When will we go back to nuclear power for clean energy?

[Anonymous]

Nuclear waste should be encapsulated in glass ingots and placed in tectonic subduction fault lines where it will be pulled down into the mantle of the earth over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nuclear waste should be encapsulated in glass ingots and placed in tectonic subduction fault lines where it will be pulled down into the mantle of the earth over time.

Nah, just shoot it into space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nuclear waste should be encapsulated in glass ingots and placed in tectonic subduction fault lines where it will be pulled down into the mantle of the earth over time.

Nah, just shoot it into space.

The risks of space launch for radioactive waste is unacceptably high. Elon has rockets as perfected as anyone ever has - but they’re not perfect. Ships transporting the waste to deep ocean disposal sites at subduction fault zones is much safer.

[Anonymous]

France is collaborating on an international level and getting close to fusion technology. This could be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll give a 100% pass on all safety and disposal problems for nuclear. Done.

New nuclear is not happening because of a little thing called economics. It simply is not cost completive with other zero carbon alternatives.

Nuclear engineer again. Didn't realize this post had kept going.

Nuclear is, by far, the cheapest of all the zero-carbon options, and especially so when considering that it operates at night and on non-windy days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuclear power has one huge unsolved problem - what to do with nuclear waste.

Any moron who pretends that nuclear power is "clean" is lying through their teeth.

Please educate yourself about nuclear waste before brainlessly repeating political talking points.

ALL power generation has disadvantages. Solar, wind and water energy all have issues. But none as potentially toxic and life-threatening as nuclear waste disposal.

NP. I'm a nuclear engineer. Could you please help educate me on the issue of nuclear waste and why long term storage is so life threatening? I'm afraid that all I've learned has been nothing but political talking points.

NP.

I grew up next to a nuke plant. Do you understand how much nuclear waste there is and how ugly it is to store it? I don’t think you all do. Nuclear cheerleaders tend to gloss over the fact that while we can recycle nuclear waste, we don’t recycle nuclear waste and it’s gotta go somewhere and it’s not pretty. Safe (-ish) but ugly as hell and spent fuel rods seem to be like rabbits in terms of how fast they pop up.

Truly, for those of you who want to pretend that nuclear is some magical, down side free solution, volunteer your own backyard for beautiful dry cask storage. Some of our backyards are all full up and dumping it on the sacred lands of the Shoshone and the Paiute is not acceptable. https://sacredland.org/yucca-mountain-united-states/ If you want nuclear so bad, stop NIMBYing and step up.

I understand pretty well, actually. A plant that has been operating for over 40 years has a concrete pad, about the half the size of a football field, that is storing concrete casks of spent fuel rods. These are ultimately supposed to go to Yucca Mountain.

I'm very curious what nuclear plant your childhood home was adjacent to, and close enough that you could see the spent fuel storage facility from your private residence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuclear power has one huge unsolved problem - what to do with nuclear waste.

Any moron who pretends that nuclear power is "clean" is lying through their teeth.

Please educate yourself about nuclear waste before brainlessly repeating political talking points.

ALL power generation has disadvantages. Solar, wind and water energy all have issues. But none as potentially toxic and life-threatening as nuclear waste disposal.

NP. I'm a nuclear engineer. Could you please help educate me on the issue of nuclear waste and why long term storage is so life threatening? I'm afraid that all I've learned has been nothing but political talking points.

NP.

I grew up next to a nuke plant. Do you understand how much nuclear waste there is and how ugly it is to store it? I don’t think you all do. Nuclear cheerleaders tend to gloss over the fact that while we can recycle nuclear waste, we don’t recycle nuclear waste and it’s gotta go somewhere and it’s not pretty. Safe (-ish) but ugly as hell and spent fuel rods seem to be like rabbits in terms of how fast they pop up.

Truly, for those of you who want to pretend that nuclear is some magical, down side free solution, volunteer your own backyard for beautiful dry cask storage. Some of our backyards are all full up and dumping it on the sacred lands of the Shoshone and the Paiute is not acceptable. https://sacredland.org/yucca-mountain-united-states/ If you want nuclear so bad, stop NIMBYing and step up.

I understand pretty well, actually. A plant that has been operating for over 40 years has a concrete pad, about the half the size of a football field, that is storing concrete casks of spent fuel rods. These are ultimately supposed to go to Yucca Mountain.

I'm very curious what nuclear plant your childhood home was adjacent to, and close enough that you could see the spent fuel storage facility from your private residence.

Where did I say you could see it from my personal residence?

And, gee, a nuclear scientist who refuses to understand how bad the waste looks and what it represents. How’d that ever happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuclear power has one huge unsolved problem - what to do with nuclear waste.

Any moron who pretends that nuclear power is "clean" is lying through their teeth.

Please educate yourself about nuclear waste before brainlessly repeating political talking points.

ALL power generation has disadvantages. Solar, wind and water energy all have issues. But none as potentially toxic and life-threatening as nuclear waste disposal.

NP. I'm a nuclear engineer. Could you please help educate me on the issue of nuclear waste and why long term storage is so life threatening? I'm afraid that all I've learned has been nothing but political talking points.

NP.

I grew up next to a nuke plant. Do you understand how much nuclear waste there is and how ugly it is to store it? I don’t think you all do. Nuclear cheerleaders tend to gloss over the fact that while we can recycle nuclear waste, we don’t recycle nuclear waste and it’s gotta go somewhere and it’s not pretty. Safe (-ish) but ugly as hell and spent fuel rods seem to be like rabbits in terms of how fast they pop up.

Truly, for those of you who want to pretend that nuclear is some magical, down side free solution, volunteer your own backyard for beautiful dry cask storage. Some of our backyards are all full up and dumping it on the sacred lands of the Shoshone and the Paiute is not acceptable. https://sacredland.org/yucca-mountain-united-states/ If you want nuclear so bad, stop NIMBYing and step up.

I understand pretty well, actually. A plant that has been operating for over 40 years has a concrete pad, about the half the size of a football field, that is storing concrete casks of spent fuel rods. These are ultimately supposed to go to Yucca Mountain.

I'm very curious what nuclear plant your childhood home was adjacent to, and close enough that you could see the spent fuel storage facility from your private residence.

Where did I say you could see it from my personal residence?

And, gee, a nuclear scientist who refuses to understand how bad the waste looks and what it represents. How’d that ever happen.

DP

It seems like you’re backtracking on what you previously said.

If you can’t SEE the stored fuel rod containers from anywhere outside the plant, then what difference does it make if it’s ugly or not. All that matters is whether it’s safe.

My kid’s room is a mess. But you can’t see it from the rest of the house, or from outside. So is it a big deal? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll give a 100% pass on all safety and disposal problems for nuclear. Done.

New nuclear is not happening because of a little thing called economics. It simply is not cost completive with other zero carbon alternatives.

Nuclear engineer again. Didn't realize this post had kept going.

Nuclear is, by far, the cheapest of all the zero-carbon options, and especially so when considering that it operates at night and on non-windy days.

Not went you have an accident and there is always an accident. It’s not if but when it happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll give a 100% pass on all safety and disposal problems for nuclear. Done.

New nuclear is not happening because of a little thing called economics. It simply is not cost completive with other zero carbon alternatives.

Nuclear engineer again. Didn't realize this post had kept going.

Nuclear is, by far, the cheapest of all the zero-carbon options, and especially so when considering that it operates at night and on non-windy days.

Not went you have an accident and there is always an accident. It’s not if but when it happens.

Better safety record than all other forms of generation over the past 60 years, even solar and wind, accounting for Chernobyl and Fukushima.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll give a 100% pass on all safety and disposal problems for nuclear. Done.

New nuclear is not happening because of a little thing called economics. It simply is not cost completive with other zero carbon alternatives.

Nuclear engineer again. Didn't realize this post had kept going.

Nuclear is, by far, the cheapest of all the zero-carbon options, and especially so when considering that it operates at night and on non-windy days.

Not went you have an accident and there is always an accident. It’s not if but when it happens.

Fukushima killed exactly one person. Here's a coal power plant accident from last year. Twice the deaths of Fukushima, and yet no wall to wall coverage.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coal-pile-slide-buries-kills-2-colorado-power-plant-rcna31788

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll give a 100% pass on all safety and disposal problems for nuclear. Done.

New nuclear is not happening because of a little thing called economics. It simply is not cost completive with other zero carbon alternatives.

Nuclear engineer again. Didn't realize this post had kept going.

Nuclear is, by far, the cheapest of all the zero-carbon options, and especially so when considering that it operates at night and on non-windy days.

Not went you have an accident and there is always an accident. It’s not if but when it happens.

Fukushima killed exactly one person. Here's a coal power plant accident from last year. Twice the deaths of Fukushima, and yet no wall to wall coverage.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coal-pile-slide-buries-kills-2-colorado-power-plant-rcna31788

Nuke engineer here. Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuclear power has one huge unsolved problem - what to do with nuclear waste.

Any moron who pretends that nuclear power is "clean" is lying through their teeth.

Please educate yourself about nuclear waste before brainlessly repeating political talking points.

ALL power generation has disadvantages. Solar, wind and water energy all have issues. But none as potentially toxic and life-threatening as nuclear waste disposal.

The plan was Yucca Mountain, and it still could be. The other option is re-"burning."

What makes you say it's "life-threatening"?

Yucca "was" the answer until Sen Reid and Obama killed it. I haven't heard about "re-burning". How do you reburn spent rods?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuclear power has one huge unsolved problem - what to do with nuclear waste.

Any moron who pretends that nuclear power is "clean" is lying through their teeth.

Please educate yourself about nuclear waste before brainlessly repeating political talking points.

ALL power generation has disadvantages. Solar, wind and water energy all have issues. But none as potentially toxic and life-threatening as nuclear waste disposal.

The plan was Yucca Mountain, and it still could be. The other option is re-"burning."

What makes you say it's "life-threatening"?

Yucca "was" the answer until Sen Reid and Obama killed it. I haven't heard about "re-burning". How do you reburn spent rods?

https://www.anl.gov/article/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll give a 100% pass on all safety and disposal problems for nuclear. Done.

New nuclear is not happening because of a little thing called economics. It simply is not cost completive with other zero carbon alternatives.

Nuclear engineer again. Didn't realize this post had kept going.

Nuclear is, by far, the cheapest of all the zero-carbon options, and especially so when considering that it operates at night and on non-windy days.

Not went you have an accident and there is always an accident. It’s not if but when it happens.

Better safety record than all other forms of generation over the past 60 years, even solar and wind, accounting for Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The risk from a nuclear plant never really goes away. When you shut down a natural gas plant, the risk is gone. When you dismantle wind turbines, the risk is gone. When you’ve shut down the coal plant and dealt with the byproducts, the risk goes down as the environment heals itself. Spent fuel rods are a risk that never goes away. As long as they exist, the danger is there. And if something were to ever happen to a plant or a fuel rod storage facility, the land is done forever and itself remains a risk. Look what Russia is doing to Chernobyl. 30+ years on and the risk is still there.