Nuclear fusion reaction releases almost twice the energy put in
The US National Ignition Facility has achieved even higher energy yields since breaking even for the first time in 2022, but a practical fusion reactor is still a long way off
You're viewing a single thread.
Maybe one day we will produce a civilization capable of using technology as it comes out instead of one that decided to call it quits decades ago. Oh sure we got cellphones but we are still burning coal. Because nuclear is scary.
I think nuclear energy is a great idea in theory, but I have absolutely zero trust in companies handling nuclear waste responsibly. It's not like they have a great track record.
That being said, pretty excited about this if it's as safe as they say.
So nationalize them. Problem solved.
That's the dream!
Do you trust our current governmental structures to manage something with that much potential for harm when it goes wrong? I sure don't. Sure, it might go great for a long while, but then you get one far-right administration that wants to cut regulations.
How many nukes does the US have?
I trust them far more than greedy corporations run by greedy billionaires, absolutely. For many reasons, not the least of which is the elimination of the profit motive.
You're acting like we don't already have these. This isn't new and we have tons of prior experience to learn from.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you are.
Lol if only you knew how wrong that statement was.
You have every right to not trust companies, I don't either. Good thing we have multiple government regulators and multiple non-profit engineering/standards boards also involved.
Sure, I just want to feel confident that said regulations actually have teeth and the punishment can't just be factored into the cost of doing business.
So, yes, I'm scared. Maybe that's not rational, but I don't want to look back in 40 years and find out we were wrong about the longevity of nuclear waste storage, or that the many minor infractions over the years have slowly built up into a real problem. I don't want to discover that we've been outsourcing the most dangerous work to developing countries with less employee and environmental protections than our own. If there's a viable method that's inherently safer, I'd feel a little better about it.
Well as long as we are using feelings to determine policy. Instead of you know data
That's why there were no incidents in Japan a decade ago. Especially not after multiple reports of potential danger 🤷♂️.
I have the same reserves as the person you commented on. "We" may have great agencies working to prevent issues, but it's not the case everywhere in the world. And if you want to use fission as a solution for climate change, you need to have every developing country to use it too, whatever the stability of the region.
Just look at Ukraine where the safety of one their reactor is on the line because of the war, and the mines Russia put all over. Chernobyl 2.0 if things go wrong :(
That’s why there were no incidents in Japan a decade ago. Especially not after multiple reports of potential danger 🤷♂️.
Oh yes let's do this. Thousands of plants across the world operating for multiple decades and you mention something the exposed people to less radiation than you get on a 4 hour flight. Omg something isn't perfect! Wow we should give you an award.
have the same reserves as the person you commented on. “We” may have great agencies working to prevent issues, but it’s not the case everywhere in the world
Which is why there are international bodies.
And if you want to use fission as a solution for climate change, you need to have every developing country to use it too, whatever the stability of the region.
Citation needed. Please show me multiple peer reviewed studies that back up this claim. There are 190 countries or so please show me how it physically impossible that if each and every single one of them doesn't have a nuclear reactor themselves climate change can't be worked on at all, not even slightly.
Just look at Ukraine where the safety of one their reactor is on the line because of the war, and the mines Russia put all over.
Yeah maybe Russia shouldn't have invaded.
Chernobyl 2.0 if things go wrong :(
No. Very different plant design, but you knew that. Just hoping that I didn't.
Yeah sure, the Fukushima region is/was thriving and people were happy to live next to a nuclear disaster. The cleanup will take another decade and lots of money. It's not just about the immediate radiation.
International bodies, like the ones that (afaik) can't access Iran's nuclear enrichment plants anymore ? Sure it may be more related to nuke production, and that's a tangential problem.
Stand off your high horse and your hyperboles. I didn't say that it was impossible to work on climate change without 190 going nuclear. However it's ignoring that most pollution comes from developing countries, countries that do not want to sacrifice their development, and would need nuclear or renewable. Guess what is cheaper and safer?
