Building new nuclear reactors in the US has been a "complete fiasco," he says.

My opinion

  • Storing the nuclear waste for millions of years underneath our kids feet is unpredictable, no one should carry such burden or leave that to the next generation.
  • Waiting for next Tsunami, earthquake etc. to hit the next reactor is also not an option. Most reactors need water, which means they are build near an ocean, or water resource like a dam, small lake, sea etc.
  • We cannot foresee entirely climate change and its outcome, at best only simulate, speculate, and this means we cannot foresee what mother nature will do next. Next incident will occur and you cannot shutdown the reactor within 2 minutes and even if you could, there is still the dangerous uranium which could leak if there is severe damage.

We should invest and research in secure alternatives. The govt should do everything in their power to push renewable energies and warning systems in case mother nature decides that it is time to release something bad.

  • stuckinconcrete@lemmy.ml
    33·
    3 years ago

    #1 Fuel recycling with each generation is becoming more efficient and workable. Yucca Mountain has been exhaustively explored and studied as a perfect spot for long-term storage.

    #2 Fukushima’s disaster is often talked about as a tsunami issue yet was purely a design and human error. There were other Japanese power plants along the same coast that did not melt down.

    #3 I love renewables but (for the practical foreseeable future) we need a constant reliable power source that does the least harm possible. And Nuclear power fits those parameters.

    Recommended reading/listening: " Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters: From the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima" by James Mahaffey

    • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.mlOP
      21·
      3 years ago
      • I never talked about fuel, I talked about nuclear waste, there is no end-solution for it. The problem that the radioactivity lasts for millions of years. Millions, not 10, not 1000 … millions until it is entirely gone. Claiming here there is a solution is baseless claim. Radioactivity does not work that way. The only process done here is other reactors who produce less waste or waste that can be used to fuel other things. These reactors are dangerous, and the technique is not new, they are just be rediscovered and some trying to improve it.
      • There will always be human error and you cannot control nature, you cannot control nature and that is the lesson here.

      We need fusion energy combined with other renewable energies that are secure, if they are shutdown in case of an emergency and do not produce lots of radioactive byproducts. Fusion energy also produces wastes but their radioactivity is gone in 60-100 years, entirely.

      So I take this over nuclear power plants, no need to defend them. We had multiple incidents and claiming, oh because we have 100 nuclear power plants and only 2 blow up … that is not gonna be an argument.