11–20 of 114 posts
This idea only makes sense if the used-fuel disposal problem is resolved, and it is not at all resolved. It would be like claiming that the coal supply is unlimited, but without addressing the problem of emissions.
I really thought this was going to be about Thorium. Surprise - its about extracting Uranium from seawater.
This idea only makes sense if the used-fuel disposal problem is resolved, and it is not at all resolved. It would be like claiming that the coal supply is unlimited, but without addressing the problem of emissions.
The used-fuel problem is already solved. The solution is just effectively permanently blocked by NIMBY-ism.
"Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation - we know that nuclear power is safe." It seems to me like the primary danger from radiation like that leaked from Fukushima would be an increase in cancer. I think it's a little early to be claiming that Fukushima will cause no increase harm to humans. There is already evidence that it caused harm to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The used-fuel problem is already solved. The solution is just effectively permanently blocked by NIMBY-ism.
What is the permanent solution?
One is to dump it in the Mariana trench, let nature push it back down into the crust.
If we're foresighted, we'll bombard a crater in the moon with it. It won't go anywhere, and if we need to get it back, there it is.
I'm pro-nuclear, but I can't take this writer's hand-wavey dismissal of the risks seriously.
If we had an amazing vessel for energy storage, the sourcing problem would become relatively moot - there's so much available passive renewable energy, all we need to do is collect it.
The 5000AD date is admittedly just an estimate, but I am extremely sceptical of any such prediction. It just depends too much on what new uses for lots of energy we might come up with over the next thousand years. How many people will there be to use it? What standard of living will they demand? And that standard of living actually require more energy, or will other technological advances make us far more efficient w…
I don't think it's an unfair way to express the estimate though. Sure, it might not really last until 5000 AD, but to me it simply implies 3000 "years of fuel", with a "year of fuel" being how we use fuel now. If energy consumption goes up or down it doesn't really matter - I still have a sense of how significant this energy source is.
If energy usage doubles every 30 years (pulled that out of my ass, it's not likely the trend but divides nice into 3000) then it will last us less than 200 years
If energy usage grows linearly increasing by the current amount every 30 years (so in 2042 we are using double, and 2072 we are using triple) it's lasts us a bit over 400 years.
A preliminary report by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has stated that the response to the Fukushima nuclear incident was "exemplary" and that nobody has been harmed by radiation exposure resulting from it.
That seems to contract what the Japanese government's own panel concluded:
I'm pro-nuclear, but I can't take this writer's hand-wavey dismissal of the risks seriously.
I wondered if Lewis Page's infamous and uniquely biased ramblings, particularly on any issues of nuclear power, US military or IP but in general any topic, would ever grace HN's front page. Guess that day is today...
I actually stopped reading The Register, before discovering Hacker News, just to get away from that "journalist" whose daily prolificness on that site alone was disturbing.