For Ukraine, yeah, but did you or I have a say in this war ? Do we have a say on Russia preventing 90% of workers that know the plant to go to work ? No such risk with renewables (except maybe hydro, as shown by Russia too).
Did I say that the plant would explode exactly like Chernobyl? No. The plant can be a disaster if one or multiple missiles hit it, with the mines and explosives reported as being set everywhere. Could the plant resist such impacts ? Probably, maybe. Do I care to find out ? No thanks.
Don't bother to respond if you are to take this discussion in bad faith. We can discuss things like adults without being hurt by the other side having a different opinion.
More gish gallop from the coal lobby.
the Fukushima region is/was thriving and people were happy to live next to a nuclear disaster. The cleanup will take another decade and lots of money.
I have worked on a Superfund site that is going to extend past 100 years, but your ten years is soooo impressive to me.
International bodies, like the ones that (afaik) can’t access Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants anymore ?
Yeah organized religion is shit not sure what you want from me. Maybe we can ban religion and ban your coal employers.
Sure it may be more related to nuke production, and that’s a tangential problem.
But you sure as hell brought it up.
Stand off your high horse and your hyperboles. I didn’t say that it was impossible to work on climate change without 190 going nuclear. However it’s ignoring that most pollution comes from developing countries, countries that do not want to sacrifice their development, and would need nuclear or renewable. Guess what is cheaper and safer?
Don't lie it is unbecoming of even a lobbyist.
For Ukraine, yeah, but did you or I have a say in this war ? Do we have a say on Russia preventing 90% of workers that know the plant to go to work ? No such risk with renewables (except maybe hydro, as shown by Russia too).
Well it certainly didn't help that thanks to Big Fossil Fuels Russia has a natural gas stranglehold on Europe. Maybe if stopped listening to coal lobby people on the internet and built nuclear Russia would have backed off.
Did I say that the plant would explode exactly like Chernobyl? No. The plant can be a disaster if one or multiple missiles hit it, with the mines and explosives reported as being set everywhere. Could the plant resist such impacts ? Probably, maybe. Do I care to find out ? No thanks.
Again with the lies from Big Coal
Top kek.
From what I recall of Three Mile Island, I don't know that I'd put a lot of trust in the NRC.
I'm pretty sure Three Mile Island is more of a case study in how safety measures at nuclear plants can work.
Except it took a whistle blower to point out the reckless behavior during the clean-up to prevent a potential catastrophic event when the NRC was all for signing off on the reckless plan. That, plus the poor communication with the surrounding communities did not help the people there feel confident that their safety was being looked after
It's not been uncontested through out history, and I won't pretend that I follow the updates closely, but there have been studies suggesting increased cancer rates in the surrounding communities.
Except it took a whistle blower to point out the reckless behavior during the clean-up to prevent a potential catastrophic event when the NRC was all for signing off on the reckless plan.
+50 years ago
Boy, you are just really bothered by this. Why does it being 50years ago matter. Can you explain why we should trust them more today than we should have then?
Just to clarify you want to know why five decades of doing good work means nothing? I just want to make sure I get the coal lobby's question correct.
Right, how have their incentives changed and would you trust them regardless of the administration in power? I'm open to them being more trustworthy, but I don't trust them easily.
And just for the record, I'm not against nuclear power. I think it's great and I would love to see more use of clean energy to move away from coal, so your pitchfork is not really necessary. Being skeptical of the organization charged with your safety is not the same thing as being against the technology they look over.
Right, and it is not on me to prove that they are doing a good job when I can point to five decades. If you want to stop lobbying for big coal go get a job with the NRC and do it yourself.
I bet on the day Three Mile Island had the meltdown, hundreds if not thousands of people died due to emissions from coal power.
The issues with fission are issues with practically. It’s expensive, pretty much. Concerns about meltdowns or waste storage are discussions that need to happen, but they pale in comparison to the damage we already experience every day.
Hopefully small modular reactors will get popular in remote areas or industrial uses, and that will bring down the price to make them a feasible compliment to renewable energy.
I don't disagree about the harm of coal and I am absolutely hoping fusion works out in the long run. All for clean energy!
