[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 30 KB, 450x451, not this shit again.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4716314 No.4716314 [Reply] [Original]

We all know nuclear power is the most efficient way to generate power for dense population areas. Great.
What happens when your fuel rods get used up? You have to put them somewhere like Yucca Mountain where they have to sit around for 40,000 years, all the while the stockpile builds and builds.
We can't contain the meltdown from Fukushima a year later. The fallout from the eventual total meltdown of all the reactors is going to kill fucking everything.
The Germans are getting rid of nuclear power altogether, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Tell me again why LFTRs are a bad idea.

>> No.4716315

>>4716314
>hard to contain

wat

There's is so much space on the earth and we can't contain a few tons of radioactive material?

>> No.4716326

>>4716314
I refer to your image.
And call you a luddite faggot. Enjoy your coal dust. or $10/kwh green energy.

>> No.4716354

>>4716315
Are you suggesting its not worth worrying about?

>>4716326
>coal dust

Am I missing something or did you not read the last sentence?

>> No.4716364

>>4716315
>Earth
>Not being over populated

>> No.4716368

Build space elevators, send nuclear waste to sun.

>> No.4716369 [DELETED] 

>>4716364
In terms of food and space, it is actually not. The world can support many more people than it currently is doing, the problem is that resources are not equally distributed.

>> No.4716390

No one is going to tell me why LFTRs are a bad idea?

>> No.4716394

>>4716390
Because nukular is evil and killed 10k people in japan!

>> No.4716396 [DELETED] 

>>4716390
It still produces dangerous waste.

>> No.4716407

>>4716354
We get far more out of it than we lose.

Only through sacrifice can we advance.

>> No.4716409

>>4716396
The majority of its waste is safe after about a decade as opposed to nuclear fuel rods being dangerous for tens of millenniums.

>> No.4716411

>>4716407
So long as we can keep the waste byproduct contained safely and never have another accident. Otherwise its completely detrimental to large swaths of the planet.

>> No.4716414

>>4716411
True, but even if the radioactive substances somehow escape their containment it won't be forever. I see nuclear energy as simply a step on the stairs of technology. Eventually something better will be discovered but for now it will do.

>> No.4716419
File: 56 KB, 408x360, my bad rick jones.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4716419

>>4716414
I guess I did make it vague that I wanted a LFTR thread.

>> No.4716421

>We can't contain the meltdown from Fukushima a year later.
Has anyone died from radiation related to Fukushima? A single person?

>> No.4716443

>>4716421
I don't think enough time has passed to see the any significant results.

>> No.4716453

>>4716421
I'd be god damn impressed if someone died from cancer within a year of being exposed to radioactive materials. Give it a little bit, most of northern Japan will be fucked in one way or another.

>> No.4716463

>>4716453
>they'll get cancer in ten years!
nothing happens
>they'll get cancer in twenty years!
nothing happens
>they'll get cancer in fifty years!
nothing happens.
>hundred years laters
THEY'RE AL DED I TOLD U SO!

cool story bro, no please try to not hinder progress any more.

>> No.4716471
File: 90 KB, 604x453, I see you trollin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4716471

>>4716463

>> No.4716485

>>4716421
Their fertility rates dropped

>> No.4716494

>>4716421
So the answer to your question is no.
Nobody has died.
I recall when the accident happened there were threads all over /sci/ suggesting half of America would be dead from CANCER by now.
Recall those scaremongering retards who shit their pants and dosed themselves with iodine.

>> No.4716499

>>4716494
Do you understand how cancer happens from exposure to radiation?

>> No.4716501

Coming this summer!
When scientists leave their nuclear waste in a seemingly ordinary mountain it becomes The Nuclear Volcano.

>> No.4716507

>>4716314
> Tell me again why LFTRs are a bad idea.
Because they're made-up bullshit that will never happen.

>> No.4716515

>>4716499
Radiation breaks DNA, it gets repaired.
More radiation breaks it again, It gets repaired again.
Even more radiation breaks it even more, the cell kills itself.

And if this happens a hundred billion times, you might eventually damage the repair mechanism at the same time as the DNA, and the cell will then, most likely still die due to the random breakage.

And if it happens even more, one of those cells can survive and start dividing uncontrollably, which just may be a malignant division.

