I dont come here often. Frankly I dont know very much about science. But I am curious on an opinion from this board. Explanations will be appreciated.
Do you guys support nuclear energy? Why/why not?
>>7898319
No, it's retarded.
nuclear is the future
Ain't it funny how the libs blather about oil/coal money when it comes to global warming, then ignoring the reality that fossil fuels is behind the anti-nuclear movement
>>7898323
Most reactor waste piles up with no where to go and the rest comes out the barrels of guns, not to mention the primary objective of the science - building really big bombs.
Most ignoramus like yourself assume no fossil fuels are used to mine, refine and move the product to the reactors built with massive amounts of fossil fuels themselves. Besides, there are already enough reactors to consume most of the radioactive rock left worth mining now.
>>7898323
Well libs never come up with solutions, they just bitch about problems until they go away. I am looking for solutions, for alternative energy resources.
>>7898342
nuclear "waste" is just fuel that can't be legally reprocessed
>>7898319
Yes, because it's the only practical way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. Not to say we should give up on wind and solar - they're good for local power generation in out of the way places, but they'll have a hard time providing all the power we need.
>>7898347
what are the chances that we will actually see companies use nuclear energy in the future?
>>7898359
Um.. we use it now..
>>7898359
never unless the NRC is removed
>>7898361
im talking like in households: cars, electricity, etc
>>7898347
>Wind
>Good for power generation
Nuclear and hydroelectric are two of the best sources of green energy that we have available to us today.
>>7898342
I live on the site where the government created the plutonium for Fat Man and today just one reactor still operating on the site is enough to provide 10% of the power Washington State requires per day. It may have been a science for building really big bombs 75 years ago, but today in the United States it is a major energy asset in the regions where it is allowed to operate.
Yeah waste sucks, I probably will have cancer in not too long because of how poorly it was mishandled, but modern storage technique along with efficiency of new reactors would cause it to be almost a non-issue.
>>7898363
Fission is too heavy and dangerous to be scaled down for personal generators, like say a kerosene generator. The fuel is also too expensive for small scale use and the reactors can't be turned off quickly- they need to slowly cool down.
>>7898319
nuclear power is dumb
so much bullshit to deal with just to make steam and turn a fancy wheel
>>7898319
Until we find a suitable alternative, its something I guess.
>>7898344
>>>r/politics
>>7898373
why is it that we can only come up with mechanical energy
>>7898319
It's basically the cleanest and safest form of electricity production (and high energy heat production) that is currently available. With a fuel efficient reactor aka breeder reactor, the fuel is inexhaustible. With some next gen designs, it's probable that we'll get cost competitive with coal or even cheaper than coal (but never "too cheap to meter" - that shit was stupid to say). It produces almost zero CO2. It's basically the best thing since sliced bread. It's even killed less people than have died choking on sliced bread.
>>7898363
Like, never. There are minimum size reactors for reactors, generally much bigger than what a house needs, and there is the safety concern which does require centralized facilities.
>>7898319
Yeh......cause fusion
>>7898901
This.
>>7898342
>Most reactor waste piles up with no where to go and the rest comes out the barrels of guns
There's so little waste that it would be easy to store, if hysterical little shits like you weren't misleading the public.
>not to mention the primary objective of the science - building really big bombs.
Horseshit. You are a liar.
>Most ignoramus like yourself assume no fossil fuels are used to mine, refine and move the product to the reactors built with massive amounts of fossil fuels themselves
The same can be said of any power infrastructure. They will use the current dominant power source to get built. Eventually they will not use fossil fuel but electricity produced by nuclear. This argument is irrelevant.
>Besides, there are already enough reactors to consume most of the radioactive rock left worth mining now.
More reactors replacing fossil fuel means more demand for uranium means it'll be worth mining.
>>7898901
What do you propose we do about the waste?
I don't really know the details, but last I read, don't they literally put it in the ground then cover it? Wouldn't it still be dangerous hundreds of years from now?
>>7899046
Start here:
http://thorconpower.com/docs/ct_yankee.pdf
>>7899046
>Wouldn't it still be dangerous hundreds of years from now?
Try tens of thousands of years.
Nuclear power is quite literally the only thing that will allow us, as a species, to survive long-term.
We need to get off this rock and colonize/mine other planets/moons. No amount of renewable power is going to let that happen and only nuclear can provide sufficient energy to drive engines with enough thrust to make it in a reasonable amount of time.
Whether nuclear is good as an energy source on Earth is irrelevant because Earth's resources are finite and one day or another they will run out. If we're not interplanetary by then (or at least capable of asteroid mining) we're doomed.
>>7899108
Nah, radioactive != dangerous. The Greens will try to convince you that any radiation above background levels is dangerous but that is simply not true. Enriched uranium is safe to handle without protective equipment because of its extremely long half-life.
The actually harmful fission products tend to be neutron and gamma emitters with relatively short half-lives. These can be stored effectively until their activity dies down enough for reprocessing (a few decades).
The real environmental danger comes from a lack of these storage facilities due to budget cuts pushed by fossil fuel companies and environmentalist interests.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
>>7899115
>We need to get off this rock and colonize/mine other planets/moons.
Why is that? Because entitled pieces of human excrement are trashing it right.
Humans will never, ever get off this rock. Anyone who has studied physics knows this; scifi nerds - not so much.
So think of something else.
>>7899121
>Nah, radioactive != dangerous.
You are a fucking moron.
>The Greens will try to convince you that any radiation above background levels is dangerous but that is simply not true.
Again, you are a complete and utter fucking moron.
That is all.
>>7899168
Any reason you need to post it 4 times? (2 already deleted by the time of this post.)
>>7899174
I had to correct some typos... :)
How did you know? Do you have this page on constant refresh or something?
>>7899176
>Do you have this page on constant refresh or something?
Yes, I do.
>>7899168
>I don't know the difference between alpha, beta, and gamma radiation.
>>7899178
So you're really passionate about this stuff, and you're constantly watching for posts that bug you.
That must take a lot of dedication and personal energy.
>>7899182
It's what I do for fun. I argue with people online for things I care about, while waiting for matchmaking in Survarium.
>>7899180
Clearly you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground either, dumbass.
>>7899185
To the answer the question for the other anon, a hole in a ground, a deep bore hole, is an excellent place to dispose of nuclear waste. Whereas, that anon's ass - not such a good place to permanently dispose of nuclear waste.
>>7899185
>I'm also angry with this stranger who was right about something.
>>7899184
never heard of it, but that show sounds kinda gay
>>7899187
>Whereas, that anon's ass - not such a good place to permanently dispose of nuclear waste.
Why because theres no room because his boyfriends dick is already filling that space?
>>7898342
>Most reactor waste piles up with no where to go
Stopped reading there, you can reprocess almost all of the waste, the rest is could be easily stored but because of asshats like you each site has to have stupidly strict selection criteria.
>>7899196
In fact im sure there can be no other reason
You see, he claims that radiation is not dangerous.
So if his boyfriends dick weren't already there, im sure hed have no objection to having nuclear waste disposed of in his anus.
>>7899202
>You see, he claims that radiation is not dangerous.
I'm sure it was a purposeful exaggeration for rhetorical effect, and it was not meant literally.
Or, he meant "not all radiation is dangerous", which seems far more likely.
Of course, this should be obvious to you, but you're not honest. Aka you're a troll.
>>7899203
>I'm sure it was a purposeful exaggeration for rhetorical effect, and it was not meant literally.
He said something to the affect of radiation != dangerous if i recall correctly. Yes, that's exactly what he said.... There's not really any way to misinterpret that.
Anyway, how can you be so sure? Do the two of you work together?
> Aka you're a troll.
Possibly... but how can your friend's comment be anything other than trolling as well? It seems that we all do a little trolling sometimes huh.
But you guys just love using labels.
