmentalists" (a group which, as far as this topic goes, includes a number of "actual scientists") with your claims about the origins of the environmental movement.

As for those claims, the environmental movement in the USA is generally dated back to the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", and in its early years was not really funded by anyone at all. In addition, most things are largely funded by wealthy folks, so this observation is largely content free.

Post reply on HN