I mean no one died and it seems like most studies find few to no significant adverse long term health effects from the event.
There have been studies that suggested increased cancer rates around TMI. I don't pretend to follow TMI closely enough to know for sure, maybe those studies have been completely debunked. The trouble with cancer is there can be a number of different factors leading to it and isolating one incident as the main driver for cancer years down the line is difficult.
There was also the issue with the way the surrounding communities were being "kept informed" and the fact that a whistle blower and to come forward to halt irresponsible clean up plans that could have caused a catastrophic event.
Really obsessed about this 5 decade long ago event. Btw the cancers studies have been debunked
I see. So because of an incident five decades ago out of hundreds of plants running since the 1950s that resulted in no deaths the entire NRC for all time forever is untrustworthy.
Hey everyone go shut civilization down. The bar has been raised. Did an organization make a mistake that had no victim 51 years ago? This means it is destroyed forever. Only perfect people who act perfectly forever and into the past as far as you can look get to do anything.
Got to love this new world. Where the only thing that is real is our outrage. Can you tell me anything about the NRC? Can you describe their emblem without looking it up? Can you tell me who is running it now? Can you tell me about its organization structure? How about the license renewal process? How about how inspections are even performed? Betting no. But you don't need to, you have outrage and that replaces data. It is the master play that can never be defeated. As long as you can be upset about something you don't need to know anything.
There are people who are grandparents who weren't alive during that incident.
With respect, you are the one that seems outraged. I'm not outraged, just pointing out that government can be just as untrustworthy as corporations and in the case of the NRC, there is some history to justify that.
Government agencies generally should be looked at with critical eyes, as should anyone claiming power over your life.
Also, you claimed there were no victims. The fact that no one died in the immediate aftermath of TMI does not mean there were no victims. The surrounding communities were victimized by poor business decisions and poor oversight.
there is some history to justify that.
Emphasis on "some".
Also, you claimed there were no victims. The fact that no one died in the immediate aftermath of TMI does not mean there were no victims. The surrounding communities were victimized by poor business decisions and poor oversight.
Do you think pedantically going after one word I said will make your pro-coal agenda work?
I just thought it was worth recognizing that there were victims as my point in my original post was regarding the trustworthiness of those that are supposed to be looking out for the people. And I guess I'm not sure where I've pushed coal, but you do you, I guess.
Peace and love to you, Zombies
Well, that's why you put well funded, independent organizations in charge of setting and enforcing the rules around this kind of stuff
And you don't just give them the power to fine the companies exploiting the reactors, you give them the power to unilaterally decide to shut down the reactors if they deem it necessary
With a rigorous set of ethics and standards so the industry doesn't end up being overseen by a bunch of retired executives or getting kick-backs.
We're currently trusting them to deal with all the filth that comes out of fossil fuel based power facilities. There's a lot of very long lived awful waste that is produced.
It's kind of a devil-you-know thing, isn't it?
Like, we've seen on a limited scale what can happen when nuclear isn't handled properly, and then we've also seen what kind of catastrophic messes the fossil fuel industry creates with our current fuel sources. It's not a big leap of imagination to scale up Fukushima and Chernobyl to a global reach comparable to coal and oil.
Our corporations have shown they will cut every corner available - even when heavily regulated - and our governments have shown they are too incompetent to properly enforce the regulations they do out on the books. It shouldn't be any surprise that people are reluctant to get behind nuclear. Anyone who isn't is hideously naive.
Because nuclear is scary.
Nuclear isn't scary. It's waste, on the other hand, is.
But you know, it's not like we've not had multiple examples of nuclear power plants failing catastrophically and destroying things around them for miles, and for decades/centuries.
Having said that, if they did come out with new technology version of a nuclear power plant that is safe and that with a catastrophic failure does not harm the environment around itself then I would be all for it. I just don't think the technology is there for that. I hear they're working on it though.
In other words you want special pleading. All other energy techs are allowed to have problems and produce waste except for one.
All other energy techs are allowed to have problems and produce waste except for one.
The other ones don't fail catastrophically like nuclear does.
The other ones don't produce waste that is the worst kind of toxicity for Humanity that lasts for hundred of years.
Solve those problems, and I'll get on board that train.
The other ones don't fail catastrophically like nuclear does.
Comparing (some) other forms of energy's deaths to nuclear is like comparing mosquito bites to shark bites. A sharks kill a lot less people than mosquitoes, but a mosquito bite won't make the news.
Well, we all die at some point, be it from malaria, nuclear fallout, cancer, car accidents, heart failure, stupidity, etc.
There are more mosquitoes on the planet than they are nuclear reactors, So I'm not sure what you think you're trying to show with that graph.
The point is a nuclear reactor failing catastrophically, yeah it's a more rare event than dying from malaria, but we seem to treat malaria treatment better than we do reactor designs and operations, especially when profits are involved.
And a person dying for malaria, doesn't put a pox of the lands around them for centuries making it unusable to anyone else. The risk versus reward calculation is much different, it's not strictly just a quantity of deaths issue.
And even if you want to talk just about the odds of failure/death, I'm sure all the dinosaurs scoffed at the idea of being killed by an asteroid, until one fateful day (how's that for a non-sequitur example!). Or flying by plane is the safest form of travel, unless you're in a 737 Max, then safety be damned.
The graph is per terra-watt hour. My point is that watt for watt nuclear is actually one of the safest forms of energy.
Many deaths over a period of time aren't necessarily better than less deaths in an instant.
My point is that watt for watt nuclear is actually one of the safest forms of energy.
And flying is the safest form of travel, which makes the Boeing 737 Max the Chernobyl of planes I guess.
The point is the chance of failure, even if they haven't happened in a higher quantity so far, is very high, higher in nuclear power plants as they are currently designed or have been designed in the past, than other forms as you have described or supposedly newer ones that are on the designing boards as we speak. And when they fail, they fail too catastrophically, too horrendous for Humanity to have too many of those.
Just one more time, because I don't want to keep the conversation up, but I'm not anti-nuclear, just anti-old and current nuclear. Get those new smaller salt based low risk of catastrophic failure easier to operate by humans and handles human errors more gracefully reactors out there and I'll be just fine with those.
Does climate change caused by the coal industry not fall under the "pox of the lands" category?
Does climate change caused by the coal industry not fall under the “pox of the lands” category?
Eventually, yes, but a lot slower. And you can definitely put one as an S tier threat and the other one as an A tier threat.
And as I stated, if we have fusion and solar/battery then we don't have to worry about that from either of them anymore.
The other ones don’t fail catastrophically like nuclear does.
take a look some excerpts:
December 1952: The Great Smog of London caused by the burning of coal, and to a lesser extent wood, killed 12,000 people within days to months due to inhalation of the smog.[18]
The Vajont Dam in Italy overflew. Filling the reservoir caused geological failure in valley wall, leading to 110 km/h landslide into the lake; water escaped in a wave over the top of dam. Valley had been incorrectly assessed as stable. Several villages were completely wiped out, with an estimated between 1,900 and 2,500 deaths.
as /u/afraid_of_zombies said:
All other energy techs are allowed to have problems and produce waste except for one.
As far as the smog goes that was before catalytic converters and improved laws to reduce smog, and as far as the dam goes yeah you build any dam in a bad place and it's going to break, it's kind of actually another metaphor for what I'm talking about, which is nuclear is more risky because it's more dependent on humans being more perfect to Implement / operate it.
As far as the smog goes that was before catalytic converters and improved laws to reduce smog
Then take into account modern nuclear reactors, as other commenters said. Nuclear is the way to go for safest and cleanest energy of all energy sources we have. Things that are stopping it are coal/oil lobby, nuclear scare and capitalists and politicians scared other countries might make nuclear bomb out of it.
I'd love to have a nuclear powerplant in my country, we are choking here because of coal and coal lobby just makes things worse by supporting energy sources sold as "renewable clean sources" that need batteries to work on and as a fallback, when there is less sun or wind always go back to coal.
