Proliferation. Nuclear waste. Long term storage of said waste. Dependence on raw materials that are only available in a few places. Lack of economic viability. Lack of clear timelines for development of new technologies. Monopolistic practices of proprietors. To name just the most important ones. Oh, and the old blowy uppy thing, of course.
People arguing against nuclear power for it’s cost and unclear timeline usually don’t argue for coal, oil and gas.
Wind and solar are cheaper, continue to get cheaper and can be built within years, not decades.
Also, renewables are a proven technology while proposals for new nuclear reactor tech have usually never been deployed successfully (as in running continuously and actually contributing to the grid).
But every argument against nuclear applies to the crude trio too, and I have heard people saying to specifically keep the status quo over nuclear power…
Oh I agree. Keeping the status quo is a terrible idea and will get increasingly more expensive (as in increased likelihood for extreme weather events which are bad for health, food, infrastructur, …).
If you think nuclear waste is a “solved issue” you just show how little you understand the subject matter. So you’re going to store nuclear waste above ground for a couple of millennia? How’s that going to work out? And thorium reactors might some day become a viable technology. But that is at best decades away. That is not a solution for any present day problem. And what about all those old and aging legacy reactors that are being kept running beyond their design lifespan? Surely nothing can go wrong there.
But it doesn’t matter. Despite all the irrational exuberance of the nukebros it’s just not going to happen. The economics were never there and still aren’t.
So you’re going to store nuclear waste above ground for a couple of millennia?
Literally yes, it’s not just left out in the open air, they’re stored in specialized containers that use inert gas and concrete to block the radiation from getting out. They can also then be buried beneath the ground for extra protection
And thorium reactors might some day become a viable technology. But that is at best decades away.
It is most certainly not decades away at best unless fear mongering managed to slow research more than it already has done, but that’s not an issue with the technology at all
And what about all those old and aging legacy reactors that are being kept running beyond their design lifespan? Surely nothing can go wrong there.
You update them, which is how they’re operating beyond their initial designed lifespan. Current idea in the field is to replace aging uranium reactors with molten thorium as they’re apparently pretty simple to convert over
To quote you on this topic:
you just show how little you understand the subject matter
You’re telling me humanity will able to manage nuclear waste for hundreds to thousands of years, given the fall of multiple great societies over the last few thousand years?
It’s not even a solved problem how to communicate danger with signs[1], and you think knowledge about where nuclear waste is being stored will be preserved for a thousand years?
You’re telling me humanity will able to manage nuclear waste for hundreds to thousands of years
You put it in a hole, done. Humanity is capable of that, for sure
It’s not even a solved problem how to communicate danger with signs
We won’t ever know if it is/can be, due to not ever knowing what future societiesoght perceive. We’re doing our best, and can rightfully assume even a fully wiped humanity will learn to stay away from things with our warning symbols on them after a few die from radiation, if that even occurs
You can also pour shit tons of concrete and other stuff around it to make it clear even without signs that something you do not want is in here
You put it in a hole, done. Humanity is capable of that, for sure
Looking at the discussion where this hole should be doesn’t give me confidence. Everyone wants long term storage, but no one wants it near themselves.
We’re producing nuclear waste for half a century and there’s still no long term storage location. The generation who created this early waste is currently dying away and I don’t think the generation after wants to deal with the problem either.
I didn’t watch the whole thing but his dismissal of uranium 233 as “hard” to turn into a bomb is flat out wrong. It has many of the properties of plutonium 239 and would be perfectly fine for an implosion fusion/fission device. You just need to chemically reprocess the fuel from a reactor to get it, just like they did with plutonium. The first Soviet fusion bomb was uranium 233 instead of plutonium for christ sakes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233
Proliferation. Nuclear waste. Long term storage of said waste. Dependence on raw materials that are only available in a few places. Lack of economic viability. Lack of clear timelines for development of new technologies. Monopolistic practices of proprietors. To name just the most important ones. Oh, and the old blowy uppy thing, of course.
Existing crude power is worse at most of these
What is “crude power”?
Coal/oil/gas
People arguing against nuclear power for it’s cost and unclear timeline usually don’t argue for coal, oil and gas.
Wind and solar are cheaper, continue to get cheaper and can be built within years, not decades.
Also, renewables are a proven technology while proposals for new nuclear reactor tech have usually never been deployed successfully (as in running continuously and actually contributing to the grid).
Oh yeah absolutely.
But every argument against nuclear applies to the crude trio too, and I have heard people saying to specifically keep the status quo over nuclear power…
Oh I agree. Keeping the status quo is a terrible idea and will get increasingly more expensive (as in increased likelihood for extreme weather events which are bad for health, food, infrastructur, …).
Solved issue, caskets can be stored above ground and take up very little space, buried if it starts to take up too much surface space
Thorium rather than uranium fuel solves this
Just not true
Also not true
Seriously not an issue these days, we don’t build them and run them like the Soviet Union did anymore
If you think nuclear waste is a “solved issue” you just show how little you understand the subject matter. So you’re going to store nuclear waste above ground for a couple of millennia? How’s that going to work out? And thorium reactors might some day become a viable technology. But that is at best decades away. That is not a solution for any present day problem. And what about all those old and aging legacy reactors that are being kept running beyond their design lifespan? Surely nothing can go wrong there.
But it doesn’t matter. Despite all the irrational exuberance of the nukebros it’s just not going to happen. The economics were never there and still aren’t.
Literally yes, it’s not just left out in the open air, they’re stored in specialized containers that use inert gas and concrete to block the radiation from getting out. They can also then be buried beneath the ground for extra protection
It is most certainly not decades away at best unless fear mongering managed to slow research more than it already has done, but that’s not an issue with the technology at all
You update them, which is how they’re operating beyond their initial designed lifespan. Current idea in the field is to replace aging uranium reactors with molten thorium as they’re apparently pretty simple to convert over
To quote you on this topic:
You’re telling me humanity will able to manage nuclear waste for hundreds to thousands of years, given the fall of multiple great societies over the last few thousand years?
It’s not even a solved problem how to communicate danger with signs[1], and you think knowledge about where nuclear waste is being stored will be preserved for a thousand years?
I really envy you for your optimism in humanity.
[1] https://youtu.be/lOEqzt36JEM
You put it in a hole, done. Humanity is capable of that, for sure
We won’t ever know if it is/can be, due to not ever knowing what future societiesoght perceive. We’re doing our best, and can rightfully assume even a fully wiped humanity will learn to stay away from things with our warning symbols on them after a few die from radiation, if that even occurs
You can also pour shit tons of concrete and other stuff around it to make it clear even without signs that something you do not want is in here
Looking at the discussion where this hole should be doesn’t give me confidence. Everyone wants long term storage, but no one wants it near themselves.
We’re producing nuclear waste for half a century and there’s still no long term storage location. The generation who created this early waste is currently dying away and I don’t think the generation after wants to deal with the problem either.
Because of fear mongering, it is not dangerous to stick it in a hole and be done with it
Its not a problem
An interesting watch: Thorium Reactors
I didn’t watch the whole thing but his dismissal of uranium 233 as “hard” to turn into a bomb is flat out wrong. It has many of the properties of plutonium 239 and would be perfectly fine for an implosion fusion/fission device. You just need to chemically reprocess the fuel from a reactor to get it, just like they did with plutonium. The first Soviet fusion bomb was uranium 233 instead of plutonium for christ sakes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233