>> No.4716517

what about fusion instead of fission?

will we ever have the technology?

>> No.4716551
File: 873 KB, 325x203, youll never know unless you try.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4716551

>>4716507

>> No.4716642

>>4716515
Oh, a human is just a giant living cell, right ?

If not, multiply the odd a cell spread cancer by number of cells in the human body.

Oh, and multiply this by the affected population to get the number of people developping cancer.

>> No.4716653

1) lets build a fucking space bridge already
2)good bye nuclear waste

>> No.4716660

Hey guys, I just realized: Nuclear fission produces radiation, which radiates to you and initiates rapid cellular fission in your body. Am I on to something?

>> No.4716682

>>4716660
You mean, like, fission IS cancer ?

>> No.4716717

>>4716642
Human response to radiation is not a linear scale.

If you have a weak exposure and double it, you may find out that there's no increase in cancer at all, in fact it can even go the opposite direction and decrease the incidence of cancer in the populatioin due to upregulation of cell cycle regulators and repair systems.

And yes, the human body have a natural tolerance to radiation and oxidative damage and trauma and whatever else because it's entirely unavoidable.

Don't be such a bleedy fearmonger.

>> No.4716724

>>4716717
The primary danger from exposure to radiation like this is women, who made all the eggs they're going to make, and could have retarded kids.

>> No.4716734

>>4716485
You mean people from the area that was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami, lost their homes and families are somewhat less horny and likely to fuck? Whodathunkit?

>> No.4716753

>Tell me again why LFTRs are a bad idea.

But they are not, who told you that? LFTRs are a very promising reactor design.

>> No.4716757

>>4716717

>Human response to radiation is not a linear scale.
What I said holds at any radiation level.

>And yes, the human body have a natural tolerance to radiation and oxidative damage and trauma and whatever else because it's entirely unavoidable.
I never said we don't have mechanisms to counter damages to DNA.
And again, what I said holds whatever such mechanism we have.

Ok, not completely, because those mechanism (especially the body reaction) might not be the same depending where the tumor starts, , but the approximation is still quite relevant, as we are mostly muscle, skin (and fat).

>Don't be such a bleedy fearmonger.
Wut ? You mean like, let's bath in radiation, if someone said it's safe, I'm cool with it ?

>> No.4716766

LFTRs are very good reactor designs. There are downsides thorium advocates tend to overlook, but they are minor, and most of thoriumfag info is genuine. But LFTRs are not exceptional, there are multiple IV generation designs that are comparable or even better. This is why thoriumfags fixated on LFTRs are somehow annoying, it is like a sect.

>you have to put them somewhere like Yucca Mountain where they have to sit around for 40,000 years

For some breeders including LFTRs 300 years is enough.

>> No.4716768

>>4716757
You're ignorant and don't understand my arguments, but i don't have time to bicker so sure you're totally right about everything, now go fuck yourself.

>> No.4716780

It's a primitive and dangerous method of producing electricity.

Nuclear rods dipped in water to produce steam that spins turbines > electricity. Retarded.

>> No.4716951

Could we pool together all the other methods of creating electricity to just do away with nuclear energy all together? What about instituting plasma arc reactors?

>> No.4716954

>>4716766
You can tell thoriumfags are fags because the "reason" we don't have thorium reactors is basically, "People are stupid AND/OR there is a conspiracy."

>> No.4716962

>>4716314
>We can't contain the meltdown from Fukushima a year later
We could, we just don't because it's expensive and not particularly important

>The fallout from the eventual total meltdown of all the reactors is going to kill fucking everything.

dudebro any possible scenario in which all nuclear reactors melt down would be preceded by some kind of specicidal apocalyptic event

>> No.4716967

>>4716954
I'm not a thoriumfag and there are hueg problems with building a working thorium reactor -but- that's a hell of a straw man. Thorium power generation has been neglected because nuclear power was developed in a time when breeder reactors were very useful, and when the alloys required to make one even remotely feasible were not available.

>> No.4717011

>>4716314
>We can't contain the meltdown from Fukushima a year later. The fallout from the eventual total meltdown of all the reactors is going to kill fucking everything.

Last update on Fukushima was that all the reactors have been successfully shut down... so there's not going to be any "total meltdown".

