• blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear energy produces the worst toxic waste guaranteed, and can and has a record of leaking a lot of radioactive material.

    When wind and solar are ready alternatives it just makes no sense.

    • Shurimal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bullshit. Nuclear waste (more precisely, spent fuel that can be reprocessed for new fuel or other useful radionuclids) is the only waste we have actual good solutions for. It’s not an engineering problem, we know very well how to safely dispose of the small amount of ultimate nuclear waste.

      All the other waste, including waste from producing new and retiring old solar panels and wind turbines, basically just gets thrown into the landscape with no containment whatsoever. And some of that stuff is toxic, some will never degrade (plastics used in composite materials the wind turbine blades and towers are made of).

      Plus, if you only used nuclear energy throughout you life, the amount of ultimate waste can literally fit into a coke can. That’s how efficient and energy dense it is.

      • LEX@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s this amazing waste disposal method you’re convinced exists? Last I checked, the waste will still be around for at least a millennia and the only process we have to deal with it is bury it in a hole with a sign that says ‘BAD’ in a way we hope future generations can still interpret.

          • LEX@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “There would still be waste that would have to be disposed, but the amount of long-lived waste can be significantly reduced,” Gehin said.

            “Significantly less” is not defined. Is it 80% less? 50? 30? 10? The guy they’re quoting, who has a vested interest in selling us this tech, sure doesn’t say and uses the qualifier ‘can be’. In fact, I can’t seem to find that information anywhere, let alone this article.

            Irregardless, there’s still waste that will take hundreds (thousands?) of years to decay. The solution is renewable energy.

            • SomewhatOffBeat@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re obviously not willing to change your mind, so this will be my last response. Googling “breeder reactor” will show you plenty of peer reviewed papers and findings from past experimental reactors that can answer your questions.

              Apart from that, the point of the technology is obviously not to replace renewables, it’s to

              1. Phase out coal and oil as fast as possible.
              2. Get rid of the nuclear waste we already accumulated (by turning it into energy).

              Especially point 2, you are obviously and rightfully worried about nuclear waste - breeder reactors are the solution, the only one we currently know of. What else do you suggest we should do with that waste? Store it for millennia?

              • LEX@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s not that I’m not willing to change my mind, it’s that I’m hugely suspicious of the recent push for Nuclear. Energy companies dumped massive amounts of money into the technology and want to see a return on those failed investments. So I am skeptical that there’s not some astroturfing and/or disinformation going on.

                That said, when I was doing the research, I was looking up Fast Fusion, not Breeder Reactors so I’ll look into it.

                Also, your point about using nuclear to phase out of coal and into renewable has merit, but I think there’s a danger that we get stuck on nuclear as it becomes easier/cheaper than coal and so development in green tech, like batteries, languishes for another four decades or whatever.

                Anyways, I’ll look into breeder reactors and, who knows, maybe have a change of heart (maybe).

            • Shurimal@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s precisely where they go—landfills. They’re made of non-recyclable glass fiber-plastic composites that won’t degrade for millions of years.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Landfills arent underground, and theyll break down within a millenia. Well the plastic anyway. Then youre left with recyclable glass if it isnt crushed into sand first

                • Shurimal@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Landfills not being underground is even worse (but normally they are buried under soil when they go unused).

                  While the plastics degrade mechanically, being reduced into small particles, chemically they are not. They just turn into microplastics which I’m sure you’re aware is a huge problem.

                  With the small amount of ultimate nuclear waste that cannot be reprocessed further, the solution is simple: drill a km deep shaft into the bedrock, place them at the bottom, fill the shaft with rubble and cement. Done. No-one’s going to accidentally dig them up and they pose absolutely no threat to anyone. The finns are doing something like this as we speak.