• LEX
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    What’s this amazing waste disposal method you’re convinced exists? Last I checked, the waste will still be around for at least a millennia and the only process we have to deal with it is bury it in a hole with a sign that says ‘BAD’ in a way we hope future generations can still interpret.

      • LEX
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        “There would still be waste that would have to be disposed, but the amount of long-lived waste can be significantly reduced,” Gehin said.

        “Significantly less” is not defined. Is it 80% less? 50? 30? 10? The guy they’re quoting, who has a vested interest in selling us this tech, sure doesn’t say and uses the qualifier ‘can be’. In fact, I can’t seem to find that information anywhere, let alone this article.

        Irregardless, there’s still waste that will take hundreds (thousands?) of years to decay. The solution is renewable energy.

        • SomewhatOffBeat@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          You’re obviously not willing to change your mind, so this will be my last response. Googling “breeder reactor” will show you plenty of peer reviewed papers and findings from past experimental reactors that can answer your questions.

          Apart from that, the point of the technology is obviously not to replace renewables, it’s to

          1. Phase out coal and oil as fast as possible.
          2. Get rid of the nuclear waste we already accumulated (by turning it into energy).

          Especially point 2, you are obviously and rightfully worried about nuclear waste - breeder reactors are the solution, the only one we currently know of. What else do you suggest we should do with that waste? Store it for millennia?

          • LEX
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            It’s not that I’m not willing to change my mind, it’s that I’m hugely suspicious of the recent push for Nuclear. Energy companies dumped massive amounts of money into the technology and want to see a return on those failed investments. So I am skeptical that there’s not some astroturfing and/or disinformation going on.

            That said, when I was doing the research, I was looking up Fast Fusion, not Breeder Reactors so I’ll look into it.

            Also, your point about using nuclear to phase out of coal and into renewable has merit, but I think there’s a danger that we get stuck on nuclear as it becomes easier/cheaper than coal and so development in green tech, like batteries, languishes for another four decades or whatever.

            Anyways, I’ll look into breeder reactors and, who knows, maybe have a change of heart (maybe).