6 ms·
No we shouldn't. Nuclear waste is not and will never be solved. Nuclear meltdowns are real. Also, nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar.
by shafyy 1mo ago
No we shouldn't. Nuclear waste is not and will never be solved. Nuclear meltdowns are real. Also, nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar.
- bcrl 1mo agoDeaths per terawatt-hour of nuclear is still lower than any fossil fuel per https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
- fragmede 1mo agoWe absolutely will solve it. That's called fusion.
- hocuspocus 1mo agoYou don't even need that. Fast breeder reactors are enough.
- teravor 1mo agowhile at it you might as well argue for highly enriched fuel for compact SMRs. the politics of the threat of proliferation kills it in the crib.
- hocuspocus 1mo agoI'm fine with this, recent geopolitical events showed that proliferation might have deterred the world's biggest bullies.
- rgmerk 1mo agoI've no doubt that fusion will be solved, technically. I am hugely skeptical that it will be solved economically given that it suffers from many of the problems currently pricing coal and nuclear out of the market.
- google234123 1mo agoNuclear material literally came out of the ground...m you can put it back..we have literally infinite amount of rock under us
- harimau777 1mo agoThe problem is keeping it out of the water table.
- laughing_man 1mo agoNuclear waste isn't a problem. It takes up a tiny amount of space, and can be reprocessed if necessary.
- bell-cot 1mo agoNuclear's top 3 problems: 1. Any equipment or substance that is both nuclear and potentially dangerous has some sort of magical mutant super-power to stimulate superhumanly idiotic behavior in a non-trivial fraction of the people handling/operating/managing the equipment or substance. That behavior is almost always coupled with pathological denials - both from the mutant super-idiots and their supposedly non-mutant peers. 2. General population humans are quite aware of problem #1, hence extremely distrustful when any human experts or organizations try to reassure them as to the safety of anything nuclear. 3. That "reprocessing" ain't nothing resembling "put on a lead apron and pour it through a coffee filter". Instead, it's a quagmire of chemicals and processes that'd still be horrific if nothing nuclear was involved, plus weapon proliferation overtones, plus all the problems noted in 1. and 2. above.
- laughing_man 1mo agoNuclear's top 3 problems: 1. Plant construction is very expensive, and not in small part because people who don't actually understand the technology take every opportunity to tie up construction in the courts and regulatory agencies. 2. General population of humans are quite aware of #1, so even though they know nuclear wins on a technology basis, they know it will be unduly expensive, preferring to knuckle under to the mob instead of doing the right thing. 3. People not familiar with the technology don't realize that while we don't generally do reprocessing in the west, it's primarily due to cost, and that Japan will start reprocessing 800 tonnes of fuel per year starting next year. The technology is the safest way we have to generate power, and could be the lowest cost if the regulatory environment was adjusted properly. It's just a shame there are so many people who are irrationally opposed.
- bell-cot 1mo agoSounds like anyone who needs actual, delivered, at-scale power (in the real world) should immediately adopt an "Anything But Nukes" policy. Vs. those with both the unquenchable zeal and bottomless resources to win a multi-decade crusade to prove that they're Ultimately Right (but no short-term need for electrical power) should embark on an epic quest...
- hocuspocus 1mo agoNuclear waste is a nice problem to have, and fairly simple compared to most pollution sources associated with our lifestyle. No need to worry though, on the current trajectory I doubt our civilization will have the opportunity to deal with it.
- 0x457 1mo agoIts literally solved decades years ago.
- graeme 1mo agoWe also haven't solve carbon waste, and carbon waste seems like a dramatically larger problem than nuclear waste. Not considering this tradeoff has led to much carbon waste.
- throwitaway222 1mo agoWe absolutely should invest in nuclear. We won't have enough with solar anymore. AI and EVs alone have blown our projections off by 1000x at this point. Can't put the genie back in the bottle either. I'm not saying there are no risks, but if we don't start making more nuclear power companies, Elon will and he will go from $1T to $8T. Who am I kidding, he's probably the only one that can turn them around in 2yrs with nextgen tech. Everyone else is going to keep faking it and build them in 20 years for 100x budget.