Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Of course I'm all for clean energy. My question is why are we treating nuclear energy as clean when we still don't know what to do with the waste?   ( shutdown-r.net) divider line
    More: Awkward  
•       •       •

248 clicks; posted to Discussion » on 14 Jan 2018 at 6:17 AM (40 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-01-13 10:33:10 PM  
That looks like a pretty good solution to me.
 
2018-01-14 02:29:17 AM  
Nuclear energy is "clean energy" now?
 
2018-01-14 04:32:45 AM  

puffy999: Nuclear energy is "clean energy" now?


Its the cleanest after solar, wind, and hydroelectric.

We do have a solution for the waste, Yucca Mountain, but a bunch of NIMBYs put an end to it.
 
2018-01-14 04:41:54 AM  
 
2018-01-14 05:38:04 AM  
Nuclear power is so 1955

Dilithium crystals is where the future lies
 
2018-01-14 06:10:07 AM  
What I have been told is that:
1. Modern generators generate much less waste
2. They can actually reprocess older waste

https://www.theguardian.com/environme​n​t/2012/feb/02/nuclear-reactors-consume​-radioactive-waste
 
2018-01-14 06:45:03 AM  
Looks like an orange on orange hate crime to me.
 
2018-01-14 06:57:25 AM  
An example of non-clean energy
d2v9y0dukr6mq2.cloudfront.netView Full Size

You need some memory of old-school burning of coal.
Remember the evolution example of the Peppered moth? Coal smoke darkened the very environment.
We've updated our idea of "clean" to progressively consider invisible things like sulfates that contributed to smog (and acid rain) and more recently CO2 and CH4 as green house gases. Nuclear remains clean.
Safety of working reactors and what to do with nuclear waste remain a separate and significant issue worthy of significant consideration but they don't fall under the label of "clean' or not.
 
2018-01-14 07:04:29 AM  
Nuclear is not clean, but if the planet was 100% nuclear then global warming would be fixed.  "Green" and "clean" encompass a lot of concepts, but global warming (carbon impact) is a much more specific concept.  If you want to fix global warming nuclear should be on the list of options.  Solar and wind cannot currently get us there alone and nuclear is often the only currently viable option that is close to carbon neutral.
 
2018-01-14 07:09:19 AM  
Did a search for the linked image, and found this caption: The barrels of low to medium radioactive waste were stored in Asse [Germany] between 1967 and 1978. This is apparently an old salt mine. Which Germany has a law requiring them to clean up.
 
2018-01-14 08:07:37 AM  

stuff: Nuclear is not clean, but if the planet was 100% nuclear then global warming would be fixed.  "Green" and "clean" encompass a lot of concepts, but global warming (carbon impact) is a much more specific concept.  If you want to fix global warming nuclear should be on the list of options.  Solar and wind cannot currently get us there alone and nuclear is often the only currently viable option that is close to carbon neutral.


This. Nuclear dirties the hell out of a few specific locations, but properly managed, ONLY those locations. It emits no carbon (unlike coal, oil, or gas plants), so there's no impact on long term climate. Nuclear really ought to be a major contender if our primary concern is carbon emissions leading to climate change.
 
2018-01-14 08:49:53 AM  

akula: stuff: Nuclear is not clean, but if the planet was 100% nuclear then global warming would be fixed.  "Green" and "clean" encompass a lot of concepts, but global warming (carbon impact) is a much more specific concept.  If you want to fix global warming nuclear should be on the list of options.  Solar and wind cannot currently get us there alone and nuclear is often the only currently viable option that is close to carbon neutral.

This. Nuclear dirties the hell out of a few specific locations, but properly managed, ONLY those locations. It emits no carbon (unlike coal, oil, or gas plants), so there's no impact on long term climate. Nuclear really ought to be a major contender if our primary concern is carbon emissions leading to climate change.


but can we trust ourselves with the maintenance?  seen any bridges or overpasses lately?
 
2018-01-14 10:06:15 AM  
We farking KNOW what to do with the Gorram waste!  Harry Farking Reid made sure the budget got slashed and the project got axed.

I spent 11 years working on the Yucca Mountain Project.
 
2018-01-14 10:51:18 AM  
... and let's not forget that the laws and regulations regarding nuclear waste were written by the fossil fuel industry.

In effect, anything within 300 yards of the reactor shall be considered high level waste and cost $1,000,000 an ounce to process.

Exaggerating, but not by much.
 
2018-01-14 11:15:16 AM  
    Having worked in mining doing environmental chemistry and assaying duties, I think when you are debating how "clean" nuclear power is you need to consider the tailings from processing uranium ore. Food for thought as this seems to be rarely addressed in the debate.

