Worlds largest fusion reactor being built

[Kalaron]

Yes but Fusion, Fission, Dams, Wind and, Solar would be way better.

Why? Dams are horrible for river ecosystems. Wind is stupidly expensive. Solar helps but currently is limited, and does not have a consistent output. Tell me who wants a nuclear waste storage facility within 100 miles of them?

People who aren't NIMBYs and understand how nuclear waste facilities actually operate. Dry Cask storage is already fine, and an even better method would be dropping them down a couple kilometre borehole as a silicate glass. To date, there hasn't been any danger from their usage, and the only reason people get in a twist over them is because Big Oil (and Big Gas) were threatened enough in the 70's and 80's to help form opposition groups to it.

[Farnhamia]

Besides, gas isn't going to be around forever...unless your willing to wait for a million years that is.

Biogas is a renewable energy source, which can be generated from a wide variety of organic materials in significantly less time than your proposed waiting period.

I'll volunteer some of my in-laws for biogas production.

The trouble with pointing out the flaws in wind and solar and all is that people shy away from investing in them. We should be pumping money into developing efficient, cheap methods of using those resources, not propping up the oil and gas industries with my Sacred Tax Dollars. So there.

[Novus America]

Yes but Fusion, Fission, Dams, Wind and, Solar would be way better.

Why? Dams are horrible for river ecosystems. Wind is stupidly expensive. Solar helps but currently is limited, and does not have a consistent output. Tell me who wants a nuclear waste storage facility within 100 miles of them?

All the nuclear waste every generated can fit in one facility.
So you can put it far enough way from people. Just stick it in middle of the old nuclear testing grounds.

Besides it is not actually dangerous to you at more than a few feet away. Unless you crawl in a waste container and lick the metal inside you are fine.

And you can simply reprocess it.

[Hurdergaryp]

Yes but Fusion, Fission, Dams, Wind and, Solar would be way better.

Why? Dams are horrible for river ecosystems. Wind is stupidly expensive. Solar helps but currently is limited, and does not have a consistent output. Tell me who wants a nuclear waste storage facility within 100 miles of them?

The turbines used for wind power are not cheap, but they are worth their investment. It is a proven technology with a history longer than most people are aware of.

[Kalaron]

Why? Dams are horrible for river ecosystems. Wind is stupidly expensive. Solar helps but currently is limited, and does not have a consistent output. Tell me who wants a nuclear waste storage facility within 100 miles of them?

All the nuclear waste every generated can fit in one facility.
So you can put it far enough way from people. Just stick it in middle of the old nuclear testing grounds.

Besides it is not actually dangerous to you at more than a few feet away. Unless you crawl in a waste container and lick the metal inside you are fine.

And you can simply reprocess it.

"Noooooooo you can't reprocess it that'll make it too easy to weaponize!!!" ---- "Haha cheap fuel go whzooom"

[Novus America]

Biogas is a renewable energy source, which can be generated from a wide variety of organic materials in significantly less time than your proposed waiting period.

I'll volunteer some of my in-laws for biogas production.

The trouble with pointing out the flaws in wind and solar and all is that people shy away from investing in them. We should be pumping money into developing efficient, cheap methods of using those resources, not propping up the oil and gas industries with my Sacred Tax Dollars. So there.

And we should be investing in nuclear as well. Realistically no free power plan can work without nuclear.
“Since we need to triple nuclear power in the world within 20 years in order to have any hope of mitigating the worst effects of global warming, along with bringing up renewables as fast as possible, this is a nice way to go sailing into that future.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 46046c7694

[Novus America]

You cannot really get lower than zero emissions. Nuclear is by default emission free, something no natural gas plant I am aware of could possibly be.

Except for the waste product, and any kind of disaster is well beyond the ability of a private company to pay for and handle.

The waste product is actually not a big deal:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

Besides the government could rebuild reprocessing facilities at the Hanford and Savanah River nuclear reservations, and let private companies drop their waste there.

[Hurdergaryp]

All the nuclear waste every generated can fit in one facility.
So you can put it far enough way from people. Just stick it in middle of the old nuclear testing grounds.

Besides it is not actually dangerous to you at more than a few feet away. Unless you crawl in a waste container and lick the metal inside you are fine.

And you can simply reprocess it.

"Noooooooo you can't reprocess it that'll make it too easy to weaponize!!!" ---- "Haha cheap fuel go whzooom"

Technically speaking you can recycle nuclear waste by using it to make plutonium, followed by using said plutonium to generate energy. Since plutonium is not a natural element, we can just continue manufacturing plutonium by means of recycling nuclear waste, including the nuclear waste generated by plutonium powerplants. Of course there is the minor problem of plutonium being the most deadly substance created by the human animal, but surely we could gloss over that rather lurid detail.

[Ethel mermania]

Why? Dams are horrible for river ecosystems. Wind is stupidly expensive. Solar helps but currently is limited, and does not have a consistent output. Tell me who wants a nuclear waste storage facility within 100 miles of them?

All the nuclear waste every generated can fit in one facility.
So you can put it far enough way from people. Just stick it in middle of the old nuclear testing grounds.

Besides it is not actually dangerous to you at more than a few feet away. Unless you crawl in a waste container and lick the metal inside you are fine.

And you can simply reprocess it.

