• lettruthout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    7 days ago

    Yup meltdowns happen sometimes. AND there’s the century-long legacy of radioactive waste!

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      I agree. We should deal with nuclear waste in the same way we handle the waste from other fossil fuels: by spreading it over the entire planet in a thin, even coating so that everyone is equally affected!

      • renzev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Back in middle school, our science teacher decided to make the class do a debate about different types of energy sources in order to learn about their advantages and disadvantages. I was on the pro-nuclear team, and we were wracking our brains trying to come up with a rebuttal to “but what about the waste?” until some madlad basically came up with this great argument:

        We can just dump all of the nuclear waste on Belgium. It will take a really long time before it fills up, and nobody cares about Belgium anyway

        The anti-nuclear team had no good response, and we actually got a point for that argument because we looked up the relevant statistics (nuclear waste output, belgium surface area, etc.) and calculated exactly how long it would take to turn belgium into a radioactive wasteland.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          There’s a really simple answer to the waste problem though. And it’s super, blatantly obvious.

          All nuclear material is basically ground up rocks that we dug out of a hole and then filtered the spicy bits out of. So grind it back up, pour it into concrete and stuff it back down the same hole it came from. Of course, you can’t legally do that, but that’s only because we have a ton of rules what constitutes safe disposal, etc. Recreating the original conditions basically meant you’re (re)creating something unsafe, but we do that in a LOT of places.

          EDIT: For example there are regions in Belgium and the Netherlands where there is so much naturally occuring arsenic in the ground, that if you scoop a bucket full of dirt, walk 50 meters across the provincial border and put pour it out, you’re comitting (at least) three different crimes. That’s legally valid, after all, the bucket contains polluted material, but practically nonsense since you literally just picked it up, and it’s been like that long before people ever got there.

          • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            fair argument

            I want to add something to it:

            First of all, a lot of that uranium seems to have been there and slowly decaying for a long time. I think, what we humans did was to “wake it up” and turn it into some more violently-reacting other elements, for the sake that we get the energy out of it at an acceptable pace. Now, though, it’s severely more dangerous than it was before.

            Also, I’ve an idea about what to do with the waste: Since the waste tends to activate itself due to neutron activation, put a lot of it (but just barely not enough to make a bomb) together and it will activate itself to react violently at very high speeds, but just barely not fast enough to explode (make a bomb). That way, you can get a lot of heat out of it rather quickly, and are left with burned-out material (which contains less radioactive potential).

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              First of all, a lot of that uranium seems to have been there and slowly decaying for a long time. I think, what we humans did was to “wake it up” and turn it into some more violently-reacting other elements, for the sake that we get the energy out of it at an acceptable pace. Now, though, it’s severely more dangerous than it was before.

              it’s weird, but it’s not “more violent” it’s just more energetic. Either through enrichment, making it more potent, which is an industry standard across the entire western world. Or through making fertile material, like uranium 238, fissile by going through the decay chain until it becomes something more spicy, like pu 239 or whatever.

              The big problem is that the energy it releases is definitionally incompatible to human life. That’s the ONLY problem.

              oh and btw, nuclear reactors are physically incapable of “going critical” it’s physically impossible. 90% of the concern is it breaking containment from being really fucking hot, which is notably, really hard to deal with.

              • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                Or through making fertile material, like uranium 238, fissile by going through the decay chain until it becomes something more spicy, like pu 239 or whatever.

                Yeah that’s what i meant.

    • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      You’re so right - we should just pump all our crap out into the biosphere instead and keep burning coal.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Nuclear is more expensive, and the cost is growing. There will be almost certainly be no private investment in nuclear in the future unless it’s ideologically driven.

          even if this is the case, i still think it’s a good idea to at least invest in research and development in nuclear fission, which might even help fusion down the road. Not to mention it’s always good to have alternatives. Would be a shame if we found out that solar panels are actually the new asbestos or something silly.

          • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            The only problems with solar are incoming president McFuckface’s tariffs, and AI’s propensity to use every goddamn moving electron in the world.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              the AI problem is irrelevant to solar. The tariffs definitely don’t help, plus we already have a raw materials import ban from china as well, so that’s cool.

              Really doesn’t help that china has basically an entire market monopoly on rare earth materials.

        • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          almost certainly no private investment in nuclear in the future

          I too refuse to read any news, ever, if it doesn’t support my viewpoint. Definitely no current investments in nuclear at the moment.

          I like wind and solar! They’re not the whole of the solution for the whole globe though. There’s no reason to keep spreading the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda for them.

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Luckily waste storage is a solved problem.

      Drill hole in bedrock, put waste in hole, backfill with clay.

      • swab148@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Drill hole in bedrock, nuclear waste falls into the void and despawns, problem solved

      • luce [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        kyle hill is interesting to me because when he is making videos about nuclear it is either the most terrifying nuclear horror story yet or facts and statistics about how safe nuclear is. I personally believe nuclear to be a super safe and efficient way to create energy, its just something I noticed. Makes me think about how common coal accidents are and how little they are covered compared to something supposedly scary like nuclear.

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Nuclear has the same problem as aviation, by average it’s many many times safer than most alternatives, but any time something goes wrong it has a high chance of going extremely wrong and making an international scene. So it’s generally safer but every accident makes world news.