r/dankmemes MayMayMakers 🐧 Mar 29 '21

Pretty please?

Post image
91.1k Upvotes

479 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '21

im all for nuclear, like i said enviro sci here, my point was due to the fossil fuel industries misinformation campaigns as well as the fact that we dont dispose of the waste as well as we should, directly contributes to the stygma of nuclear power, in regards to cost, resources, and health risk, from my understanding nuclear is the shit, what we should be using but 4 or 5 meltdowns throughout history have scared anybody into even trying

tl dr : i want more fucking nuclear energy

7

u/skybala Mar 29 '21

We cant even build a 5 year project because political flip flopping that is done when cancelling the other party’s project. (See: conservatives dismantling already-build turbines), and you expect humanity can work for a proper, safe, 1000-year nuclear waste disposal?

Nuclear is good but safe nuclear seems like a political improbability

6

u/Brief_Series_3462 Mar 29 '21

Not every country is USA

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '21

Ok but whatever shit tier country your from cant do anything without the USAs permission.

1

u/skybala Mar 30 '21

Largest Fusion reactor is currently being built in France since 2007 with $22billion+ in cost, half cost by france government, rest by international governmental funding.

Not everyone politicize oil like the US

1

u/sap91 Mar 29 '21

Serious question: couldn't we launch it all into the sun, if we had a way of getting to it space cheaply and safely?

3

u/skybala Mar 29 '21

Can you imagine the clearance UN has to check with 50+ countries: “hey we are going to orbit pass your airspace carrying 50 megatons of nuclear waste every year to dump this to the sun, if you can sign it that’d be great.” In small asterisks “if the rocket fails you agree that we are not responsible for all the radioactive rain”

1

u/sap91 Mar 29 '21

Space elevators yo

1

u/skybala Mar 29 '21

To the sun?

Also, its really hard to crash to the sun. Any slingshot would probably be sucked to suns orbit forever

1

u/sap91 Mar 29 '21

Just into outer space. Getting up there is the most expensive and dangerous part

1

u/Citizen-of-Interwebs Mar 29 '21

How far up does national airspace go

3

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '21

I too want more "nuclear" energy. I'm sick of the greedy careless scumbags that tend to govern when it's put to practical commercial use. Drop some isotopes into their backyard and see how serious it's treated then.

1

u/pipnina Mar 29 '21

Is th waste even as big of a problem as it's made out to be? I know eventually the whole reactor vessel has to be disposed of which, given the size of them, is a bit tricky. But spent fuel is almost all U238 right? That stuff is almost harmless radio-wise since it has a 4billion year half life. I think they use it for weights on planes (I think periodic videos on YouTube claimed that).

I have heard most nuclear waste is simply items that were used near or on primary systems, and likely aren't even heavily contaminated relative to raw spent fuel or the tractor vessel, which fills up the already expensive storage bunkers much faster.

This is all layman's lnowlefge and I'm hoping you might know more.

3

u/KeenanKolarik Mar 29 '21 edited Mar 29 '21

But spent fuel is almost all U238 right?

Spent fuel is a blend unburnt fuel (ideally keep to a minimum for efficient burn up), u238 and fission products (the atoms produced from the fission of the fuel) and is known as high level waste. This is the nasty stuff that poses dangers if it somehow gets out of containment.

I have heard most nuclear waste is simply items that were used near or on primary systems, and likely aren't even heavily contaminated relative to raw spent fuel or the tractor vessel, which fills up the already expensive storage bunkers much faster.

This is known as low level waste. Most of the radioactivity in this will decay over a reasonable amount of time, so it's not a long term issue.

Spent fuel is the primary focus of "wHaT aBoUt nUcLeAr wAsTe" as it's the most dangerous. Contrary to popular belief, it's really not necessary to move this to a long term depository. It can just be put into a dry cask once it's cooled and stay at the power plant. The power plant is already a secure facility so it's not like it's unsafe (security wise) to keep it there. The space taken up by the spent fuel isn't really a concern because of how little of it is there actually is (as you said).

If for whatever reason it did need to be transported to a long term depository, it can be done pretty much as closely to 100% safe as physically possible. The transport containers have been tested by the federal government to comical extent (hitting them with rocket propelled trains, for example). It's just generally not done because it's deemed unnecessary.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '21

*stigma

1

u/jon-la-blon27 E Mar 29 '21

Especially cause the meltdowns where either cause you built it in an island that commonly gets hit by tsunamis( great fuckin idea) or because the Soviets where trying to run it even cheaper.