←back to thread

Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

(arstechnica.com)
425 points nixass | 1 comments | 02 Apr 21 18:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
einrealist[dead post] ◴[02 Apr 21 18:30 UTC] No.26674327[source]▶
Yeah, and lets just ignore the waste and emissions that it generates at all other fronts (building the plant and materials for it, mining and processing of the fuel, processing and storage of spend fuel, disassembly of the plant). "_Clean_" nuclear energy is and will always be a fairy tale!

Edit: Emphasized the word "Clean". I am not per se against Nuclear. Anyway, keep downvoting my opinion.

1. 11thEarlOfMar ◴[02 Apr 21 18:44 UTC] No.26674518[source]▶
I'd be interested in seeing information that counters the features of the 'Generation IV' nuclear reactors[0]. Among other promises, they purportedly can consume existing waste from Generation I-III reactors, and reduce the total nuclear waste on the planet, rather than increasing it.

Some purported advantages (there are different technologies):

- Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia

- 100–300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel

- Broader range of fuels, and even un-encapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).

- In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.

- Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.

Any information filling out this picture is appreciated.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor