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

101–110 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#101

Post by elil17 »

tcmart14 wrote: post #33
whatshisface wrote: post #6

> 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 b…

I think the biggest difference between the military and industry is that the civilian side of the government enforces laws on industry but does not enforce laws on the military. I know many people who would love to not have to deal with their company's waste disposal processes, but the consequences are quite severe (e.g. the fines are huge so you would be fired if you were found out).

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#102

Post by zzzeek »

remorses wrote: post #94
denderson wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is one problem with Nuclear power that was never talked about before the Ukraine War: War itself. More specifically, war in the area that is powered by nuclear. Damage to reactors, power plant workers fleeing, damage to nuclear waste containers, and more.

Radioactive material is not something you can only find in nuclear plants (you can get same levels of radioactive materials in hospitals for example), there are also much easier ways to cause worse disasters (think about destroying a dam for example)

how is destroying an entire dam easier than making an armed incursion into a nuclear power plant to steal radioactive waste? Just in terms of metric tons of ammunition needed

not to mention, maybe the place you want to attack doesn't have a dam?

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#103

Post by Timshel »

smn1234 wrote: post #52
db48x wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

this is fascinating and unexpected. Do you have more literature on this ?

Breeder reactor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor Not an expert but from what I read development stopped mainly due to uranium supply being sufficient making expensive further research not worth it. But on the security part using liquid sodium certainly contributed :).

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#104

Post by yCombLinks »

uoaei wrote: post #86
yCombLinks wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Condescension is never "deserved", you just decided to apply it.

Wrong, condescension is a social tool to discourage an unwanted behavior. Accepting the negative behavior encourages others to do the same thing.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#105

Post by toolz »

denderson wrote: post #74
leemelone wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see a MASSIVE increase in the amount of nuclear power in use around the world. AND, I appreciate calling out conflicts of interest, astroturfing, and artificial "viral" information campaigns. Thank you for outing the author.

There is one problem with Nuclear power that was never talked about before the Ukraine War: War itself. More specifically, war in the area that is powered by nuclear. Damage to reactors, power plant workers fleeing, damage to nuclear waste containers, and more.

afaik all modern designs for nuclear power are aimed at being small so they can be installed underground, which would make them much safer during these events.

e.g. Here's a company that was licensed to build SMR (small modular reactors) last month that is designed to be underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#106

Post by LarryMullins »

fragmede wrote: post #68
Aeolun wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My hot spoon isn't made up of uranium and didn't come out of a nuclear reactor, and isn't radioactive, so I'm not sure how that addresses GP's concerns.

Your hot spoon is in fact radioactive, emitting thermal radiation. Thermal radiation doesn't make things it hits radioactive. Neither does your microwave oven or even gamma radiation. Radioactivity can be induced in things by neutron radiation, but not EM radiation. It is safe to eat food which has been irradiated with gamma radiation, and chances are you have many times before (it is fairly common for dried spices and herbs to be irradiated for preservation purposes.)

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#107

Post by mikeyouse »

jchw wrote: post #67
mikeyouse wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, given the trajectory of nuclear costs compare to battery costs - it's going to make far more sense to build power lines to places that don't have renewable potential.

I get what you're saying, but consider a place like Japan. That strategy is probably not viable everywhere.

It'll be interesting to see how everything develops but Japan has an absurd amount of offshore wind potential. Their country is set up perfectly to take advantage of it given their major cities are all up and down the coast, they're also ~100 miles from mainland Korea which has plenty of wind and solar potential as well.

There are geopolitical concerns to relying on your neighbors for energy transmission, but it's hard to think of any technical or financial reasons that would stop it. Given current learning rates and cost trends, utility solar will likely be under $0.01/kwh in just about every place on earth. Certainly within 15 years, likely within 10. When new-build nuclear is above $0.10/kwh and takes a decade to build, the delta buys you a ton of storage.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#108

Post by somethoughts »

denderson wrote: post #74
leemelone wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see a MASSIVE increase in the amount of nuclear power in use around the world. AND, I appreciate calling out conflicts of interest, astroturfing, and artificial "viral" information campaigns. Thank you for outing the author.

There is one problem with Nuclear power that was never talked about before the Ukraine War: War itself. More specifically, war in the area that is powered by nuclear. Damage to reactors, power plant workers fleeing, damage to nuclear waste containers, and more.

As an add on to that - if nuclear energy did start becoming mass produced in the developed world where some modicum of safety/regulation around waste can be assumed, once all of the necessary reactors are built out to supply first world energy needs, at best, those same private developers/contractors will start lobbying efforts in more questionable parts of the world to build these things. Then it be framed as an equity issue - why is the first world preventing the rest of the world from catching up - even though its actually just a plain "it's not safe to build it in a country in the middle of a civil war".

The more likely scenario I would envision is that - under the guise of business "joint venture partnerships in next generation energy" - the technological know how and access to a steady stream of the requisite raw materials to build weapons will leak to more questionable parts of the world.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#109

Post by qclibre22 »

stareatgoats wrote: post #64
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…

> GWPF The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a British foundation highly critical of the anthropogenic global warming scientific consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foun...

> anthropogenic global warming scientific consensus

Isn't there some serious, vigorous debate on this topic?

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#110

Post by legitster »

AlanSE wrote: post #81
legitster wrote: post #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…

I don't know if I agree with the "organized civilian protestation" entirely. While NIMBY did play a role historically, this seems out-of-touch when I consider the mothballed & troubled builds which are currently in South Carolina. I do believe regulators have their foot on the brakes, and there are some really telling stories from people in the actual industry. The level of paperwork and scrutiny are hard to fathom f…

Well, I largely think that NIMBY is still at play. If you are a senator you have nothing to gain with a nuclear reactor in your district. Compare this to Japan that doesn't have ridiculously cheap natural gas, and yet is still doubling down on nuclear despite Fukushima and constant protest.

I think renewables are amazing and have a long way still to go, but I look at the current energy mix and it's hard to see a 100% renewables grid in our lifetime with foreseeable technology.

Post reply on HN