Live data from Hacker News

I changed my mind about nuclear waste

zionlights.substack.com

31–40 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#31
I'm all for fighting the good fight on this, but I'm also a realist: consumer sentiment isn't going to change much. People on the extremes will still fight to the nails on MSG, Flouride in water, GMO, etc. But the median person doesn't really care where their power comes from when they hit a switch so long as it's cheap.

If we want any serious progress on Nuclear you need regulators with authority to ignore organized civilian protestation. And the only way that happens is when politicians have their backs against the wall when it comes to energy options.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#32

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?

It's an operation cycle of very specific reactors, if I remember right its a variation of breeder reactors.

Breeders don't reverse the nuclear reactions that take place when a reactor is producing power. They use the neutron flux from those reactions to induce different reactions (involving much less energy per nucleus) in surrounding material that produce fissile isotopes in that material.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#33

> I learned that I had been confusing waste from nuclear energy with waste from nuclear weapons. That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point - it's not that weapons reactors produce fundamentally leakier waste than civilian reactors, it's that the military has a long history of not disposing of dangerous chemicals the right way. It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too and a lot of bases and the…

Or more importantly, would the same motivators for the military exist for private industries. My example would not be nuclear, but waste in general. I did 5 years in the Navy. Out at sea, by regulations, we have really strict standards of how certain materials get disposed. Clean metal, like aluminum cans from the galley can go overboard, into the ocean, and so can food waste. Plastic can't, batteries cant, etc. Do batteries and cut up fuel hoses find their way into the ocean? Yes. Is it because the Navy said so, no. From what I noticed, its about how easy it is to dispose of properly and you could notice it. When someone who made the process easier to dispose of batteries properly, most to everyone did it properly. When they changed out who was in charge of the trash detail and the new person in charge of the trash detail damn near required a 7 page dissertation and interrogation to allow you to turn in your dead batteries, people threw that shit in the ocean late at night when no one was out and about on the skin of the ship.

My point being, usually when waste disposal is an issue in the military, its not necessarily because the military doesnt care. Its because the process to do things properly became to grueling for people to put up with (not right, but it happens). Sometimes that grueling process is from big Navy, sometimes it is because DC1 had a bad day and making your day a pain in the ass somehow makes him feel better.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#34
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this part stems from a common response you see from anti-nuclear folks, who frequently point to the issues at Hanford as a reason to be against civilian nuclear power. She's trying to make clear the difference between civilian nuclear power and waste management and historical waste from military nuclear weapons programs. Remembering also Hanford waste issues date as far back as the Manhattan Project during WW…

Civilian nuclear waste management has a better track record than military nuclear waste management and civilian chemical waste management. Is that a permanent condition, or a fluke?

We are talking about 32 countries with civilian nuclear power operating for several decades. With oversight by an international body that tracks every bit of nuclear material. Using processes that differ from what was done at Hanford, producing waste different from Hanford. That has been working well, stored well and safely without issue. The military didn't start from that position, it started from "Joe just throw that shit in a pit over there, don't even bother keeping records." Hanford has no resemblance to civilian nuclear power. I think the onus is on those who keep saying it does (despite the evidence to the contrary) to demonstrate it.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#35

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…

> 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 chemic…

I'm not sure what you're saying - people living in towns near military bases do not* walk up and down the local creeks with Geiger counters any more than they compare soil samples against lists of plausibly leaked toxic chemicals. Maybe they should start, but I mean, that's not a good normal.

*Edit: Except when they do.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#36

> I learned that I had been confusing waste from nuclear energy with waste from nuclear weapons. That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point - it's not that weapons reactors produce fundamentally leakier waste than civilian reactors, it's that the military has a long history of not disposing of dangerous chemicals the right way. It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too and a lot of bases and the…

We know this quite well here in Colorado Springs: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/chemical-col...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#37
post #17
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…

But it's also not like every scientist (vs environmentalist, can't we just stop with stupid generalization and classification like that?) would be in full support of going on with nuclear as civil power source, and there is also more than pure science to consider.

Stuff fails (from waste disposal processes to planes falling out of the sky) not because we have not understood the science or almost perfect processes established, but for many various reasons?

I think it's also unfair to claim poster before as feeling attacked, and then giving statement about his beliefs, which you don't know. So could do the same thing here?

Those grounded facts extrapolated to the complex practical reality is again itself just belief, and could do the same here then...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#38
Is nuclear demonization just political attempts to destabilize the west and prevent us from prosperity that comes from cheap clean energy?

Why are US politicians not allowing building more nuclear and driving prices down?

Are the democrats or the republicans pro-nuclear? I will vote for whoever is more pro nuclear.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#39

The author says the waste isn't liquid, but also says that spent fuel rods are cooled in pools for several years. Does the water not become irradiated in that time?

Does your cup of water become irradiated from having a hot spoon stuck in it?

I think the water is mostly safe. At worst the water will have little slivers of radioactive material floating in it but that’s only if something already went wrong, so I imagine it’s cleaned before being discharged.

Ultimately you can also cool it down and reuse it, so you might not need all that much water relatively speaking.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#40

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?

It's an operation cycle of very specific reactors, if I remember right its a variation of breeder reactors.

Breeder reactors work by having less useful elements capture neutrons and turn into more useful elements.

Capturing all of the fission byproducts and reversing the process is going to be so technically difficult and energy costly that, in this context, it might as well be impossible.

Post reply on HN