NationStates

As far as nuclear waste goes.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

Ifreann wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
okay but will it not run out?

Yes, eventually. But it will take a very long time, and in the interim it doesn't poison the world quite so much. We'd have a very long time to improve existing technologies and to invent new ones or gain access to other sources of fuel.

can you create it synthetically in reliable and sustainable amounts?

No.

---

Infected Mushroom wrote:
so is there a downside?

Nuclear waste is a problem, but not an unmanageable one. And any kind of power plant is, by its very nature, dangerous, but nuclear power plants are not anywhere near as dangerous as people sometimes imagine.

And people forget that burning coal releases a fuck ton of radiation too. To the point that, before it was cleaned up, Central station in New York was so radioactive from the soot deposits in the roof that if it were a functioning nuclear power station then it would have been shut down.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yes, eventually. But it will take a very long time, and in the interim it doesn't poison the world quite so much. We'd have a very long time to improve existing technologies and to invent new ones or gain access to other sources of fuel.


No.

---

Nuclear waste is a problem, but not an unmanageable one. And any kind of power plant is, by its very nature, dangerous, but nuclear power plants are not anywhere near as dangerous as people sometimes imagine.

And people forget that burning coal releases a fuck ton of radiation too. To the point that, before it was cleaned up, Central station in New York was so radioactive from the soot deposits in the roof that if it were a functioning nuclear power station then it would have been shut down.

Beautiful, clean, radioactive coal.

And as a bonus all that radioactive coal sludge gets thrown into the air for you to breathe instead of being safely contained in a concrete box.

This said I don't see how the hell atomic waste is a problem in this day and age. I mean, we already have an atomic wasteland to dump it all in. So why not just do so? It's not like Chernobyl is going to get worse.

Purpelia wrote:This said I don't see how the hell atomic waste is a problem in this day and age. I mean, we already have an atomic wasteland to dump it all in. So why not just do so? It's not like Chernobyl is going to get worse.

People still live there though. I'd imagine they'd cry foul if the world's nuclear waste started getting packed in there too.

The New California Republic wrote:

Purpelia wrote:This said I don't see how the hell atomic waste is a problem in this day and age. I mean, we already have an atomic wasteland to dump it all in. So why not just do so? It's not like Chernobyl is going to get worse.

People still live there though. I'd imagine they'd cry foul if the world's nuclear waste started getting packed in there too.

Move the people

The New California Republic wrote:

Purpelia wrote:This said I don't see how the hell atomic waste is a problem in this day and age. I mean, we already have an atomic wasteland to dump it all in. So why not just do so? It's not like Chernobyl is going to get worse.

People still live there though. I'd imagine they'd cry foul if the world's nuclear waste started getting packed in there too.

Ship it to Iran, maybe they can build nukes this time.

>The 1% cause a problem
>Force the 99% to do random "environmental service" that won't fix it
>Use violence against them if they refuse, throw them in prison with the child rapists and the murderers

No thanks. And why is the American debate on climate/energy issues always about trying to punish or extort people for using fossil fuels? The Yellow Vests protests in France showed why this doesn't work in practice and accomplishes nothing, you are just picking a fight with the entire population for no reason while the people responsible for the problem keep doing whatever they want. Invest in biofuels and nuclear, give companies tax breaks for converting their fleets to biodiesel, make it easy for people to use alternative energy and they gladly will.

Novus America wrote:Thanks Greenpeace for destroying the environment.

The only thing "green" about Greenpeace is the dollars they swindle out of the public through propaganda campaigns.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Send us a postcard.

Attach it to a stick and you'll be able to use it as a reading lamp at night.

*sigh*

No, you won't. Most of Chernobyl-

Purpelia wrote:And as a bonus all that radioactive coal sludge gets thrown into the air for you to breathe instead of being safely contained in a concrete box.

This said I don't see how the hell atomic waste is a problem in this day and age. I mean, we already have an atomic wasteland to dump it all in. So why not just do so? It's not like Chernobyl is going to get worse.

-as I was saying, most of Chernobyl isn't terribly radioactive. Sure, if you go stand next to the Elephant's Foot you're gonna have a bad time, but there's a reason they can do tours and stuff now.

The New California Republic wrote:

Purpelia wrote:This said I don't see how the hell atomic waste is a problem in this day and age. I mean, we already have an atomic wasteland to dump it all in. So why not just do so? It's not like Chernobyl is going to get worse.

People still live there though. I'd imagine they'd cry foul if the world's nuclear waste started getting packed in there too.

...there's like 100 old ladies, and given that they preferred to die on their land even after the meltdown, I really don't think they'd give a fuck.

But shipping thousands of tons of nuclear waste halfway around the world to an unstable and corrupt country just to drop it in an area that the world has spent billions of dollars trying to decontaminate seems... counterintuitive at best.

Senkaku wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Attach it to a stick and you'll be able to use it as a reading lamp at night.

*sigh*

No, you won't. Most of Chernobyl-

It was a joke.

Senkaku wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:People still live there though. I'd imagine they'd cry foul if the world's nuclear waste started getting packed in there too.

...there's like 100 old ladies, and given that they preferred to die on their land even after the meltdown, I really don't think they'd give a fuck.

And I'm going to see some of them next week!

Senkaku wrote:-as I was saying, most of Chernobyl isn't terribly radioactive. Sure, if you go stand next to the Elephant's Foot you're gonna have a bad time, but there's a reason they can do tours and stuff now.

My point is that we can just dump all our atomic waste there. It's not like people are going to be moving in there to live any time soon.

Purpelia wrote:

Senkaku wrote:-as I was saying, most of Chernobyl isn't terribly radioactive. Sure, if you go stand next to the Elephant's Foot you're gonna have a bad time, but there's a reason they can do tours and stuff now.

My point is that we can just dump all our atomic waste there. It's not like people are going to be moving in there to live any time soon.

People are moving back there as the danger zone decreases.

We could have a universal draft (doesn't Swizerland have one?) and give the option of environmental service as a way of using your two years. You could also help with child care, infrastructure, many useful things we are seemingly unwilling to pay for.

Novus America wrote:As far as nuclear waste goes.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

I have long said that it is better to have a thousand barrels of nuclear waste contained for a thousand years than a steady plume of smoke cranking out a million tons of debris that we will all have to breath in for a thousand years.

The worst part is that anti nuclear protests from the 60's, 70's, and 80's only succeeded in delaying the development of far safer methods of nuclear power generation such as liquid salt reactors. So... good job boomers.

Senkaku wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Attach it to a stick and you'll be able to use it as a reading lamp at night.

*sigh*

No, you won't. Most of Chernobyl-

Purpelia wrote:And as a bonus all that radioactive coal sludge gets thrown into the air for you to breathe instead of being safely contained in a concrete box.

This said I don't see how the hell atomic waste is a problem in this day and age. I mean, we already have an atomic wasteland to dump it all in. So why not just do so? It's not like Chernobyl is going to get worse.

-as I was saying, most of Chernobyl isn't terribly radioactive. Sure, if you go stand next to the Elephant's Foot you're gonna have a bad time, but there's a reason they can do tours and stuff now.

The New California Republic wrote:People still live there though. I'd imagine they'd cry foul if the world's nuclear waste started getting packed in there too.

...there's like 100 old ladies, and given that they preferred to die on their land even after the meltdown, I really don't think they'd give a fuck.

But shipping thousands of tons of nuclear waste halfway around the world to an unstable and corrupt country just to drop it in an area that the world has spent billions of dollars trying to decontaminate seems... counterintuitive at best.

We have our own nuclear waste facility anyway. The thing is massive and can withstand direct nuclear strikes.

Besides eventually as technology improves we could recycle a lot of that spent fuel

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:

Novus America wrote:As far as nuclear waste goes.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

I have long said that it is better to have a thousand barrels of nuclear waste contained for a thousand years than a steady plume of smoke cranking out a million tons of debris that we will all have to breath in for a thousand years.

The worst part is that anti nuclear protests from the 60's, 70's, and 80's only succeeded in delaying the development of far safer methods of nuclear power generation such as liquid salt reactors. So... good job boomers.

General Public Utilities left their plant at Three Mile Island in the hands of workers who were not even high school graduates. They were not prepared to respond to a crisis. The problem there was not technology, but cheap-ass ownership

Pope Joan wrote:

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:I have long said that it is better to have a thousand barrels of nuclear waste contained for a thousand years than a steady plume of smoke cranking out a million tons of debris that we will all have to breath in for a thousand years.

The worst part is that anti nuclear protests from the 60's, 70's, and 80's only succeeded in delaying the development of far safer methods of nuclear power generation such as liquid salt reactors. So... good job boomers.

General Public Utilities left their plant at Three Mile Island in the hands of workers who were not even high school graduates. They were not prepared to respond to a crisis. The problem there was not technology, but cheap-ass ownership

Three Mile Island was the perfect accident. All of the emergency systems worked as they should have and very little radioactive material was blown out.

Thermodolia wrote:

Senkaku wrote:*sigh*

No, you won't. Most of Chernobyl-


-as I was saying, most of Chernobyl isn't terribly radioactive. Sure, if you go stand next to the Elephant's Foot you're gonna have a bad time, but there's a reason they can do tours and stuff now.


...there's like 100 old ladies, and given that they preferred to die on their land even after the meltdown, I really don't think they'd give a fuck.

But shipping thousands of tons of nuclear waste halfway around the world to an unstable and corrupt country just to drop it in an area that the world has spent billions of dollars trying to decontaminate seems... counterintuitive at best.

We have our own nuclear waste facility anyway. The thing is massive and can withstand direct nuclear strikes.

No we don't. Yucca Mountain has been in political limbo for years, it's not done and doesn't have any waste in it bc of stupid political opposition

Besides eventually as technology improves we could recycle a lot of that spent fuel

yes, as has been touched upon, breeder reactors are lit

Pope Joan wrote:

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:I have long said that it is better to have a thousand barrels of nuclear waste contained for a thousand years than a steady plume of smoke cranking out a million tons of debris that we will all have to breath in for a thousand years.

The worst part is that anti nuclear protests from the 60's, 70's, and 80's only succeeded in delaying the development of far safer methods of nuclear power generation such as liquid salt reactors. So... good job boomers.

General Public Utilities left their plant at Three Mile Island in the hands of workers who were not even high school graduates. They were not prepared to respond to a crisis. The problem there was not technology, but cheap-ass ownership

Well sure there were mistakes made at Three Mile Island. But the only thing that matters is it melted down without killing or hurting a single person.

It was not actually dangerous because it had a decent containment structure.

Any nuclear reactor can be mad perfectly safe by just building an adequate containment structure.

Senkaku wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:We have our own nuclear waste facility anyway. The thing is massive and can withstand direct nuclear strikes.

No we don't. Yucca Mountain has been in political limbo for years, it's not done and doesn't have any waste in it bc of stupid political opposition

Besides eventually as technology improves we could recycle a lot of that spent fuel

yes, as has been touched upon, breeder reactors are lit

Well storing the waste at the power plants works fine too. Yes we can reprocess it, and create a centralized storage for it. But we do not NEED to.
Currently zero people are harmed by nuclear waste stored at the power plants themselves.