But I always like to lick the cake bowl

[Novus America]

"Noooooooo you can't reprocess it that'll make it too easy to weaponize!!!" ---- "Haha cheap fuel go whzooom"

Technically speaking you can recycle nuclear waste by using it to make plutonium, followed by using said plutonium to generate energy. Since plutonium is not a natural element, we can just continue manufacturing plutonium by means of recycling nuclear waste, including the nuclear waste generated by plutonium powerplants. Of course there is the minor problem of plutonium being the most deadly substance created by the human animal, but surely we could gloss over that rather lurid detail.

I would not say it is that deadly, unless you weaponize it.
And tritium makes a bigger boom.

Just have it reprocessed and overseen by the DoE.

Because they already have it and use it to make bombs, and nobody has been killed by it (well for a very long time at least..)

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes, but it's fusion and it's one step towards democratic human space empire.

Okay but I still want fries.

I could go for some fries rn.

Yes but Fusion, Fission, Dams, Wind and, Solar would be way better.

Why? Dams are horrible for river ecosystems. Wind is stupidly expensive. Solar helps but currently is limited, and does not have a consistent output. Tell me who wants a nuclear waste storage facility within 100 miles of them?

Rather have bad river ecosystems then carbon output going up, money is no object, build more solar, new gen of fission reactors that can recycle waste.

[Fluvannia]

Ever hear of Chernobyl?

As much as people like to tout Chernobyl as the poster boy of the dangers of fission energy, the Chernobyl Disaster was the result, from what I understand as a layman, of two very important human errors: One in the design, with the fuel rods and the control rods being built together, the other with the failsafes being intentionally deactivated for a test.

Fukushima, on the other hand, might be a better example. Just saying.

Don't forget that Soviet reactor designs traditionally eschew the concrete containment domes present on Western reactor designs.

Granted, Western containment structures still might not be able to withstand the RBMK reactor's upper biological shield bouncing around the inside, given that it's a huge disk that weighs 1000 tons. Getting speculative never really helps, I suppose.

re: the main topic: Fingers crossed! I'm pretty pro-nuclear, not sure how green it is to be anti-nuclear tbh.

[Ethel mermania]

Okay but I still want fries.

I could go for some fries rn.

Why? Dams are horrible for river ecosystems. Wind is stupidly expensive. Solar helps but currently is limited, and does not have a consistent output. Tell me who wants a nuclear waste storage facility within 100 miles of them?

Rather have bad river ecosystems then carbon output going up, money is no object, build more solar, new gen of fission reactors that can recycle waste.

Money most certainly is an object. If you can't afford something, you can't have it. Someone has to pay for it, and that comes down to the ratepayers and/or taxpayers. Society may decide as a group its worth the cost, but that cost is always a consideration.

[Hurdergaryp]

Technically speaking you can recycle nuclear waste by using it to make plutonium, followed by using said plutonium to generate energy. Since plutonium is not a natural element, we can just continue manufacturing plutonium by means of recycling nuclear waste, including the nuclear waste generated by plutonium powerplants. Of course there is the minor problem of plutonium being the most deadly substance created by the human animal, but surely we could gloss over that rather lurid detail.

I would not say it is that deadly, unless you weaponize it.
And tritium makes a bigger boom.

Just have it reprocessed and overseen by the DoE.

Because they already have it and use it to make bombs, and nobody has been killed by it (well for a very long time at least..)

Repurposing the material in order to generate power seems like the more elegant solution, yes.

[Rusozak]

I like it, buuut... you really want to tempt fate with how the year has gone? Even if it won't be operational for years, it's still got that 2020 curse.

[Valrifell]

Very nice.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I could go for some fries rn.


Rather have bad river ecosystems then carbon output going up, money is no object, build more solar, new gen of fission reactors that can recycle waste.

Money most certainly is an object. If you can't afford something, you can't have it. Someone has to pay for it, and that comes down to the ratepayers and/or taxpayers. Society may decide as a group its worth the cost, but that cost is always a consideration.

It isn't with the climate involved. We need carbon free power and a mass switch to electric cars now.

[Valrifell]

You cannot really get lower than zero emissions. Nuclear is by default emission free, something no natural gas plant I am aware of could possibly be.

Except for the waste product, and any kind of disaster is well beyond the ability of a private company to pay for and handle.

This is why we'd nationalize the power grid

[Sanghyeok]

Good, I am glad France is leading the way. The rest of the world needs to follow.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Except for the waste product, and any kind of disaster is well beyond the ability of a private company to pay for and handle.

This is why we'd nationalize the power grid

This tbh. Corporations monopolies most everything, lets get rid of them. Power by the people for the people.

[Ethel mermania]

Except for the waste product, and any kind of disaster is well beyond the ability of a private company to pay for and handle.

This is why we'd nationalize the power grid

No thank you comrade.

[Ethel mermania]

This is why we'd nationalize the power grid

This tbh. Corporations monopolies most everything, lets get rid of them. Power by the people for the people.

Nuclear power and planned economy worked out great for the Ukraine.

[Valrifell]

This tbh. Corporations monopolies most everything, lets get rid of them. Power by the people for the people.

Nuclear power and planned economy worked out great for the Ukraine.

Nobody said anything about a planned economy.

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

I like it, buuut... you really want to tempt fate with how the year has gone? Even if it won't be operational for years, it's still got that 2020 curse.

You act like it's gonna vaporize all of France.

[Hurdergaryp]

Nuclear power and planned economy worked out great for the Ukraine.

Nobody said anything about a planned economy.

Don't mind Ethel, he is still fighting the Cold War in his head.