5 ms·

You're repeating the problem - You're saying that there is less waste to deal with which magically means it's safe. You do understand that don't you?

fc417fc802 3mo ago
You appear to be reiterating an irrational position. I provided links to overviews of the topic; I strongly suggest at least skimming them. The quantity of unavoidable high level waste would appear to be sufficiently small that geological disposal is a cost effective solution. The high level waste in question is not magically safe. Rather the various reprocessing and disposal methods have been extensively engineered and deliberated. At this point there is no cause to believe deep geological disposal in crystalline bedrock to be unsafe.
- awesome_dude 3mo ago
  I said from the start that the argument you presented was fallacious, and all you did was present it, now, because you have no other argument, you're working on aggressive attacks. You're on your own now. Bye.
  - fc417fc802 3mo ago
    Do please explain how it's fallacious? I've made the claims that one, there is a sufficiently low volume of waste produced per unit of generation that geologic disposal is affordable and scalable and that two, said geological disposal is in fact safe. Where's the fallacy? It appears to me that you are attached to a position that you aren't capable of defending.
    - roenxi 3mo ago
      Also worth seeing that less has to be fundamentally safe at some point, otherwise background radiation would be a threat. If examined on its own without considering the surrounding inert volume, one decaying particle is presumably quite radioactive. So since less->magically safer is true some point, the argument can't be made fallacious by asserting it is true. The worst the argument can be is unpersuasive (although it is persuasive - from a practical perspective there is a tiny volume of toxic waste, it isn't a reason to block progress).
      - awesome_dude 3mo ago
        He literally mentioned tonnes of waste being generated. But don't let that get in the way of a good pile on.
    - bvcp 3mo ago
      also its not really waste, its waste by law only, in reality its unrefined fuel
cyberax 3mo ago
Less waste to deal with makes it safer, simply because you need to control and manage less material. We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years. It's prohibitively expensive right now, but may be feasible in the future once technology matures.
- awesome_dude 3mo ago
  > We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years In the interests of fairness, is like a citation showing that
  - cyberax 3mo ago
    It's called "closed [nuclear] fuel cycle". Just google it. I studied it at a university. TLDR; if you have enough fast neutrons, you can transmute anything into safe materials. Fast neutron reactors produce enough, classic PWR reactors do not. The only commercial fast reactor right now is in Russia. If at some point humanity decides to stop making reactors altogether, it's still possible to burn the waste with particle accelerators. It'll take hundreds of years, but waste won't be going anywhere. And finally, if commercial fusion reactors ever happen, they can also be used as neutron sources to trivially burn up all the waste.
    - leonidasrup 3mo ago
      In the US reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste was stopped not for technical reasons, but for political reasons. The primary reasoning was that: US reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste would encourage other non-nuclear weapon states to build nuclear reprocessing capabilities which would make easier access to plutonium - nuclear weapon material. "On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/read... Commercial fusion reactors could be used burn (transmutate) long-term transuranic waste, on the other hand they will produce short-term nuclear waste, like neutron activated steels.

fc417fc802 3mo ago

You appear to be reiterating an irrational position. I provided links to overviews of the topic; I strongly suggest at least skimming them. The quantity of unavoidable high level waste would appear to be sufficiently small that geological disposal is a cost effective solution. The high level waste in question is not magically safe. Rather the various reprocessing and disposal methods have been extensively engineered and deliberated. At this point there is no cause to believe deep geological disposal in crystalline bedrock to be unsafe.

awesome_dude 3mo ago
I said from the start that the argument you presented was fallacious, and all you did was present it, now, because you have no other argument, you're working on aggressive attacks. You're on your own now. Bye.
- fc417fc802 3mo ago
  Do please explain how it's fallacious? I've made the claims that one, there is a sufficiently low volume of waste produced per unit of generation that geologic disposal is affordable and scalable and that two, said geological disposal is in fact safe. Where's the fallacy? It appears to me that you are attached to a position that you aren't capable of defending.
  - roenxi 3mo ago
    Also worth seeing that less has to be fundamentally safe at some point, otherwise background radiation would be a threat. If examined on its own without considering the surrounding inert volume, one decaying particle is presumably quite radioactive. So since less->magically safer is true some point, the argument can't be made fallacious by asserting it is true. The worst the argument can be is unpersuasive (although it is persuasive - from a practical perspective there is a tiny volume of toxic waste, it isn't a reason to block progress).
    - awesome_dude 3mo ago
      He literally mentioned tonnes of waste being generated. But don't let that get in the way of a good pile on.
  - bvcp 3mo ago
    also its not really waste, its waste by law only, in reality its unrefined fuel

cyberax 3mo ago

Less waste to deal with makes it safer, simply because you need to control and manage less material. We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years. It's prohibitively expensive right now, but may be feasible in the future once technology matures.

awesome_dude 3mo ago
> We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years In the interests of fairness, is like a citation showing that
- cyberax 3mo ago
  It's called "closed [nuclear] fuel cycle". Just google it. I studied it at a university. TLDR; if you have enough fast neutrons, you can transmute anything into safe materials. Fast neutron reactors produce enough, classic PWR reactors do not. The only commercial fast reactor right now is in Russia. If at some point humanity decides to stop making reactors altogether, it's still possible to burn the waste with particle accelerators. It'll take hundreds of years, but waste won't be going anywhere. And finally, if commercial fusion reactors ever happen, they can also be used as neutron sources to trivially burn up all the waste.
  - leonidasrup 3mo ago
    In the US reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste was stopped not for technical reasons, but for political reasons. The primary reasoning was that: US reprocessing of civilian nuclear waste would encourage other non-nuclear weapon states to build nuclear reprocessing capabilities which would make easier access to plutonium - nuclear weapon material. "On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/read... Commercial fusion reactors could be used burn (transmutate) long-term transuranic waste, on the other hand they will produce short-term nuclear waste, like neutron activated steels.