22
Exclusive: Clean tech startup Fluxnium found a way to tap 50,000 years' worth of nuclear fuel (techcrunch.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The right time for nuclear power was decades ago, which could have offset our current carbon issues by a lot, but alas. Now is the time for solar+wind+batteries, it's already cheaper in most places and a lot less dangerous if something goes wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Agreed, I just wanted to preempt any "well akshually, nuclear power is perfectly clean" discussions.

    The "if something goes wrong" is certainly part of my reservations. There's been more than one example of that happening in my lifetime, and one was too many.

    Another concern is that we have no better idea to dispose of the nuclear waste than burying it really deep. That sounds like a good recipe to have it come back and bite future generations in the ass.

    So yeah, clean and sustainable would mean solar/hydro/wind energy in my mind.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago*

    Its not “just bury it underground”. Thats extremely reductionist and makes it seem far less safe than it is.

    The spent uranium is not a liquid or a loose green sludge. It consists of solid, durable ceramic pellets that do not melt or dissolve easily in water. Those pellets are then sealed inside airtight tubes made of zirconium, which are then placed into massive canisters made of thick carbon steel thats coated in copper. The canisters are engineered to withstand extreme pressures and resist rusting for hundreds of thousands of years.

    Those canisters are then placed in underground tunnels and packed tightly with bentonite clay. If any moisture ever seeps into the tunnel, this clay absorbs it, swells up, and creates a waterproof seal that locks the canisters in place. But even then, the repository is built at least 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) underground inside exceptionally stable rock formations, such as solid granite or deep salt beds. These areas have virtually no water movement and have remained seismically quiet for millions of years

    Its perfectly safe, and significantly more thought out than “just put it in the ground”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Funny thing though, if you look at the data, nuclear is safer than wind and solar per kWh in deaths because installers and maintainers keep falling from rooftops and wind turbines.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Oh I'm inclined to believe that, but even ignoring Chernobyl and similar situations, fact remains that nuclear waste would pile up and create another generation's issues. Better than oil? Absolutely. But renewables are where I'll place my bets for a better tomorrow now.

    Also in both cases we need batteries, as nuclear isn't quick to start or stop, and peaks or drops in usage need covering, so if I'd make one wish it's advancement in battery tech.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent