Nuclear is the best btw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runit_Island

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#Cleanup_under_Superfund

what marvel / dc universe do you think that the refuse of nuclear fission lives in ?

Nuclear is only safe under the constant management of a stable global society. We don’t live in a stable society so I don’t support nuclear.

That feels kind of all-or-nothing. Environmental issues are part of the problem destabilizing societies. Overall, the poisoning of the environment is much worse and much less contained with fossil fuels than with nuclear power. Distant future societies might have no knowledge of nuclear storage sites and a few people might even die before they realize they need to stop breaking into the underground barrels. But a lot more people will die from the environmental havoc that we're causing with fossil fuels. And they can't just stay away from the barrels to avoid that one.

Just to be clear, I think wind and solar (and geothermal where appropriate) are the best ways to get off of fossil fuels. They've gotten a lot cheaper than nuclear so it doesn't make much sense to build new reactors. But it also doesn't make much sense to shut them down if nuclear waste is the only issue.

People when they hear nuclear industry propaganda.

People when they hear fossil fuel industry propaganda.

Dont touch my propaganda 😡

so whats your idea? Should we close all nuclear reactors because its too dangerous?

Not really, no. It is safe pretty much regardless. On-site caskets are bomb proof and contain waste safe enough that it wouldn't make sense for a dirty bomb. Though if you really care then we can just stop considering mountains sacred and instead starting burying the waste as we have planned and fully considered all pros and cons towards 70 years ago.

...O ...K ... nothing is going to destabilize global society as badly as the collapse of crop growing cycles due to fossil-fuel-induced climate change.

Anything we can do to reduce burning fossil fuels is going to improve global stability.

More people have died from radiation poisoning due to Coal mining and coal plants than the entirety of all nuclear incidents and weapon uses world wide.

I agree but also think that we should build both nuclear and renewables. Because we dont have much time left.

fossil fuels aren't safe no matter the state of global society

Both things can be true. The comment you're responding to literally does not mention FF.

Indestructible is a keyword in Magic the Gathering. I do not see it working the same way in engineering.

The comment you’re responding to literally does not mention FF.

Does it need to? That's the alternative we're talking about, whether it's mentioned specifically or not.

Wind and solar are great and have become so good in the past decade that they're more cost effective than everything else, but they still aren't applicable everywhere, most often due to real estate requirements. Nuclear reactors are bulky too, but nothing compared to the amount of space you need for solar arrays or wind turbines to generate an equivalent amount of electricity. For the places where wind and solar can't fit, it's fossil fuels or nuclear.

That's the alternative you're talking about. Straw men are such mark-ass bitches, right?

What alternative do you propose?

I really hate people thinking all of nuclear is light water reactors

No, my plan is to force corrupt politicians through a coarse seive until we can continue having a society. What's yours?

I hate the fact that theres no better alternate to nuclear.

Except, you know, solar and wind power, which are like and order of magnitude cheaper and way faster to build.

Solar and wind?

What if we put the nuclear reactor up in space, really far away, then used devices of some kind of revieve the energy it transmits to us via low level radiation?

Why have all safety measures when half do and we save money for shareholders!

Yes, but why waste time and effort with a stopgap like Nuclear when we can just go to wind and solar that we already have the tech for?

Bonus, the more its used, the more we learn, the better it gets for efficiency and ability to manufacture.

Nuclear only makes economic sense if you also have a military use for the fuel.

If you dont have nuke warheads, or subs that depend on it...it makes no economic sense.

Without heat dissipation, nuclear reactors go boom.

If we’re using space, I think there be even more feasible to use solar and hydrogen.

I already addressed those.

I addressed this in another comment, but basically wind and solar both require large amounts of open land to generate significant amounts of electricity. They aren't a complete solution, they simply can't fit everywhere.

Most places that can't fit in fields of solar arrays or wind turbines are reliant on fossil fuels for electricity, and those circumstances aren't going to change anytime soon. The best solution right now would be to replace the coal and gas plants with nuclear.

Nuclear is not a stop gap. It's a solution.

I like your thoughtful take and that you didn’t leap to the assumption that I support fossil fuels. Renewables are the way, and we had renewables (windmills and such) before we had electricity.

Of course. Why wouldn't we use both?

I was thinking more like a large fusion reactor using gravitational containment. I don't think the temperature will be too much of an issue.

No one here is advocating for fossil fuels

Right... I suppose next you're going to say it could be one of those fusion reactors that are always just 10 years away!

[citation needed]

indestructible

Yeah, I think I've heard that claim before. It seems like every time that claim was made something came along to prove it wrong.

In Australia, all the people who were vehemently against solar and were calling for building of more coal fired power plants have lately shifted to saying, that Australia needs multiple nuclear power plants.

Whilst I don't doubt it probably wasn't a good thing to have around 20 years ago, solar and wind are so much cheaper and I know a good percentage of homes have made the switch to solar in recent years.

The only politicians I'm seeing which are calling out for nuclear seem to be very closely aligned with resources companies.

true, sorry, skimming the thread

Canada has entered the chat.

But I don't see the waste coming out of the car, and I f I can't see it it doesn't exist. Well... I haven't actually seen nuclear waste but I assume they are green glowing rods that give me cancer if I get to close

Indestructible cask underground is for cowards. In the US we don't have a long term storage site, so we just ship it around to different temporary sites.

Please and thank you.

Stop framing it as a dichotomy.

And how is the nuclear waste supposed to get there? Car, truck, or train will still have a spill

Name a single Nuclear power plant that was profitable over its whole live cycle without depending on state money for at least one of the phases, from planing it to tearing it down and long time storage of the waste till its save again.

There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution

Well if you're advocating against the cheapest and safest fuel source, one does assume you're advocating for fossil fuels; especially when you are explicitly repeating their propaganda.

Just a reminder, Green Peace, the primary reason many 'environmentalists' are against Nuclear power and are so misinformed on the subject, was paid tens of millions of dollars by the oil and coal lobbies to spread said propaganda.

I am not sure if that's sarcasm, but spent reactor fuel doesn't glow, and it never glows green. Any glow you're going to see is cherenkov radiation, and that's a soft blue glow. But you wouldn't see that either.

I don’t think you understand how durable and well sealed those casks are. It’s not fall off the side of the train and break open kind of tough, it’s get hit by the train going full speed and the train loses kind of tough.

I’m fairly certain I read they can also withstand a direct blast from fairly sizable munitions, like state actor missile size.