>>7899207
>Anyway, how can you be so sure?
I read the entirety of that anon's post, which includes:
>The actually harmful fission products tend to be neutron and gamma emitters with relatively short half-lives. These can be stored effectively until their activity dies down enough for reprocessing (a few decades).
Also, you seem unnaturally obsessed with my sex life. I'm not interested. Thanks though. I'm flattered.
Lets argue about the definition of "trolling" now!? Such fun.
>>7899208
ya whatever...
thats like saying
>apples arent tasty
>oranges contain citrus.
Its fucking meaningless drivel
thats why i called him a moron.
>>7899202
He was clearly trying to say that just because something is radioactive doesn't automatically imply that it's dangerous. And that's largely true, it comes from either a wilful conflation of a couple of different topics by people trying to push a certain agenda or an accidental conflation by well-meaning idiots. Basically what determines if some radioactive material is dangerous is it's activity (how many decays occur in a second) and it's principle decay modes (so if it decays by alpha, beta, gamma radiation or some other mode) and how energetic those decay products are. Take Uranium-238 (the most abundant isotope of Uranium), it has a half life of several billion years, which implies it isn't very active, moreover it decays by alpha emission which means that it doesn't travel that far in air, isn't very penetrating (seriously it's stopped by paper) but it is quite ionising (so if it was more active then it would fuck you over if you ingested it).
Now compare that to Cobolt-60, C-60 has an activity of 44 TBq (at one gram), which means that it undergoes [math] 44 \times 10^{12} [/math] decays every second, which means its quite active on top of that the decay mode is gamma emission (which is heavily penetrating and can directly ionise DNA, which means its likely to lead directly to cell death and other mutations), now the energy of these gamma rays matter and they're at about 1200 keV and 1300 keV, which is pretty energetic. What this means is that C-60 is much worse for you than U-238.
>tl:dr: Radioactivity is heavily variable, saying that radioactive = dangerous isn't quite right. However most international bodies still adhere to the linear no threshold model (although all admit that they can't really probe the low energy region that well) and that any practitioner in the field should follow the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle.
>>7899222
>just because something is radioactive doesn't automatically imply that it's dangerous.
wow... a whole team of morons.
KEK
>>7899222
tl;dr for the rest.
ill check you retards later
>>7899222
granite releases radon naturally.
radon is radioactive. its decay biproducts give off certain amounts of alpha beta and gamma radiation. all are considered dangerous at certain levels
so some consider basements that arent well ventilated somewhat dangerous, and rightly
why is everything so binary with you people? can your brains even comprehend a spectrum of possibility?
seriously, im done playing these retarded games with you people
>>7899243
>why is everything so binary with you people?
Did you even read what I posted? I tried to go to great lengths (or at least as far as I was willing to in a post on 4chan) to explain the nuances in dealing with radiation and radioactivity.
>>7899274
Fair enough, and I don't see anything incorrect in the post. But don't use or back up blanket statements like "radiation != dangerous".
It makes you look dishonest or as a kind of asshat.
I called out Leonardo dicaprio on his oscar speech, even though I think climate change is a serious threat. (weather != climate).
>>7899222
>Basically what determines if some radioactive material is dangerous...
You should have said
Basically what determines how dangerous something that is radioactive is...
>>7899025
It's a fact, thousands of tons of nuclear waste has been dumped in kosovo and the ME, came out the barrels of guns. More will be dumped. Obviously humanity is not ready for nuclear power with impending resource wars on the horizon. The danger of enrichment for more bombs, the ridiculous cost of building and maintaining plants, their relatively short life cycles, the waste disposal problems...read Manhattan Project, the primary objective of nuclear energy was and is bomb making.
Coal and gas fired turbines are the most economical electric generation options today.
>>7899200
As a species we can't even plan a generation out, let alone hundreds of generations, look around, future generations should not have to fix the retardation implemented in the 20th and 21st centuries, they probably already have their hands full. Mysterious pockets of concentrated radiation all over the planet is a nightmare mode problem already, why make it worse? You know it's true!
