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

281–290 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#281

Post by ghusto »

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…

> That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point

As nearly everyone here has pointed out, it not only doesn't miss the point, it _is_ the point, and it's not rhetorical, it's a statement of fact.

Weapons waste is completely different to power-plant waste. That's the whole point of that sentence.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#282

Post by trompetenaccoun »

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…

Well the author by her own disclosure is the founder of a nuclear energy lobby group. Or as she calls it "climate activist group". So yeah, I'm sure she was very confused and in doubt with herself, I'm happy it all turned out fine and she finally discovered that nuclear power is the solution to all our problems.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#283

Post by bborud »

strbean wrote: post #99
rndmize wrote: post #58

While it's good the author has gained a better understanding of nuclear waste, I feel that they're almost repeating their mistakes in their discussion of renewable waste. I'm fairly sure that everything they listed - solar panels, turbines, batteries - can be recycled; the question generally is whether its cost-effective to do so. (Another important question is probably on whether we want to spend the money on develo…

Right to Repair is incredibly important, but also feels incredibly insufficient in this context. What we really need is Obligation to Repair, or something of that nature. Producers of goods need to be accountable for the lifecycle of those goods.

I don't agree. If we move to goalposts too far down the field the political resistance will guarantee that we accomplish less. We have to focus on making repairing stuff possible and economically feasible first. And I think it will need to happen somewhat gradually so the industry can learn how to design things that can be repaired. We also need to build a robust repair industry. With training for repair personnel as well as the supply chain and logistics side.

Make repairs attractive, and cheap enough and we might not need to bring up a wall of legislation that makes market access too hard for new entrants. This could quickly develop into a game where only companies with really deep pockets are even able to produce anything.

(I work for a startup. We occasionally have to make hardware. Enabling people to repair the stuff we make is something we're happy to do. But if we had to be accountable for the entire lifecycle, that would be another thing. What happens if we go tits up?)

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#284

Post by ad404b8a372f2b9 »

mikojan wrote: post #255
robertlagrant wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't have thought that unless you thought France had capacity to power Germany just lying around.

Apparently Germany had capacity to power France just lying around.

Literally lying around in a pile of beautiful black lumps of coal.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#285

Post by Accujack »

photochemsyn wrote: post #96

Just on technical grounds, this is just not a very educational article. Any discussion of waste from the nuclear fission process should begin with an image of the periodic table and a chart of the curve of binding energy (whose peak, or trough, sits on Iron, which the most stable nuclei relative to fusion or fission processes). From there we can take a look at thermal fission product yield: https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

> if every plane crash created a 50-mile diameter exclusion zone that had to be kept off-limits for 50-100 years without extensive decontamination, then we'd think twice

If every reactor accident created an exclusion zone like this that had to be kept off limits for that long, we likely wouldn't use reactors at all.

Most of the nuclear accidents that have happened don't create problems that big, only Chernobyl and Fukushima. There have been hundreds of other incidents, but almost all of those have no after effects at all.

For example, another well known accident was Three Mile Island. There were no detectable health effects from it and the background radiation was increased by 0.5% or so in the immediate area. No exclusion zone required.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#286

Post by legitster »

luckylion wrote: post #180
uoaei wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually no one who is critical of nuclear thinks that "it's scary" is the best, or even a good, reason for not having nuclear. But loads of analysis have been done on the financials of different energy generation methods and shows very clearly that, except for those contracted to build and maintain the thing, no one sees a real benefit. It simply doesn't pan out to plan and build new nuclear reactors today, conside…

> Virtually no one who is critical of nuclear thinks that "it's scary" is the best, or even a good, reason for not having nuclear. That's 99.9% of Germany's anti-nuclear movement. The "it's just not economical" is a super recent addition (last 3 years, I'd say) to the public debate, and it feels very much tacked on. If anyone discovered a method to bring down cost, most of those who are against nuclear energy wouldn'…

To further add to this, most arguments against the economics of nuclear are kind of dumb and circular. "We shouldn't bother making nuclear cheaper, it's too expensive!"

Meanwhile, we are just supposed to take for granted that unforeseen technology will make energy storage and transport cheaper.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#287

Post by concordDance »

uoaei wrote: post #46
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…

Virtually no one who is critical of nuclear thinks that "it's scary" is the best, or even a good, reason for not having nuclear. But loads of analysis have been done on the financials of different energy generation methods and shows very clearly that, except for those contracted to build and maintain the thing, no one sees a real benefit. It simply doesn't pan out to plan and build new nuclear reactors today, conside…

Thats because the price is 5x higher (inflation and power output adjusted) than the 70s plants. Due entirely to overregulation.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#288

Post by connorgutman »

shawnz wrote: post #249
connorgutman wrote: post #240

Call me chicken little but my beef with nuclear has always been about the people not the science. If we paint the Earth with reactors it’s a statistical likelihood that through corruption or incompetence someone will screw up. We can’t even keep 50 year old bridges from collapsing in the U.S and meanwhile every time a republican gets into office they bleed FEMA and the EPA dry. We currently have 55 power plants total…

What's more concerning, a corrupt or incompetent government mishandling one ton of nuclear fuel, or the same corrupt/incompetent government mishandling the one million tons of coal that would be needed to replace it? (which by the way, would have approximately the same amount of radioactive potential due to the natural radioactive contaminants that will get concentrated as you use it)

My entire point was that we should strive for neither. We could half per-capita energy consumption in the US and still consume twice as much as Brazil. If everyone in rich countries stopped being greedy we could easily meet global demands with renewables alone.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#289

Post by shortcake27 »

goatlover wrote: post #245
shortcake27 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don’t know anything about that agreement, I assume it would have had been a push for renewables. By 2050 it will be easily possible to power the world using renewables. Ending nuclear at that point doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me.

How do you know it will be possible by 2050 to go full renewable?

By using elementary grade extrapolation. Right now in 2023 there are multiple countries generating over 90% of electricity from renewables.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#290

Post by phs318u »

gwbas1c wrote: post #254
phs318u wrote: post #149

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Until the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act gets repealed, the nuclear industry can take a hike. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nucle...

> constructed in the United States before 2026 Looks like it's going to expire soon anyway.

It will be very interesting to see how hard the industry will lobby to have it renewed.
Post reply on HN