Uranium tailings are a waste byproduct (tailings) of uranium mining. In mining, raw uranium ore is brought to the surface and crushed into a fine sand. The valuable uranium-bearing minerals are then removed via heap leaching with the use of acids or bases, and the remaining radioactive sludge, called "uranium tailings", is stored in huge impoundments. A short ton (907 kg) of ore yield one to five pounds (0.45 to 2.3 kg) of uranium depending on the uranium content of the mineral.[1] Uranium tailings can retain up to 85% of the ore's original radioactivity.[2]
If uranium tailings are stored aboveground and allowed to dry out, the radioactive sand can be carried great distances by the wind, entering the food chain and bodies of water.[citation needed] The danger posed by such sand dispersal is uncertain at best given the dilution effect of dispersal. The majority of tailing mass will be inert rock, just as it was in the raw ore before the extraction of the uranium, but physically altered, ground up, mixed with large amounts of water and exposed to atmospheric oxygen, which can substantially alter chemical behaviour.
Uranium tailings contain over a dozen radioactive nuclides, which are the primary hazard posed by the tailings. The most important of these are thorium-230, radium-226, radon-222 (radon gas) and the daughter isotopes of radon decay, including polonium-210.
An EPA estimate of risk based on uranium tailings deposits existing in the United States in 1983 gave the figure of 500 lung cancer deaths per century if no countermeasures are taken.[3]
 
2018-01-14 11:21:08 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-14 11:26:52 AM  
akula

Nuclear dirties the hell out of a few specific locations, but properly managed, ONLY those locations. It emits no carbon (unlike coal, oil, or gas plants), so there's no impact on long term climate. Nuclear really ought to be a major contender if our primary concern is carbon emissions leading to climate change.

   This is f*cked logic. I guess as long as it's not your backyard, who cares, eh? If we render northern Saskatchewan a toxic nightmare, who cares it's some sh*thole you don't even know exists. As long as you get your "clean" power. Got it.

   Not to sound all hippy but it's all connected it is either all sacred or none of it is.

   Here's a suggestion: use less.
 
2018-01-14 12:22:23 PM  
When will "shoot it into the sun" become a viable solution?  Not just for dealing with nuclear waste, but other garbage as well as reality show stars, bad Presidents, and those people who still have ironic "Baby On Board" signs on their cars?
 
2018-01-14 12:30:18 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: puffy999: Nuclear energy is "clean energy" now?

Its the cleanest after solar, wind, and hydroelectric.

We do have a solution for the waste, Yucca Mountain, but a bunch of NIMBYs put an end to it.


Building reservoirs for hydroelectric energy is an environmental catastrophe.
 
2018-01-14 12:41:47 PM  

edmo: [img.fark.net image 344x181]


Now post the charts for coal or oil lobbying.
 
2018-01-14 12:44:52 PM  
Sell it to the Chinese, so they can use it to fuel their 4th generation reactors?
 
2018-01-14 03:46:01 PM  

New Age Redneck: akula

Nuclear dirties the hell out of a few specific locations, but properly managed, ONLY those locations. It emits no carbon (unlike coal, oil, or gas plants), so there's no impact on long term climate. Nuclear really ought to be a major contender if our primary concern is carbon emissions leading to climate change.

   This is f*cked logic. I guess as long as it's not your backyard, who cares, eh? If we render northern Saskatchewan a toxic nightmare, who cares it's some sh*thole you don't even know exists. As long as you get your "clean" power. Got it.

   Not to sound all hippy but it's all connected it is either all sacred or none of it is.

   Here's a suggestion: use less.


Still gotta come from somewhere, genius. There's always places that end up no-go zones for one reason or another. Pick the effect you're worried about.

And no, it's not sacred.
 
2018-01-14 04:47:04 PM  
akula
There's always places that end up no-go zones for one reason or another. Pick the effect you're worried about.

   Are you for real? That's as unintelligent and defeatist as it gets. You want to save the world but not all of it, ok sparky....

And no, it's not sacred.

Is to me, asshole.
 
2018-01-14 06:51:28 PM  

New Age Redneck: akula
There's always places that end up no-go zones for one reason or another. Pick the effect you're worried about.

   Are you for real? That's as unintelligent and defeatist as it gets. You want to save the world but not all of it, ok sparky....

And no, it's not sacred.

Is to me, asshole.


And? There's sacred stuff to everybody else that isn't legally protected as such.