Then take into account modern nuclear reactors, as other commenters said.
I definitely will, when they're in production. I haven't had anyone tell me that they are yet, just on the drawing book. I'm all for salt based small reactors that are a lot safer to deal with.
What ? One poster in comments said they are getting power from reactor that is same model as Chernobyl one with added improvments and nothing bad happened, I don't get what you mean by "when they're in production" ?
Are you arguing that coal is safer than nuclear ?
I don’t get what you mean by “when they’re in production” ?
I was speaking about the next generation of reactors that are on the drawing board today.
I’m all for salt based small reactors that are a lot safer to deal with.
The coal industry emits magnitudes more unvetted radiation than any nuclear power plant will in it's whole lifetime; as in, radiation is undetectable around a modern nuclear plant.
Plus coal and oil extraction has it's own problems with radiation. Nuclear produces stable, storable waste that if handled and buried correctly will never become an ecological issue.
They're built to a modern standard where it's practically foolproof. Fukushima held up to an enormous earthquake followed by several tsunamis; that's despite the poor operation of the plant.
The damage we would have to cause to compromise and get rid of any nuclear reliance is far more immediate and concerning.
Nuclear isn't actually as complicated nor unpredictable as you'd think. They've solved ways to avoid melt downs such as the fuels being improved, the amount they process at one time, their cooling and the redundancies. The physical design of a modern station takes into account the worst situations that any given amount of fuel can give in a meltdown such as deep wells that are situated under a reactor to melt into. You won't likely ever see in our lifetimes a station reaching critical meltdown and it not be because a government or private company cut corners.
Scientists are doing this work, they know what they know and they know what they're doing, it's not really for everyone to politically involve ourselves with when no one ever does any valid research or basic knowledge of science without fear mongering.
So that's a wall of text, with all the same standard counter points that is always made, some of which I disagree with, so I'll just say I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm just anti-nuclear in its current design form.
You give me a design that can protect the environment from catastrophic effects and with a waste product that can be safely handled, and I'll get on board.
I had read there is some salt based designs kicking around that seem to start going in that direction, but I don't know if they've been moved forward or not.
Fukushima held up to an enormous earthquake followed by several tsunamis; that’s despite the poor operation of the plant.
Actually it wasn't so much the poor operation of the plant, but the failure of the design of the plant to not take into account that after a major earthquake the elevation of the land that the plant sits on would go down, which makes the wall they put up the protect the plant from the ocean (especially after a tsunami) shorter than it should have been.
Nuclear isn’t actually as complicated nor unpredictable as you’d think.
I'm actually quite informed on the subject.
without fear mongering.
Someone disagreeing with you is not fear-mongering.
Generally when a fact is established it does become the "standard counterpoints" people use.
You personally said "Nuclear waste is scary" - that's why I said people fearmonger. If you're informed you'd actually understand it's a very safe form of waste
Also you said it wasn't due to poor operation, but then state an example of a plant being poorly operated. If those were obvious and established problems that they already should have been able to account for, then someone dicked it up. Nuclear is only dangerous when it's irresponsibly used. We already have accounted for the mayor pitfalls. It's not worth saying it's dangerous, bad for the environment, or scary in terms of waste.
Nuclear energy isn't some half theory or some risky experiment, it's pretty well established and understood at this point.
I also said people in general shouldn't be so politically involved when they're not informed, I actually said that because I shared and hoped you would be able to agree on that. I wasn't demeaning you.
You personally said “Nuclear waste is scary” - that’s why I said people fearmonger.
The point I was trying to make was that the plants operation was one risk, while it's waste output was a second risk.
That wasn't fear-mongering, that was stating facts.
But to be blunt, if an area is destroyed because of nuclear waste then that is kind of scary, a land that can't be lived in anymore (or for a very long time) it's something right out of a fiction story (Mordor-ish).
Expressing that is not fear mongering, its a real possibility, we see that today around nuclear reactors that have catastrophically failed. We humans rarely 'salt the Earth' so we can't live in a place anymore, it's anathema to what we believe in.