What radioactive material has been released has already largely dissipated over the ocean (unlike Chernobyl which just dumped material all over central Europe) and levels reaching mainland Asia and North America are registering barely above background.

>> No.4717900

>>4716954
Conspiracy is the reason there aren't more electric cars

>> No.4717903

>>4717900
Nah, it's not a conspiracy, it's an unlawful agreement.

>> No.4718767
File: 19 KB, 525x521, homer bird.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4718767

bump

>> No.4718876

DO YOU PEOPLE KNOW WHY WE DO NOT JUST DESTROY "NUCLEAR WASTE"?

WE COULD BURY IT IN THE CHALLENGER DEEP AND NOBODY WOULD CARE BUT WE DON'T
WHY?
BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUCKING WASTE, IT'S HIGHLY EXPENSIVE AND RARE RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES THAT WE WILL BE MAKING USE OF LATER.
IT'S NOT WASTE.

>> No.4719022

>>4718876
How?
Don't say depleted uranium rounds.

>> No.4719030

>>4716314
>What happens when your fuel rods get used up?
Make more fuel rods?

>You have to put them somewhere like Yucca Mountain where they have to sit around for 40,000 years, all the while the stockpile builds and builds.
With reprocessing and "burner" reactors, we can greatly reduce the volume and longevity of existing and future waste.

>We can't contain the meltdown from Fukushima a year later.
It's contained. The radiation release apart from the short-lived iodine is laughable. The media is blowing it way out of proportions. Do some research.

>The fallout from the eventual total meltdown of all the reactors is going to kill fucking everything.
Lolno.

>The Germans are getting rid of nuclear power altogether, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Correct.

>Tell me again why LFTRs are a bad idea.
They aren't. They're like conventional LWRs, except better (assuming they will work which they probably will).

>> No.4719037

>>4716453
>Give it a little bit, most of northern Japan will be fucked in one way or another.
The radiation levels now in most of the "affected" area is well within safe limits.

If anything, some people may eventually get thyroid problems later because the government went full retard and didn't hand out iodine tablets.

>> No.4719039

>>4716507
Not sure if troll or just stupid.

>>4716517
Seems unlikely in the foreseeable future. Something about trying to contain stupidly hot plasma next to supercooled supermagnets, along with the insane neutron flux that will destroy the walls.

>> No.4719042

>>4719022

Radioactive isotopes are used in many, many medical applications and detecting devices such as X-ray machines, MRIs, detection and management of types of cancer and other diseases, as well as industrial uses in satellites and deep-space scanning tools.

>> No.4719044

>>4716642
>>4716757
Nope. The other anon is correct. LNT is bullshit. For sufficiently low doses of radiation, the natural repair mechanisms of the cell kick in to repair the damage to the DNA. When the DNA is copied, the mechanism can deal with various kinds of errors and fix it, but from the Nature paper I read IIRC, the mechanism stops working when you get 2 or more errors. Thus, the response is definitely not linear.

>> No.4719046

Don't worry guize. 1nce i figur out cold fuzionz evvrding gonn be ok.

>> No.4719047
File: 13 KB, 201x250, ttgl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4719047

>>4716780
Protip: nearly all methods of electricity generation we have involves heating a working fluid, usually water, and spinning a turbine. Even a larger portion involve spinning a turbine. The only exception in large use AFAIK is photovoltaic.

Do you have something against spinning?

>> No.4719062

>>4716954
This is why we don't have LFTRs.

1- They were bad for making nuclear weapons, so not pursued initially.
2- Rickover initially went with the known technology to outfit the US Navy, by far the biggest nuclear user.
3- This led to a surplus of people leaving the navy who also knew LWRs, which caused civilian uptake. Also, they still wanted their bombs, and civie reactors could help maybe.
4- Weinburg, the dude who held the patent on the LWR (Light Water Reactor), pushed hard for LFTR for safety. He was fired because he was going against what the current administration wanted, which was the IFR. He was seen as an impediment and an annoyance.
5- Nixon axed the "LFTR group " at ORNL because he was from Cali and wanted to give jobs to the competing nuclear group in Cali.
6- Carter outlawed all reprocessing to pay lip service to anti-profileration.
7- To start up a new kind of reactor would require massive capital investment, and a way to deal with the currently impossible arcane obscene regulations of the NRC, which of course is near impossible without government intervention.
8- And the public has always been scared of nuclear, because they don't understand it, and because rumors have been perpetuated ad nauseum for a long time now.