If we're going to have a power grid at all, something has to provide ready, reliable power in all conditions. Solar and wind are not capable of being these base load plants. Hydro kinda can, but the list of places where hydro works as base load is small and already tapped (and then there's the issue of flooding thousands of acres of land). So we're stuck with coal, oil, and nuclear. Natural gas doesn't work as a base load because in extreme winter the natural gas feed lines generally can't support both the people who need it to heat their homes AND the utility's natural gas turbines (right now, here in my area, the nat gas turbines aren't running for this reason). Of those three forms, nuclear is the only part that doesn't release a lot of carbon into the air. All of them tend to make messes not only at the extraction point for the resource, but also at the point of use. So you're losing land anyway. At least nuclear can help get carbon emissions under control- allowing us to work on the effects of uranium mining and radioactive material storage.

Conservation is only one answer- and it has been happening. Renewable sources will also help take the edge off. But there will always be some need for power that isn't from the breeze or sun. Something's gotta run society and for the next few decades we don't have a long list of other answers. Pretending otherwise is being willfully obtuse.
 
2018-01-14 07:43:58 PM  
akula

At least nuclear can help get carbon emissions under control- allowing us to work on the effects of uranium mining and radioactive material storage.

    Speaking of willfully obtuse.....

     Really? Of course the tailings aren't going to leech into groundwater, barrels of waste aren't going to leak contaminating air and water, etc. Hey, great less carbon but our air and water is toxic, you're f*cking brilliant. Shouldn't you have a plan in place before you make a mess?

Conservation is the only one answer.

    Fixed that for you. The US pisses away more resources on nothing than any other country on the planet. You refuse to address the cause, which is your over consumption. Nuclear makes total sense to you because you don't have to deal with the problems associated with it, you're nowhere near the mess.   How about we store a few tons of tailings at your home? Small sacrifice, you know only one specific location, you can manage that properly. Think of all the carbon you will prevent.....and your cancer will allow us to work on fixing that someday too....
 
2018-01-14 09:08:25 PM  

New Age Redneck: Really? Of course the tailings aren't going to leech into groundwater, barrels of waste aren't going to leak contaminating air and water, etc. Hey, great less carbon but our air and water is toxic, you're f*cking brilliant. Shouldn't you have a plan in place before you make a mess?


Had one. NIMBYs killed it.

And no, conservation won't solve the issue of solar panels not working when the sun isn't shining, wind turbines not turning in calm air, and there only being so many rivers to dam up. And hell, keep on accusing people of not conserving without knowing a damn thing about them (or much of anything else besides what's in your Sierra Club rags).

But you go do you.
 
2018-01-14 09:28:29 PM  
akula

Had one. NIMBYs killed it.

Poor people? Indigenous? Rural folks? Crazy folks who don't want to live next to a toxic waste dump? Care to elaborate? Above you said you need to solve these problems of waste and radioactive tailings? Now you say you solved it? Which is it?

your Sierra Club rags

Huh?

But you go do you.

Huh? Use your sentences now....

conservation won't solve the issue

Keep saying that....
 
2018-01-14 10:18:54 PM  

New Age Redneck: Care to elaborate?


I can't speak for the rest of the country, but right after Fukushima my local suburban dipshiats led by the likes of Yoko Ono and temporary-Trumpoid anti-vax godhead RFK Jr. were blithering that Indian Point had to be closed because apparently a tsunami was going to

a) materialize out of nowhere in the Atlantic, then
b) roar into New York harbor, but apparently do no damage anywhere in the city (Sandy says wat?), then
c) charge about 20-25 miles up the Hudson, farther inland than any tsunami has ever reached by a good 15 miles or so, again doing no damage (apparently the tsunami was going to duck under the Tappan Zee Bridge and stay politely within the banks of the Hudson), then
d) stop, hang a sharp right, and trash only the nuclear power plant - the one structure in the region that had actually been built to some kind of seismic code.

These people make Trump look like Niels Bohr.
 
2018-01-14 11:36:47 PM  

bikkurikun: 2. They can actually reprocess older waste


Reprocessing civilian fuel is being done by several countries. USA can't do it due to President Carter.
 
2018-01-15 02:28:48 AM  

New Age Redneck: Having worked in mining doing environmental chemistry and assaying duties, I think when you are debating how "clean" nuclear power is you need to consider the tailings from processing uranium ore. Food for thought as this seems to be rarely addressed in the debate.