Nuclear is only dangerous when it’s irresponsibly used.
Which always happens sooner or later because human beings are involved. The current designs can't cope for humans being humans (especially for those who love profits) and their flaws are exaggerated to catastrophic proportions.
I also said people in general shouldn’t be so politically involved when they’re not informed, I actually said that because I shared and hoped you would be able to agree on that. I wasn’t demeaning you.
Well since you were replying to me directly in an argumentative tone, I could only assume that point was directed at me. And that statement is that I'm commenting uninformed, which is not correct, and hence why I pushed back.
What I do usually to avoid that misunderstanding is that I explicitly state something along the lines of "not you directly, but generally" when I'm trying to make a general comment in response to a specific individual.
I do appreciate you clarifying, and hope that was an honest clarification, and not just trying to avoid the pushback of the criticism that was initially correct.
And finally, I do agree, people should be informed when they comment, but as long as they're not being obstructive there's nothing wrong with also just expressing oneself to others, your fears and hopes, without knowing all the facts. This is supposed to be a conversation, and people can learn new facts while the conversation is happening, versus having to know everything before they enter the conversation.
Those problems literally HAVE been solved. You're talking about a disaster from 50 years ago. Nuclear is quite literally one of the safest forms of energy production we have. And the waste is really not much of an issue. Not only is most of it recycled into new fuel, the entire United States hasn't even made enough fuel to fill a football field since we started using nuclear power.
Those problems literally HAVE been solved.
And are those designs in production today, or still on the drawing board?
What percentage of reactors today have this new design that you speak of?
the entire United States hasn’t even made enough fuel to fill a football field since we started using nuclear power.
Citation required, because I remember them having to dig out a huge underground storage mine somewhere in the Southwest (nearby Vegas if my recollection is accurate) to handle all the waste that would be generated between all the power station reactors and all the hospitals that use radioactive devices and everything else.
Yes those designs are already in use today. Modern reactors are incredibly safe. The only modern disaster was Fukushima and that didn't even cause any deaths and was brought on by a tsunami.
And here is your source. And this is for ALL nuclear waste in the world.
The volume of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) produced by the civil nuclear industry is small. The IAEA estimates that 392,000 tonnes of heavy metal (tHM) in the form of used fuel have been discharged since the first nuclear power plants commenced operation. Of this, the agency estimates that 127,000 tHM have been reprocessed. The IAEA estimates that the disposal volumeb of the current solid HLW inventory is approximately 29,000 m3.1 For context, this is a volume roughly equivalent to a three metre tall building covering an area the size of a soccer pitch.
This is a good video to learn more about nuclear power and how many people misunderstand it.
Fair enough, thanks for sharing.
So like I said, the catastrophic failure effects are my primary concern, though I am concerned about dealing with the waste product.
Having said that, that's still a lot of waste that your documentation is talking about, and it'll be around for centuries. I don't think it makes your point as well as you think it does.
Better to have other forms of energy that doesn't generate that sort of waste, or make sure we have one hell of a foolproof (not verified by biased corporations) of preventing that waste from getting into the environment either accidentally or on purpose/terrorism.
The waste is still very much a non issue in the short term (i.e. 100 years) while we desperately need clean energy options now. And that waste is nothing compared to the billions of tons of c02 we release yearly. And we DO have ways of stopping it from getting into the environment. It's not some new thing that they are just now figuring out. That issue was solved years ago! The storage containers they use can literally be hit by speeding freight trains and not leak. There have been almost no incidents of spent nuclear fuel causing environmental damage. I honestly think that oil companies have been gaslighting people (no pun intended) about how "dangerous" nuclear is just so they can keep building more refineries.
Got to ask and why Japan is dumping all that water into the ocean from Fukushima if it's easy to handle and store.
Yes, I know, they deemed it safe to do so, but still, why aren't they just storing it instead (like they have been so far; just make new storage, there's plenty of land, especially around where people can't live anymore), if it's so easy to do so, as you advocate?