So, it's a little more complicated than what you make it out to be.

>> No.4719065

>>4716967
>I'm not a thoriumfag and there are hueg problems with building a working thorium reactor
Such as?

>-but- that's a hell of a straw man.
What?

>Thorium power generation has been neglected because nuclear power was developed in a time when breeder reactors were very useful,
You mean "weren't"?
>and when the alloys required to make one even remotely feasible were not available.
Hastelloy-N, look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastelloy

>> No.4719079

>>4719065

>Such as?

Currently the biggest actual flaw of the LFTR design is corrosion; the pipes and tanks require high amounts of maintenance because it's super-hot salt flowing around and the only stuff that can deal with the heat can't deal with the corrosion after awhile.

>> No.4719090

>>4719079
Why is this myth continually perpetuated? Hastelloy-N.
MSRE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
It ran for like 5 years.

At least bring up "and all the various fission products will make it nightmare" if you want to sound like not a complete idiot. It's been solved.

There are actual problems with the design. This is not one of them.

>> No.4719369

I'm glad I made this thread.

>> No.4719515

>>4719062
>1- They were bad for making nuclear weapons, so not pursued initially.

Incorrect, they weren't pursued because molten salt reactor technology was vastly different to what the rest of the National Labs were pursuing at the time. Only ORNL was doing any work on it, and that was pretty much all because of Alvin Weinberg. When he got fired, it all collapsed because no-one knew much about it and even less people higher up cared. The Molten Salt Reactor group at Oak Ridge was basically the red-headed step-sister of the National Labs family.

Commercial light water reactors are rubbish for making weapons-grade plutonium if they're used to make electricity all the time, because you have to shut them down to retrieve the irradiated fuel rods before the Pu-239 (which is weapons grade) that is bred from U-238 gets further irradiated into Pu-240 (which is useless for making good bombs).

>2- Rickover initially went with the known technology to outfit the US Navy, by far the biggest nuclear user.
>3- This led to a surplus of people leaving the navy who also knew LWRs, which caused civilian uptake. Also, they still wanted their bombs, and civie reactors could help maybe.

It was more that the companies who worked on the Navy LWRs gained most of their nuclear engineering experience with LWRs during the crash program that Rickover pursued. The fact that Navy people that left later had experience only with LWRs did help, though.

>> No.4720761

>>4719515
>Incorrect, they weren't pursued because molten salt reactor technology was vastly different to what the rest of the National Labs were pursuing at the time. Only ORNL was doing any work on it, and that was pretty much all because of Alvin Weinberg. When he got fired, it all collapsed because no-one knew much about it and even less people higher up cared. The Molten Salt Reactor group at Oak Ridge was basically the red-headed step-sister of the National Labs family.

I'm talking "Manhattan Project"-initially. Thorium breeding was not pursued because of the U232 contamination. Instead, they made bombs out of the other two possible materials, natural U235 and bred plutonium.

>> No.4720781

>>4716453
Current actuarial estimates on the increase in cancer deaths in the Fukushima area currently range from "no measurable increase" to "barely measurable increase."

>> No.4720790

>>4719090
>Why is this myth continually perpetuated? >Hastelloy-N.
Yes, the alloy that nobody makes anymore and which isn't even certified for use in reactors.

>> No.4720822
File: 13 KB, 256x256, Gentlemen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4720822

Once the waste reaches a certain threshold put it on a rocket and shoot it into the sun.

>> No.4720919

>>4720822

>Rocket blows up on lauchpad, or in the atmosphere.
>Ruh-roh.

>> No.4720926
File: 36 KB, 400x442, space elevator.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4720926

>>4720822
>>4720919

Space elevator. Just saiyan.

>> No.4721664

>>4720790
>Not manufactured anymore
Yes, and?

>Not certified
Then certify it dipshit. They had a mock of the core of a reactor running for 5 years with it. Go out and see if it actually works (and it seems like it will).

>> No.4721727

>>4721664
Yeah, we'll just have some company put a shitload of money into making an alloy that is hard as fuck to make and has exactly one maybe possible use, on the off chance it turns out to be as useful as we think it will be.