Uranium tailings are a waste byproduct (tailings) of uranium mining. In mining, raw uranium ore is brought to the surface and crushed into a fine sand. The valuable uranium-bearing minerals are then removed via heap leaching with the use of acids or bases, and the remaining radioactive sludge, called "uranium tailings", is stored in huge impoundments. A short ton (907 kg) of ore yield one to five pounds (0.45 to 2.3 kg) of uranium depending on the uranium content of the mineral.[1] Uranium tailings can retain up to 85% of the ore's original radioactivity.[2]
If uranium tailings are stored aboveground and allowed to dry out, the radioactive sand can be carried great distances by the wind, entering the food chain and bodies of water.[citation needed] The danger posed by such sand dispersal is uncertain at best given the dilution effect of dispersal. The majority of tailing mass will be inert rock, just as it was in the raw ore before the extraction of the uranium, but physically altered, ground up, mixed with large amounts of water and exposed to atmospheric oxygen, which can substantially alter chemical behaviour.
Uranium tailings contain over a dozen radioactive nuclides, which are the primary hazard posed by the tailings. The most important of these are thorium-230, radium-226, radon-222 (radon gas) and the daughter isotopes of radon decay, including polonium-210.
An EPA estimate of risk based on uranium tailings deposits existing in the United States in 1983 gave the figure of 500 lung cancer deaths per century if no countermeasures are taken.[3]


But uranium is all natural!
 
2018-01-15 02:29:40 AM  

New Age Redneck: akula

Nuclear dirties the hell out of a few specific locations, but properly managed, ONLY those locations. It emits no carbon (unlike coal, oil, or gas plants), so there's no impact on long term climate. Nuclear really ought to be a major contender if our primary concern is carbon emissions leading to climate change.

   This is f*cked logic. I guess as long as it's not your backyard, who cares, eh? If we render northern Saskatchewan a toxic nightmare, who cares it's some sh*thole you don't even know exists. As long as you get your "clean" power. Got it.

   Not to sound all hippy but it's all connected it is either all sacred or none of it is.

   Here's a suggestion: use less.


That is correct, nothing is sacred.
 
2018-01-15 03:40:10 AM  
We are cleaning up the radioactive waste. In fact, that is what I do.
 
2018-01-15 04:25:24 AM  

WilderKWight: When will "shoot it into the sun" become a viable solution?


When we invent cheaper launch and propulsion systems. Google it up, it takes a number of gravity assists to actually hit the sun. And that is after you had a successful launch (you don't want an explosion in Earth's atmosphere) and escaped Earth's gravity well.

Maybe if orbit round trips become routine (space elevator? daily shuttle service?) we can launch small amounts at a time and collect them somewhere 'safe' (Lagrange point? Lunar orbit? probably not LEO) and periodically launch it all into the Sun. If the Sunbound vehicle could be powered by the radioactive waste, we have solved the second part of the problem.
 
2018-01-15 10:47:05 AM  

ihateallofyou: We are cleaning up the radioactive waste. In fact, that is what I do.


We hope the username doesn't check out.
 
2018-01-15 10:48:58 AM  

turboke: WilderKWight: When will "shoot it into the sun" become a viable solution?

... If the Sunbound vehicle could be powered by the radioactive waste, we have solved the second part of the problem.


Put a nuclear bomb under the container of waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project​_​Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Operation_P​lumbbob
 
2018-01-15 10:56:51 AM  

WelldeadLink: turboke: WilderKWight: When will "shoot it into the sun" become a viable solution?

... If the Sunbound vehicle could be powered by the radioactive waste, we have solved the second part of the problem.

Put a nuclear bomb under the container of waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_​Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Operation_P​lumbbob


It would be even niftier if you could use the waste as a propellant.
 
2018-01-15 11:17:28 AM  

turboke: WelldeadLink: turboke: WilderKWight: When will "shoot it into the sun" become a viable solution?

... If the Sunbound vehicle could be powered by the radioactive waste, we have solved the second part of the problem.

Put a nuclear bomb under the container of waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_​Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Operation_P​lumbbob

It would be even niftier if you could use the waste as a propellant.


And then the gorillas die of radiation sickness in the nuclear winter?
 
2018-01-15 12:16:21 PM  

turboke: WelldeadLink: turboke: WilderKWight: When will "shoot it into the sun" become a viable solution?

... If the Sunbound vehicle could be powered by the radioactive waste, we have solved the second part of the problem.

Put a nuclear bomb under the container of waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_​Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Operation_P​lumbbob

It would be even niftier if you could use the waste as a propellant.


Sure, but that would require reprocessing the waste, and Carter said we can't do that.
 
2018-01-15 02:24:47 PM  

WelldeadLink: ihateallofyou: We are cleaning up the radioactive waste. In fact, that is what I do.

We hope the username doesn't check out.


I love my cat too much to make an "accidental" release.

Honestly, it's serious business and I take my job as seriously as possible. Radiation is no joke.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report