I am interested in hearing your opinions about nuclear power, what you know, if you have any fears, or ideas? Do you know if your country has any nuclear power generation?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 50 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (10 children)

It's great and we should have more of it.

Unjustified fears of it blowing up and destroying the world are ridiculous and overblown, especially given modern advances in reactor design and safety. Nuclear waste isn't really an issue, so much as it is an issue of bad policy based on fear mongering about waste being stolen and turned into nuclear weapons/dirty bombs. Which has never happened... it's utterly stupid that due to these stupid fears we don't re-process fuel, which would reduce it's volume by 80%.

There are 431 reactors, and 360 of them are based on 1960s technology, designed and built mostly in the 1970s. They are 50+ years old. Thanks to Chernobyl, reactors are basically stuck in time. Esp when you realize that non-nuclear plants only last about 30 years before they are replaced

There are only 4 Gen 3 reactors in service, and 2 gen 4. Why we don't have 200+ gen 3/4 reactors is... insane. We just keep re-fueling the less safe Gen 2 reactors.

But this is generally just a problem with all our infrastructure in the developed world in general... we don't renew or upgrade it... we just keep patching it and then we wonder why everything is so shitty and inefficient... because we refuse to actually upgrade things in a real way

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    How is the waste not an issue? I have never heard the argument of it being stolen to be honest. Here in germany the problem with the waste is, that there is no good place to put it (though this is partly a political problem)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago*

    in the USA they won't re-process fuel because of fears it will be stolen and turned into weapons. so we have 5x the waste volume than other countries where fuel is re-processed.

    also we won't use breeder reactors because of this, which are more efficient and produce way less waste than normal reactors.

    yes, it's all political problems. people are ignorant and angry and fearful and won't let nuclear power problems be resolved because they don't understand solutions exist and if you try to educate them they refuse to learn because they want to cling to their fears and emotions about it. a lot of political problems are like this. we have active solutions for many social problems, but people refuse to allow them to be implemented because of fear and delusional belief.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago

    Only ~3% of nuclear waste is really dangerous, that's the spent fuel rods. The majority of "nuclear waste" is stuff that was in proximity and contains intermediate to low levels of radioactivity. It's obviously not great to injest or spend all your time around, but it can be safely stored almost anywhere as it's mostly only emitting alpha and beta particles.

    So what about the dangerous stuff like fuel rods? Well, if you took all the dangerous waste nuclear power ever created and piled it in one place, it would cover a football field and be stacked 3 meters high. That sounds like a lot, but remember, that's is ALL the dangerous waste nuclear power has EVER produced. Compare that to literally any other form of energy production, including solar and wind, and the footprint from nuclear is laughably, almost unimaginably, small.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Because the amount of waste we've created is really quite small. Per the US DoE:

    U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards (or meters).

    There are ways we can repurpose or reuse spent nuclear fuel. I don't know a lot about this so I won't get into it, but even if we chose to do nothing with it and just bury it, we know enough about geology that we could stick it into some bedrock that will be stable for the next 500 million years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    But long term storage also isn't easy. Maybe it's less of a problem in the US (you've got a lot more free space where no one lives) but it has to be made sure that it does not contaminate the surroundings, even in thousands of years and more. Another (as of yet unsolved) problem is far more human. How do we mark those places, if at all. See this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Just hollow out a mountain, like the US did with Yucca mountain, plenty of storage (if you're politicians let it be used for its purpose) that is pretty easy to secure for centuries (and after that probably pretty easy as well). Assuming you close it up well when full, even future historians probably will have an idea that it's dangerous by the level of difficulty to just get into it.

    Not trying to discount the issue, just point out that there generally are solutions to the issues around nuclear waste, just that politicians have mucked it up quite a bit in the past (especially in the US).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    The idea in germany are old mines, we already have some "temporary" solution (an old saltmine) but there are some problems with it. Understandably there is a lot of nimbyism around the permanent storage, which makes finding a good spot a lot harder

  • source
  • parent