>>7898896
There are a variety of ways you can build a nuclear reactor, but the standard water>steam >spins wheel for power is the cheapest and was the most reliable way to build a reactor right after WW2. There just wasn't enough people willing to invest enough money to build a a safe reliable and efficient long lasting reactor, because these were expensive and extremely risky. Putting theoretical physics into the real world using engineering is extremely difficult. And the nuclear energy science pretty much hasn't advanced post the 70's
I work in the Nuclear Industry and I literally don't see how other industries operate without the amount of detail we have to go through to get shit done
>>7899571
depleted uranium is not radioactive and not "nuclear waste" dumb fuck
Nuclear is far more economical than fossil fuels
Clear coal is actually quite expensive now, old coal was filthy as fuck.
Gas is w/e, that shit won't last forever and will get expensive soon enough.
>>7900686
>I work in the Nuclear Industry and I literally don't see how other industries operate without the amount of detail we have to go through to get shit done
This post and the level of bias/stupidity of the people supporting nuclear in this thread makes me cringe for the future.
>>7900780
>you have a problem with my post
What about my post makes you cringe
>>7898323
live in a town called Northampton Massachusetts
go ahead google it
yeah so now you know about the most densely lesbian town per capita. this is probably a place /pol/ would drop a nuke due to it's ridiculous lib
it boarders the Connecticut river which Vermont Yankee used to cool
suddenly in 2013-14 there was a huge movement to shut it down and it was by 15
>>7900752
>depleted uranium is not radioactive and not "nuclear waste" dumb fuck
YES IT BLOODY DAMN WELL IS.
Can you even read?
If you guys can't even stick to the facts, there's no point in continuing this conversation.
>Gas is w/e, that shit won't last forever and will get expensive soon enough.
Same as uranium, and any other non renewable resource. Uranium wouldn't last 25 years if it was the only energy source and economic growth continued as "Scientist" has been advocating.
Personally I like thorium reactors....
>>7899571
>It's a fact, thousands of tons of nuclear waste has been dumped in kosovo and the ME, came out the barrels of guns.
Depleted uranium is not nuclear waste, you lying shit.
>The danger of enrichment for more bombs
So dangerous that we let Iran do it.
>the ridiculous cost of building and maintaining plants
Cheaper than fossil fuels if you include the costs incurred by global warming.
>the waste disposal problems
There is no real waste disposal problem. It's one fabricated by liars like you.
>read Manhattan Project, the primary objective of nuclear energy was and is bomb making.
Again, this is 100% horseshit. The Manhattan Project was about bomb-making, making nuclear plants is not.
>Coal and gas fired turbines are the most economical electric generation options today.
Economics isn't why they need to be replaced.
You are a dishonest scumbag and you know it.
>>7900794
Pretty clear from this post that aggressive, arrogant, and deluded people are generally big supporters of nuclear.
>>7900686
>What about my post makes you cringe
Suggesting nuclear is benign like other industries; the fact that you work in the nuclear industtry
>>7900807
Great argument, I'm convinced.
>>7900796
>>7900803
>>7900808
>delete your post a third time jesus christ
I literally said I don't know how they operate. As in, I have zero clue how a project looks like documentation wise, procedure wise, etc.
I'm sorry you have a bias against nuclear
>>7898319
Seeing as there are no economical alternatives to generating electricity at the current demands we have. Nuclear energy seems to be the future especially since it is the cleanest of all compared with coal and gas. Many people love to point out Chernobyl and that one plant in Japan but really, do you think we are going to use 40 years outdated technology for nuclear energy? No. Not only that but we've learnt quite a lesson from the design flaws in failed nuclear reactors, from the most empty threat accidents to the most catastrophic.
>>7900807
And they wear fedoras too.
