← Back to context

Comment by LightBug1

2 days ago

Not sure why you're down voted, but who cares. This is THE issue. I hope you're forgiven, in time, for stepping out of line in the cathedral of modern nuclear power.

12 comments

LightBug1

Reply
tsimionescu  2 days ago

It is not "THE" issue, it's barely even "an issue". The amount of radioactive material produced by a fission plant, and the form in which it comes, makes it trivial to store relatively safely - certainly much, much easier than the CO2 waste that most of our other energy generation solutions emit.

Also, the biggest issues with nuclear power are (1) the risk of catastrophic meltdowns, (2) the risk of using it as cover for nuclear armament, (3) the massive capital expenditure to create a plant, and (4) the amount of water needed for cooling and running the plant. All of these make the problem of taking some radioactive rocks and burying them trivial in comparison.

  • moron4hire  2 days ago

    Do I remember correctly that modern thorium-based reactor designs mitigate at least #1 and #2?

    • yellowapple  2 days ago

      And #4 can be addressed by not using potable water for cooling. Even assuming a reactor is water-cooled in the first place, that water has to be purified anyway before it can be used as coolant - so might as well just use seawater if you're gonna have to purify it anyway.

      Hell, a coastal nuclear plant could be a net-negative water consumer with a desalination plant onsite. California could completely abolish the very notion of "drought" within its borders by going all-in on nuclear and desalination. It probably never will, though, because rich landowners are California's most protected class and anything that'll lower their property values (by "ruining" the pretty coastal views) is verboten.

      2 replies →

nandomrumber  2 days ago

The nuclear waste issue is such a non-issue that the overwhelming majority of nuclear waste, the actual spent fuel, is stored on site at the nuclear power plants.

Long lived nuclear waste just isn't that radioactive, and highly reactive nuclear waste products just aren't that long lived.

If the waste is vitrified (glassified) it becomes basically chemically non-reactive too.

  • MostlyStable  2 days ago

    This is an important point that a lot of people don't seem to understand. The longest live materials that are the hardest store are the least dangerous.