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

421–428 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#421

Post by Schroedingersat »

vidarh wrote: post #420
Schroedingersat wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people that made the decision to cancel the planmed renewables are not pro renewables. Your bad propaganda is completely incoherent.

My "bad propaganda" does not rely on the intent of any of the people who did this cancellations. All it relies on is the fact that the shut down of nuclear ensured a reliance on coal that has killed and will kill a huge number of people. If you're trying to make a point, you're failing.

Still incoherently blaming the cancellation of wind and solar on the installatin of wind and solar. It's like having your junkie housemate steal the money you were going to spend on a LEV after you sold your car and spend it on drugs, then blaming the LEV.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#422

Post by danans »

timbit42 wrote: post #396
danans wrote: post #130

> I also learned that batteries cannot be recycled. That's straight up misinformation

It depends on what they mean by "cannot". It cannot be recycled today but it can be recycled when facilities are built to do it. The batteries currently in EVs will go to non-transportation uses when it is no longer able to be used in EVs. Then it will need recycling and that is when the recycling facilities will be built and begin recycling batteries.

When not qualified, "cannot" generally means impossible.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#423

Post by halletr »

vidarh wrote: post #418
cycomanic wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point about my criticism. Uranium is incredibly dense so phrasing it in terms of volume of the uranium is just misleading. Regarding the calculation https://www.worldometers.info/coal/ says we are burning 1,147,083 cubic feet of coal which is about 30000 cubic meters which is about the same as a football field up to 10 yards (~50mx90mx10m).

It says: > The world consumes 1,147,083 cubic feet of coal per capita every year (based on the 2016 world population of 7,464,022,049 people) or 3,143 cubic feet per capita per day. (My emphasis). So closer to a football field per person according to this. That sounds excessive to me, so I'm not sure I trust those numbers. This [1] says "1 ton of coal is approximately 40 cubic feet per ton, might be a little less, mi…

You're right that the worldometer number is excessive and not to be trusted.

They properly calculated 1.147083 tons of coal per capita per year, but then incorrectly multiplied by it 1,000,000 cubic feet per ton.

The actual conversion factor for coal seems to be 20-60 cubic feet per ton, depending on whether you use bulk density or particle density. Their per capita calculation is too high by a factor of about 15,000-50,000.

You're right that the amount of coal consumed is not similar to the amount of uranium byproduct generated. The original commenter's intuition was misled, not by uranium's density, but by its energy density. Of course there is an xkcd for this. https://xkcd.com/1162/

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#424

Post by vidarh »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #421
vidarh wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My "bad propaganda" does not rely on the intent of any of the people who did this cancellations. All it relies on is the fact that the shut down of nuclear ensured a reliance on coal that has killed and will kill a huge number of people. If you're trying to make a point, you're failing.

Still incoherently blaming the cancellation of wind and solar on the installatin of wind and solar. It's like having your junkie housemate steal the money you were going to spend on a LEV after you sold your car and spend it on drugs, then blaming the LEV.

I've done no such thing. If you're unable to understand my comments maybe don't comment on them.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#425

Post by Schroedingersat »

vidarh wrote: post #424
Schroedingersat wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still incoherently blaming the cancellation of wind and solar on the installatin of wind and solar. It's like having your junkie housemate steal the money you were going to spend on a LEV after you sold your car and spend it on drugs, then blaming the LEV.

I've done no such thing. If you're unable to understand my comments maybe don't comment on them.

[flagged]

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#426

Post by concordDance »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #425
vidarh wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done no such thing. If you're unable to understand my comments maybe don't comment on them.

[flagged]

Your paranoid conspiracy theory thinking isn't contributing to the conversation.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#428

Post by Retric »

natmaka wrote: post #402
dirkt wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> disposing of power plant waste has never been a real problem. Germany has been trying to find a location to safely dispose power plant waste for about 40 years or so. All the solutions so far didn't work out [1], they are still searching. If you have a recommendation that actually works, I am sure they'd be happy to hear it... [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlager_(Kerntechnik)#Endlage...

The "Asse II" mine case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

For the period 1906 to 1988, when Asse II was an operational salt mine, there were 29 documented water breaches.[27] They were sometimes successfully sealed off, partly dry or sometimes with negligible inflows (less than 0.5 cubic metres (130 US gal) per day).[28]

Between 1988 and 2008 32 new entry points were recorded. In 1996, the BFS notified the Bundesumweltministerium that there was a risk of severe radioactive contamination if the mine ran full of water and that further investigation was urgently required.

Hardly a long term solution.

Post reply on HN