>>7900813
>Seeing as there are no economical alternatives to generating electricity at the current demands we have. Nuclear energy seems to be the future especially since it is the cleanest of all compared with coal and gas. Many people love to point out Chernobyl and that one plant in Japan but really, do you think we are going to use 40 years outdated technology for nuclear energy? No. Not only that but we've learnt quite a lesson from the design flaws in failed nuclear reactors, from the most empty threat accidents to the most catastrophic.
So why not try to address the demand side? You people talk like increasing supply is the only choice.
Sooner or later the demand side WILL be addressed one way or another, and the longer its postponed, the more difficult it will be on future generations.
>>7900794
Yes, Du is waste from reactors, where else would enriched but spent uranium come from?
Having nukes is a great deterrent from being invaded, no one "let" Iran make reactors, it's not really a third world country. However, like India, Pakistan or North Korea, these may not be the most stable countries and one nuke lobbed into Israel could start an escalating global nuclear war easily and extermination for most. We need to wind down, phase out nukes.
Shut your global warming hole, an ice age down the line is far more likely.
You can say huge stockpiles of spent rods are not a waste problem if you want, fact is there is no good place to stick them, no one wants them and why would they? No one even wants to get near them.
The science came about in the quest for a bombs, really huge bombs. Firing up a grid or two with nuke plants is like, an after thought to justify further enrichment and more bomb making, deal with it.
Economics is everything. It's moot anyway, hardly anyone builds nuke plants anymore because the economy is getting impossible to predict along with enormous budgets like that for assembling and feeding a nuke plant. Fact is world is growing more unstable everyday, uranium deposits worth mining are only in a handful of countries now. It's dangerous expensive work to get the ore out and refine it. India is only building a plant or two because they found a deposit themselves.
You can dream about a nuclear future utopia all you want but reality here on earth is saying it ain't gonna happen, and if it does will be a nightmare future in the form of mushroom clouds. I am not a liar, I call em like I see em.
>>7900829
Because addressing the demand side is way, way harder, and is basically just telling us to put a break on progress. Fuck that, I'd rather use that progress to increase supply.
Furthermore, per kilowatt generated, way, way, more people die during the burning of fossil fuels than nuclear power, even with Chernobyl and all that included.
>>7900829
>So why not try to address the demand side?
Because it's pretty obvious that power demand is only going to increase as more and more technology becomes dependent on electrical circuits. Sooner or later, increasing supply will be a must and if we can not do that then I hope your wallet is ready to bleed if you would like to keep the excess-usage habits everybody on here has.
>>7900834
>Because addressing the demand side is way, way harder, and is basically just telling us to put a break on progress.
You call it progress.
I call it exhausting all non-renewable resources at an exponentially increasing rate.
If you don't understand how that could eventually lead to problems, then there's no point in continuing this conversation.
>>7900830
>Yes, Du is waste from reactors, where else would enriched but spent uranium come from?
Nice sophistry. Nuclear waste refers to radioactive waste. DU is not waste as it has many uses, not simply for ballistics.
>Having nukes is a great deterrent from being invaded, no one "let" Iran make reactors, it's not really a third world country.
Not very current on geopolitical current events are you? Yes, we let Iran have nuclear reactors.
>Shut your global warming hole, an ice age down the line is far more likely.
Is that what /pol/ told you? I can see there is no point in continuing this discussion since you are just going to deny scientific facts that are inconvenient to your ideology. Thanks for tipping your hand to everyone on /sci/ though.
>>7900851
10 years ago, you guys were the same people denying global warming even existed.
It's the same arguments. what about muh progress, muh demand is only increasing, its not harmful in the long run
Good to see you've found a new calling, or angle if you will, to try and ring some profits out of.
>>7900864
>10 years ago, you guys were the same people denying global warming even existed.
I don't even know what you're referring to by "you guys" but it wasn't me, or any of the people who are actually invested in science on this board. Anyway you lost the argument as soon as you reverted to calling people shills and using conspiracy logic. The thing about conspiracy logic is it can be applied to anything. It's only purpose is to protect your worldview from evidence and rationality. Good luck with the delusions.