There is no way you're ever going to get a business to take that risk. And you can't exactly certify a material if there isn't enough of it to test.

>> No.4721738

>>4721727
I fully agree that the status quo seems unable and unwilling to research LFTR.

It is usually customary in discussions of policy to assume that we have some amount of fiat power. That is, after all, the entire point of having a policy conversation.

Thus, it seems reasonable fiat in this case to have the government spend ~10 billion on this, which will be more than enough to also take care of this materials problem.

For example, how I know you're an idiot, is focusing on the most inane details. For example, a much harder materials problem is the highly enriched lithium which the plans needs. The old process was to use a lot of mercury, and due to modern regulations of mercury, that seems to be much harder to pull nowadays in the US.

This complete lack of information on your part demonstrates that you are either a troll, or an idiot out of your league. Which, I'm not sure.

>> No.4721745

>>4721727
Also, if you're the same anon (maybe?) it would do you well to not jump point to point. You look as if you're throwing shit at the wall, hoping something sticks, out of sheer animosity.

>> No.4721785

>>4721664 Then certify it dipshit. They had a mock of the core of a reactor running for 5 years with it. Go out and see if it actually works (and it seems like it will).

Not continuously and certainly not without shitloads of human intervention and maintenance.

>> No.4721792

>>4716314 We can't contain the meltdown from Fukushima a year later

You're buying into and perpetuating the anti nuclear disinformation surrounding that event.

Good job faggot.

>> No.4721796

>>4721785
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
>During the next 15 months, the reactor was critical 80% of the time, with runs of 1, 3, and 6 months that were uninterrupted by a fuel drain.

>> No.4721808

>>4719090 Why is this myth continually perpetuated? >Hastelloy-N.
>MSRE
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
>It ran for like 5 years.
Why is this myth continually perpetuated? Hastelloy-N.
MSRE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
It ran for like 5 years.

Surface defects in much less than 1000 hours of service. They need Hastelloy-n "and then some".

Plucking a number like "10 billion" out of the sky and saying problems can easily be overcome with that cash is retarded. You're forgetting you're practically inventing an entirely new industry from the ground up and you need people which means headhunting from the already pretty thin nuclear industry.

Good luck.

>> No.4721813

>>4721808
Yea, they added some molybdenum IIRC to help with some issues.

Thus far, I can sum up all of your posts as:
>It's new, and it's hard, so we shouldn't do it.

Shut up and go somewhere else, faggot. Or at least make salient points.

>> No.4721978

>>4721813

You're underestimating the difficulty and the vast resources required to announce a space race style LFTR investment. Maybe I'm generalising you because of previous posters but get your dicks out of a twist, learn to be patient and do something useful that will help achieve your goal. I'm possibly being too conservative but I'm not convinced by LFTR yet.

We will be seeing, in the next few years, the developments coming from China and India on their efforts into thorium power. Over the next 20-40 years we will be in a better position to judge the usefulness of thorium against other nuclear technologies.

Don't forget we already have too few nuclear scientists and engineers working on the wide range of different nuclear options (Gen III + Gen IV).

>> No.4722060

>>4721978
India, while pursuing thorium, is doing a more conventional light water reactor approach, not a liquid salt fuel approach, thus losing most of the point.

As for China, they've said they're doing anything and everything nuclear, and we shall see.

I'm not saying it won't be hard, but we've had a prototype of the core with uranium running for years, and they've solved most of the problems. As this seems to be the best bet to solve for energy security and global warming, I think we should be doing it. IFR too. Build some more conventional nukes in the meantime, like CANDUs and LWRs.

>> No.4722946
File: 33 KB, 384x362, 1331166283808.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722946

>>4716314

Lotta people are skipping the last line. Maybe because you said "LFTRs" instead of "Liquid-Flouride Thorium Reactors"

> what happens when your fuel rods get used up?
Same as when any other fuel materials get used up. You go get more.
> You have to put them somewhere.
Yup, and if you're using fission reactors, you get to choose where to put them, unlike reactors that burn hydrocarbons.
> they have to sit around for 40,000 years
And in about 400 years we'll be glad we kept them when we find a new use for the materials.
> We can't contain the meltdown from Fukushima
That's a lie and you know it.
> The fallout from the eventual total meltdown of all reactors...
You might as well talk about the ash from burning down all the forests, or the bloodshed from shooting every single person on Earth, or the cities that burn down because of the megajoules of electricity running in wires. The shit you're saying here is why the TSA gets to shove their gloved hand up everyone's asshole because "eventually everybody riding an aeroplane is a terrorist."
> The Germans are getting rid of nuclear power altogether..
Sadly, true. They're building plenty of coal-firing power plants to replace them. So instead of radioactive materials in fuel rods that can be contained and transported, they're gonna spew it into the air and blanket the whole country.
> Tell me again why Liquid-Flouride Thorium Reactors are a bad idea.
I can't help you there; I ask the same question.

