91–100 of 188 posts
Sure, but has anyone ever built a container that lasts 30k years, and remains watertight? Thus far, most off-site containment storage sites over 10 years old have failed to stop containment leaks, Radon gas diffusion, or hot-material fires. Fission reactors are a 1950's loss-leader technology, and only make sense for already uninhabitable areas like space. =3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, Canada was also indirectly responsible for many Nuclear weapons proliferation issues in North Korea, India, and Pakistan. Selling small research reactors to emerging economies had long-term consequences. As a side note, the CANDU are famously bad designs known to develop heavy maintenance costs even to remain operational. Yes these can run on garbage fuel, but only because other designs could never tolerate s…
> Indeed, Canada was also indirectly responsible for many Nuclear weapons proliferation issues in North Korea, India, and Pakistan. Selling small research reactors to emerging economies had long-term consequences. What does that have to do with how the US can deal with spent fuel? The reactors that consume spent fuel are ordinary power generating reactors rather than small research reactors and the US already has nuc…
Unlike France, the US did not use a closed-loop multi-grade fuel cycle for economic reasons.
>an empirical demonstration that reactors that run on spent fuel
It is more complex, as running on low-grade fuel is not the same as running on spent-fuel.
However, China's recent Thorium reactor facility is interesting, and it would be neat to see some real data on its output. The US shuttered their own facility a long time back, but it is unclear why the research was effectively abandoned. There probably was a legitimate reason, but who knows for sure. =3
A bunch of these nuclear power startups have started reached criticality over the last week. Aalo and Valar (thiel) and now GAO is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal.. Makes sense. Weird how we only get green energy when it's necessary for the technocratic class to power their data centers (and when they are small enough to be flown on location for the military, so the military can destroy a n…
> is trying to loosen regulations around nuclear waste disposal And here lies the problem that ever one wants to burry their head in the sand about. Can one, in theory, make safe nuclear reactors. You bet you can. The thing is that you cant leave a bunch of "we will deal with that later" problems laying around. In the case of the US thats spent fuel rods. Should one worry about these, no, but you also don't want them…
Sure, but has anyone ever built a container that lasts 30k years, and remains watertight? Thus far, most off-site containment storage sites over 10 years old have failed to stop containment leaks, Radon gas diffusion, or hot-material fires. Fission reactors are a 1950's loss-leader technology, and only make sense for already uninhabitable areas like space. =3
99.99% of the radiation is gone after 300 years, so you don't really have to.
There are dozens of other decay products with various hazardous properties.
Scientific hubris can't be made safe, and societies have proven irresponsible with fuel life-cycle management. =3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and we've collected enough arsenic from a single mine to kill every human on the planet 300 times over in one spot- what's your point? That because we screwed up one spot we should give up? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Mine
Not sure why people buried your post, but many water-soluble metal salts are pretty toxic to animals and people. In areas with natural Arsenic accumulation (or Acid rain run off), farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil. With low rainfall the evaporated well-water problem can certainly be a serious concern. =3
Hoes does this work and related to the arsenic and acid rain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99.99% of the radiation is gone after 300 years, so you don't really have to.
"Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24110 years" There are dozens of other decay products with various hazardous properties. Scientific hubris can't be made safe, and societies have proven irresponsible with fuel life-cycle management. =3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24110 years" There are dozens of other decay products with various hazardous properties. Scientific hubris can't be made safe, and societies have proven irresponsible with fuel life-cycle management. =3
And why am I supposed to care? Because plutonium sounds scary?
Indeed, one persons opinion is not really all that important, but one is alive because of decisions made long before they were born.
>Because plutonium sounds scary?
Which of the 14 isotopes are you referring too? In general, synthetic isotopes unknown in our evolutionary biology are far more toxic in trace exposures.
Some people don't get a chance to learn form their mistakes. Best of luck =3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why people buried your post, but many water-soluble metal salts are pretty toxic to animals and people. In areas with natural Arsenic accumulation (or Acid rain run off), farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil. With low rainfall the evaporated well-water problem can certainly be a serious concern. =3
>farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil. Hoes does this work and related to the arsenic and acid rain?
https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/26/w...
Best of luck =3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've already leached too much uranium into the groundwater for many to drink just from the mining alone.
and we've collected enough arsenic from a single mine to kill every human on the planet 300 times over in one spot- what's your point? That because we screwed up one spot we should give up? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Mine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Indeed, Canada was also indirectly responsible for many Nuclear weapons proliferation issues in North Korea, India, and Pakistan. Selling small research reactors to emerging economies had long-term consequences. What does that have to do with how the US can deal with spent fuel? The reactors that consume spent fuel are ordinary power generating reactors rather than small research reactors and the US already has nuc…
>What does that have to do with how the US can deal with spent fuel? Unlike France, the US did not use a closed-loop multi-grade fuel cycle for economic reasons. >an empirical demonstration that reactors that run on spent fuel It is more complex, as running on low-grade fuel is not the same as running on spent-fuel. However, China's recent Thorium reactor facility is interesting, and it would be neat to see some real…
Those are the existing reactors. The premise is building new ones of a different design.
> It is more complex, as running on low-grade fuel is not the same as running on spent-fuel.
It has to be accounted for but it's not some kind of impossible sorcery.
> The US shuttered their own facility a long time back, but it is unclear why the research was effectively abandoned. There probably was a legitimate reason, but who knows for sure.
There is a lot of politics involved in energy in general and nuclear in particular.