>>7900830
>Shut your global warming hole
Ok there Jesse Ventura, please tell me all about how jet fuel- which burns hot enough to melt salt- can't in fact melt or even soften steel beams.
>You can say huge stockpiles of spent rods are not a waste problem
They aren't in France. As much as I hate France, they recycle their waste into more energy in containment. Less than 1% is irrecoverable and they cover it with concrete.
>Hardly anyone builds nuke plants anymore because the economy is getting impossible to predict along with enormous budgets like that for assembling and feeding a nuke plant
It DEFINITELY wasn't because of 3 mile island. No sir. That had nothing to do with it. Disregard the fact that then is when nuke plants stopped being built.
>Uranium deposits worth mining are only in a handful of countries now.
Thorium is abundant. We should use that.
My vote would be to dump the nuclear waste in either a recycling pit like France does, or put it in the oil shale wells in North Dakota where nobody goes anyway.
>>7900829
The demand side is always being addressed. Components and shit have been reducing in wattage and increasing in efficiency and will continue to do so, it can only go so far sure but you act like people aren't doing shit on both sides.
>>7900874
>I don't even know what you're referring to by "you guys"
probably because you're not that bright...
"you guys" are the ones screaming in this thread in support of a massive expansion in the use of nuclear power (using mostly outright lies or half truths).
>>7900830
Nice work dipshit, Depleted Uranium is the Uranium 238 isotope that is the most common, about 98% of the deposit, that doesn't put off a lot of energy. It's painstakingly separated.
It's NOT spent fuel rods. It's english name makes it sound that way, but it's not.
>>/lit/
>>/his/
>>/a/nywhere else
Does anyone know how much CO2 a nuclear power actually lets out? That is, counting all CO2 that is released when creating the powerplant and all the CO2 that is released by mining uranium etc
>>7900891
generally zero once the plant is built
I assume building any plant uses about the same amount , depends on the size.
>>7900897
Yeah but I gotta know how much it is throughout its entire "life"
>>7900901
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
>>7899168
I don't necessarily I think he meant radiation is not dangerous, rather that the amount of radiation received from say depleted fuel isn't really that bad if it's even stored somewhat properly. If you were in a a pool with some casks of spent fuel rods at the bottom, assuming you weren't within a few feet of the casks, you'd get LESS radiation than the background radiation you'd receive above ground. The amount of radiation you'd receive from a cased rod buried underground/in water would be negligible.
>>7898342
>nuclear reactors were built using fossil fuels
>therefore, nuclear reactors are not a sustainable energy source
Is this what you're saying?
>>7900788
>Same as uranium, and any other non renewable resource. Uranium wouldn't last 25 years if it was the only energy source and economic growth continued as "Scientist" has been advocating.
Actually, it would last forever. In the average piece of rock (granite) on this planet, it contains thorium and uranium, enough so that an average piece of rock contains more useful, extractable energy than the same volume of coal times 20 (assuming a fuel efficient reactor). We will never run out of rock. The sun will run out of fuel before we run out of rock.
How much does a typical nuclear reactor cooled by a river increase the temperature of the river? And what is the typical energy conversion ratio of this heat machine. Sorry for my Russian English.
>>7901535
AFAIK it doesn't since the water in the reactor is a closed loop that exchanges heat into a second water loop through the turbines and then out the cooling tower.
so no water returns to the river.
then again, i could be completely wrong.
Lets get some facts in here:
>How greenhouse efficient is fission energy?
Every factor from building the plant to extracting and refining the fuel to actually running the thing, nuclear energy shares the second best place with offshore wind energy, only to be beaten by onshore wind. This makes it around 2-4 times more efficient than any renewable source besides wind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC.2C_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources
>how dangerous is it to humans?
Barely at all. Even considering nuclear disasters and especially the insanely poor circumstances under which uranium is mined, nuclear is still less threatening to us than ANY other source of energy.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
>How much does it cost?