>> No.4724310

Got back online. LFTR bump.

>> No.4724353
File: 9 KB, 263x297, come on son.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4724353

OP here

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-japan-nuclear-idUSBRE84P0DQ20120526

Alright, then.

I'm still concerned about the idea that LFTRs are too expensive and untested to sink funding into. How is it ever a bad idea to put money into researching a safer option for long term energy production? I really don't want to suggest its because you can't empty it out when you're done and shoot it at Iraqis, but I'm not seeing any other reasons.

>> No.4724358

>>4724353
I explained why quite clearly here:
>>4719062
(Oh, and the non-zero but probably very small chance that it's as hard as fusion to make work.)

>> No.4724378

>>4724358
To continue, don't underestimate the public's gross incompetence in fearmongering nuclear, and don't underestimate the huge economic inertia of the light water reactors. Here, let me try to sell LFTR to a hypothetical investor:

>So, there's this great new tech that could very well solve for global warming.
>Solving global warming, where's the profit?
>None, of course. Especially if the world's nations don't put carbon taxes in place. But, it has the potential still even to be cheaper than coal!
>Well, that's good. What's the difficulties?
>Reasonable estimates put it at 20~ years at the earliest that full commercial LFTR could come online.
>Oh, what's standing in our way?
>Huge public sentiment against it, a stupidly large bureaucracy in the US that would kill our project dead unless we get the public - who's against us mind you - to elect politicians to do near-political suicide to change those regulations.
>Ok, that's sounding bad. However, if we spend the money, and get the regulations fixed, it's a sure bet, right?
>Oh, probably. There's a small chance it won't work, despite all of the individual pieces tested individually. Well, ok, there's a couple problems to be worked out. For example, the 2 fluid solution has a "plumbing problem" to be worked out. You see, we need a sufficiently strong material to separate the core fluid and the breeder blanket that also doesn't take too many neutrons, can stand up to the neutron flux, and isn't destroyed in the rather unfriendly environment of fluoride salts and a bunch of random fission products.
>Sounds bad.
>It is, but we can probably solve it. We have a couple ideas floating around.

>> No.4724383

>>4724378
tl;dr version:
Why would any investor want to spend a /shitton/ of money on something that requires national politicians to work against public sentiment, has a significant (but small) risk of not working, and the return on investment is like 30 to 50 years away? What sane self-interested investor would do that? None that I know, including myself. This is a stupid investment for someone in the private sector who is investing for himself. This is instead an investment for the world, and for our children.

>> No.4724543

>This is instead an investment for the world, and for our children.
This is my main point. I just didn't want to sound like a hippy in from of /sci/, they're kind of mean.

>> No.4724587

>>4716368
go one better, build suns on the earth. you can inject radioactive fission byproducts into TOKAMAK-style fusion reactors, forcing them to continue undergoing fission, decaying them into stable (safe) materials and getting a net energy gain in the process. It's estimated just a handful of tokamaks could consume the entire nuclear waste stockpile of the earth in a few short years.

So, when people talk about STORING WASTE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, they're talking absolute shit. We'd need to store waste for a century or two at the most. That might seem like a lot, but take a drive through any post-industrial nation and you'll still find, centuries on, massive pits and scars on the land from where we dug open cast mines and never bothered to fix the damage, or take a drive past an air base and see if you can't see the big "BIOHAZARD" signs warning you that we just dumped thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons into the ground during the cold war. We routinely do century-scale damage to the environment with few, if any, negative effects.

>> No.4725040

All these threads about Fukushima, better bump this one just to make it overwhelming.

>> No.4727116

Also, LFTR bump.

>> No.4728368
File: 26 KB, 500x441, SaltShaker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4728368