What today's science deems as safe may be deemed as hazardous by tomorrow's science.
Also, transportation to the storage locations, and the maintenance of the storage locations, still an issue. Other forms of energy doesn't have the storage of waste byproducts problem.
I honestly think that oil companies have been gaslighting people (no pun intended) about how “dangerous” nuclear is just so they can keep building more refineries.
Trust me I'm very anti-oil, I can't wait for fusion to come along finally, and for solar/battery to be better and more widely used than it is today.
The other ones don’t fail catastrophically like nuclear does.
BP gulf oil spill.
The other ones don’t produce waste that is the worst kind of toxicity for Humanity that lasts for hundred of years.
Fracking, contaminated ground water
BP gulf oil spill.
Fracking, contaminated ground water
I would still argue those are less catastrophic than Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc. Their destructive effects disappear a lot quicker than a nuclear catastrophe negative effect would.
Having said that, oil is second worse after nuclear. I'm not advocating for oil.
My hopes are on fusion and solar/battery.
No form of energy generation is 100% perfect.
My hopes are that goalposts don't keep moving in this thread.
My hopes are that goalposts don’t keep moving in this thread.
Well, then stop moving them. /shrug
I have not.
I have not.
I'm sorry, I can't take the word of someone who's afraid of zombies.
I love Kyle Hill/subbed. It's fair to say though that he's very pro-nuclear. Not discrediting what he says, just saying he definitely has a certain perspective on it.
And my primary criticism is on the catastrophic failure problem, and while I think the storage problem is a negative as well, I think it's less so than the catastrophic problem.
And my primary criticism is on the catastrophic failure problem
That's the weaker argument in your original post. Modern designs are nowhere near as bad as older ones designs (aka soviet, we all know you mean Chernobyl) and even the older non soviet ones aren't bad at all
Fukushima is nowhere near Chernobyl levels of damage (didn't destroy things for miles for centuries), and no other major plant failures that I can think of would match "catastrophic failure"
That’s the weaker argument in your original post.
Well I mentioned waste first as I did that as a tongue-in-cheek response, but then I immediately mentioned in the very same comment the catastrophic issue, and my recent comment is just me elaborating on the fact that I gave one more weight than the other. It doesn't discredit what I'm saying.
Fukushima is nowhere near Chernobyl levels of damage (didn’t destroy things for miles for centuries), and no other major plant failures that I can think of would match “catastrophic failure”
Fukushima exclusion zone is not large enough for you to consider that a catastrophic wide area failure? Really?
Modern designs are nowhere near as bad as older ones designs
I'm already commented on this, but just to quickly repeat myself, there's a difference between being on the design board and being in existence in production.
Nuclear fusion does make this prospect potentially real. The only thing they emit is neutron radiation, and a mean lifetime of free neutron is 14 minutes 47 seconds.
As per current fission technology, while nuclear waste is real issue, nuclear power is historically one of the most ecological ways to produce power. Catastrophes are now less and less likely, with many lessons learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima - lessons that are now implemented in all reactors around the world.
I live in a city powered by a reactor of the same model there was in Chernobyl, but modified following the incident. I fully trust it.
Catastrophes are now less and less likely, with many lessons learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima
I swear I do not mean this as a disrespect on you, as your comment was well written/said, but I've been hearing that kind of phrasing from companies that run power plants that catastrophically fail for many decades now. I'm definitely in a once-bitten twice shy mode at this point.
I'll leave it at this, I hope you're right, but I can believe you, or my lying eyes (to quote a comedically philosophical man).
I live in a city powered by a reactor of the same model there was in Chernobyl, but modified following the incident.
I live nearby a nuclear plant (not Chernobyl design) as well, though now all three of its reactors has been decommissioned because of age.
I fully trust it.
You're not trusting that Chernobyl style design (that's flawed) you're trusting it's operators do not f up and trigger the flaw like they did last time with Chernobyl, and humans are never 100% perfect 24/7. Also, Mother Nature tends to have some input as well.