This is where its downsides are. In the list of cost efficiency of electricity sources, fission pulls in around the middle. That makes it more efficient than renewables, but less than fossil fuels. Though I could imagine that a sizeable part of this cost is caused by ignorance, which leads to it being expensive to insure. Though I have no source for that particular claim, I could imagine that the cost could be lowered if there were more public awareness about the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
>What about the waste?
Fair point and this is the one that is still in limbo and there is no final solution yet. All plants combined produce around 12000 tons of high level radioactive waste per year. The only final storage plant that is currently nearing construction is Onkalo in Finland, so there may be a solution in the near future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Uranium_tailings
There have also been advances in reprocessing technology, which allows for the recycling of some material though far from all. This technology is mainly used in Europe, Russia and Japan
>>7900808
>Suggesting nuclear is benign like other industries
Airplane industry kills more people each year than nuclear energy industry have done in its entire lifetime.
We should regulate the airplane industry until there's zero risk of a people dying in a plane crash, until then it should be banned!
>>7898359
submarines ?
>>7901562
you have both implementations,
one cools with producing steam, other with heating river water
Kurzgesagt made two contrasting videos:
"Nuclear Energy is Terrible":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEYbgyL5n1g
"Nuclear Energy is Awesome":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVbLlnmxIbY
>>7898345
>nuclear "waste" is just fuel that can't be legally reprocessed
Really, now. So, if you get the legality out of the way how would you reprocess radioactive Co and Sr?
Unless "legal" here means "not against the laws of nature".
>>7898370
>personal generators
There was a time when there were plans to use nuclear waste to power homes thermally. Of course in our times that would be material for terrorists making dirty bombs so that is complete out of the question.
>>7899025
>There's so little waste that it would be easy to store
Really. Please tell me just how much it is since you do seem to know. While you are at it you could also provide some insight in how best to dispose of used reactor cores.
>>7899200
>the rest is could be easily stored
How, exactly? And in a way that renders it safe for longer time than our civilization has existed.
>>7900793
>Personally I like thorium reactors....
Shame then that the people deciding budgets do not like to put in the necessary money into R&D to make these a working reality. The word "easily" is abused routinely when talking about thorium reactors yet the world is not yet full of these.
>>7900851
>DU is not waste as it has many uses
Do tell. With the exception of ammunition, turbine casing and keels for yachts in the very upper price ranges I don't see the use. However a quick back of the envelope calculation suggests the US has a mountain of the stuff and rumours were that they were all ears if you had a good idea.
>>7902396
Keep in mind, it only takes 300 years for the radioactivity to decay by a power of 10, so we really only need them super secure and safe for 500 years. In fact, the billions of tonnes of uranium in Colorado's mountains poses a higher risk of contamination than spent fuel.
>>7902630
That depends first of all on the element. Secondly there are decay chains so the decay of one element can result in another radioisotope and decay multiple times until we end up with for instance lead.
Also a problem is that many decay products are chemically toxic and typically heavy metals. So you need safety for a lot longer tan that. Wikipedia suggests 10000 years.
>>7901636
Great stuff, thanks for sharing.
>>7902396
>Do tell. With the exception of ammunition, turbine casing and keels for yachts in the very upper price ranges I don't see the use.
Literally first sentence on google:
"Civilian uses include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment, and containers for transporting radioactive materials."
>>7898364
>I will probably have cancer in not too long
Just pray that radiation hormesis is a thing :^)
>>7898319
Because while idiots sit here arguing about Nuclear Power, Renewable Power is actively being installed.
Renewables are the future. From 2015 was the LAST year new additions to the US grid were majority fossil fuel. Years after +2016 will ALL be majority Renewables.
>>7902897
That does not come up where I am.
For what it is worth the Wiki article mentions radiation shielding in military applications. It is not clear when the advantage is useful over lead shielding. I have used radiation shielding but it was always Pb. U was never even discussed.
And there is a mountain of depleted U waiting for a real life application.
