←back to thread

301 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
setgree ◴[] No.45030567[source]
> While it is still an emerging technology being used only on a modest scale as yet, it does have an advantage over some other renewable energies in that it is available around the clock.

I notice the 'some' here, and the absence of the word 'nuclear' from the article, which of course is also available around the clock. Most readers will know something about Japan's troubled relationship with nuclear power and can fill in that context themselves, but to my eyes, it's a startling omission.

replies(2): >>45030651 #>>45032016 #
ok_dad ◴[] No.45032016[source]
I love nuclear power and know a lot about operating them, however:

1) It's expensive. Very very expensive.

2) It's dangerous when not operated properly, and I don't trust commercial interests operating hundreds of these due to this reason.

3) It's bad for the environment, both the mining to get the uranium and all of the processes to turn it into fuel.

4) There is no answer for spent fuel.

Whereas with solar or wind you can basically remove #1, #2, and #4, however you still have to mine and process the materials.

Anyways, nuclear will be great for some niche uses, I am sure, but it isn't the answer to our green energy prayers.

replies(2): >>45032313 #>>45033936 #
jrflowers ◴[] No.45033936[source]
> 4) There is no answer for spent fuel.

We store it. There are radioactive waste storage sites in 39 US states, for example.

https://curie.pnnl.gov/system/files/SNF%20and%20Rep%20Waste%...

replies(1): >>45035507 #
ok_dad ◴[] No.45035507{3}[source]
Humans haven’t stored anything for twenty thousand years yet.
replies(2): >>45036033 #>>45045716 #
jrflowers ◴[] No.45036033{4}[source]
How do you know that?

And if humanity can’t do anything that it hasn’t done before, why should we care about power generation or any problem that wasn’t completely solved before today? (Like today. The day that you are reading this.)

replies(1): >>45047456 #
ok_dad ◴[] No.45047456{5}[source]
I know because storage of spent nuclear fuel is a pretty big deal, and right now the USA is simply sequestering it on-site with no plans beyond 50-100 years because there is NO solution for long-term (20k years) storage.
replies(2): >>45048486 #>>45049660 #
MisterMower ◴[] No.45048486{6}[source]
We could reprocess it but choose not to. This is what France does. It’s not a novel process. Instead we stupidly let it sit there and pay to secure it.

Why are you so irrationally anti-nuclear?

replies(1): >>45055052 #
1. ok_dad ◴[] No.45055052{7}[source]
I am quite rational, thanks. See my other comment.

Also, France has a state-owned company operating the plants. I would not be averse to an American version of that, or perhaps just expand and enhance the training they already do for the naval nuclear power program and send navy nukes to operate them. I don't trust American corporations to operate them properly.

replies(1): >>45059006 #
2. MisterMower ◴[] No.45059006[source]
State owned nuclear worked out great for Chernobyl. I don't trust the state to run them, especially given the string of failures by our government to do anything competently over the past 20 years.