You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
13 points

Do we have a solution for nuclear waste yet?

permalink
report
reply
-1 points

Do we have a problem with nuclear waste yet?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Yes

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Define problem, because it’s less waste than old solar panels per megawatt. Both of which we just throw away in special places designed specifically for that waste.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Do we have a solution for atmospheric CO2 release yet?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

We have many. Most aren’t in effect yet though, but it also isn’t a serious issue. They’re stored safely in cement caskets, with molten glass and stuff to keep it together and safe, with effectively zero chance to cause an issue. There are permanent ways to store it safely, but we haven’t invested in them yet for many reason. Mostly, dirty energy companies pushing the anti-nuclear message have purposefully hamstrung nuclear from becoming a great solution, and people who think they’re being smart believe them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

That and they have ways to reuse “spent” nuclear fuel in newer reactors that can use fuel that older reactors have finished using.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

We put it back in the ground where we found it in the first place.

I don’t see how people are A-OK with uranium and other naturally occurring nuclear isotopes beneath their feet, but used fuel rods from a nuclear power plant? No fucking way!

Your house is full of radon Joe, the nuclear waste in a sealed casket, buried in the side of a mountain nowhere near you isn’t what is going to give you cancer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I was gonna make a joke about using it for plutonium production, but I’m pretty sure that still requires neutrons from fresh U235 to hit U238 to make U239 which decays into Pu239

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Permanent underground storage where it will naturally decay. Are a couple of different methods available from what I understand. And the amount of material that actually needs to be stored is a fraction of what is instead released into the air, water & soil from fossil based fuel. Not to mention toxins like mercury etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

Reprocess it, salvage useful isotopes for known uses, keep a few others for research purposes, don’t put it too far away because most of it could be useful in the future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Afaik that is not an economically viable option.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Ah yes, economically viable like destroying the planet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Which part? France is basically doing this already.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

clutches pearls won’t someone think of the stock market?

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

France literally does that. They reprocess 96% all of their used fuel back into usable fuel and useful materials.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Eat it! So many calories. You will never have to eat again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You could feed every single person on earth for life and solve hunger

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

we give each yimby a few gallons to put in their closet

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Have you seen spent fuel storage solutions? I’ll happily hold onto a cask. It wouldn’t be any more radioactive than the smoke coming from the coal plant down the street.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Absolutely incorrect. Neutron activation will produce more waste in volume than fission, but without the long lived fission products that are really nasty. We don’t really have a plan yet on HOW we’re going to circulate lithium and recapture tritium and what the waste from that will look like, but we do know it will create a significant amount of waste.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Thank you. While in the context of fission both the risk and the amount of waste seem to be much lower and waste can probably be managed by fission related protocols, my comment was too grossly wrong, so I just deleted it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Is nuclear waste more radioactive than the uranium we started with?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Just put it back in the ground where it came from. Why is this a concern? It was radioactive rocks when we took it out, and it’s radioactive rocks when we put it back in.

permalink
report
parent
reply

solarpunk memes

!memes@slrpnk.net

Create post

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a “meme” here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server’s ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators’ discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

Community stats

  • 4.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 428

    Posts

  • 6.2K

    Comments