By "lessons learned" I don't mean just operators acting differently. The very reactors are built another way, as to physically not allow what happened on either station. It's not that my city is powered by unaltered Chernobyl reactor - it was modified as to not allow the graphite rods to be dropped so late, and made automatic on a mechanical level.
Fukushima-style disaster is simply not possible in my area, but then again, for reactors that are endangered, measures were taken.
Funnily enough, coal plants waste is infinitely more harmful than nuclear waste because the general public doesn't see it as scary, so it's barely regulated.
Funnily enough, coal plants waste is infinitely more harmful than nuclear waste because the general public doesn’t see it as scary, so it’s barely regulated.
Well part of it comes down to The China Syndrome versus the toad in a slowly boiling pot syndrome.
But most would agree coal dust is less harmful to a human body then radioactive dust. Yes, they're both unhealthy, but one will kill you a lot faster than the other one will. People triage potential danger/harm to themselves on a daily basis.
And just to repeat myself...
My hopes are on fusion and solar/battery.
There already is tech that's safer and tech for reprocessing the waste. The fact that we haven't used it speaks volumes. It's not profitable and never will be. So unless we move energy production back to government owned, it's not going to happen. So yeah if it's nuclear waste that lasts millions or billions of years vs spending some money on battery tech to compliment renewables until we get something like fusion tech, yeah, it makes no sense to invest in dirty energy.
If companies can't be trusted to dispose of coal waste properly, what's the likelihood they'll dispose of nuclear waste properly? And reactors that don't produce dangerous waste, don't produce enough energy to be worth the cost unless you add the cost of proper disposal of the waste. And since they don't have to do that, they just store it in temporary storage pools indefinitely, the cost is much cheaper to stick with current tech. So fission will never be safe.
I don't think companies can do that actually. It is very regulated area. Also I think there is a lot of nuclear scare going on. Nuclear is not at all dangerous as it most people think, it just sounds scary.
At present we have oil and coal companies that are responsible for a lot of deaths and burning the planet. Nuclear is in no way near ammount of damage coal and oil are making right now. So even with nuclear accidents(sounds scary yea) it's better than coal and oil.
If you think companies care, you haven't been paying attention. Nuclear waste will continue to pile up and will exist until the Earth is gone. You think we'll store it safely that long? Keep replacing the containers. Protect it from natural disasters or wars. There is not safe place to put it that won't eventually end up in the ground water and eventually evaporate and become airborne except deep inside the earth and we don't have the tech and even if we did it would be way more expensive than just investing in new battery tech and renewables.
I don't think companies care, I said > I don’t think companies can do that actually. It is very regulated area.
What I'm arguing for in favor of nuclear power sources is that is cleanest source of energy we have from all and least deadly from all. But the reasons we can't have it on the entire world scale are in short, capitalism. Politics + oil/coal lobby.
It is oddly enough easier to store nuclear waste since it is very easy to contain. Coal waste is nearly impossible to do that. No matter how hot you burn or how much you scrub or what tricks you play with syngas/distillate you are still going to end up with CO2 in air.
But nuclear waste will be dangerous longer than any container could possibly survive. Plutonium 239 has a halflife of 24,000 years. Some uranium isotopes are as much as 4.5 billion years. And that's half-life, not how long it will take to be not dangerous. That's one reason Yucca Mountain was never completed and the US has zero permanent storage facilities. Eventually it WILL get into the ground water and it will be extremely difficult to clean up, if not impossible, before it contaminates a large area and possibly becomes airborne with evaporation. One earthquake, one change in the water tables that puts water in direct contact with the outside of the pools. One flood. One bomb. Maybe not in our lifetime, but it is inevitable. And if we end up with more power plants and acres and acres of temporary storage pools that will never find a place to put it, it's going to be really bad. We can't even get enough money to remove lead pipes or asbestos from most homes. How will we store something that will be dangerous until the sun goes nova.
I'm not saying to stick with coal. I'm saying why invest in using a dangerous energy source when renewables are plentiful? We just need better batteries to store the energy and release it more evenly.
