Atom Energy

[Anonymous No.5483685]

Is the main argument against Atomic Energy, that we have no safe method of disposing of the dangerous wastes, true?

I attempt to form an opinion on the matter but am too ignorant. Please share your thoughts, opinions, and facts

[Anonymous No.5483704]

We can put it in a mountain but for some reason people are retarded and think this can't work.

[Anonymous No.5483712]

>>5483704
>We can put it in a mountain
That seems kind of unorderly though. Like sweeping dirt under the rug

[Anonymous No.5483715]

>>5483712
It's more like putting the dirt in the most high-tech ziplock bag we have to ensure it never comes out, then sweeping it under the rug, and then nailing the edges of the rug to the floor so the bag of dirt can't get out.

[Anonymous No.5483723]

>>5483715
I see. So there aren't any other viable options other than 'store it safely where it can never escape'?
There is no 'destroy for good'?

What about not producing it in the first place?

[Anonymous No.5483731]

>>5483715

we could just throw it into the sun, but the risk of the rocket exploding and releasing the contents of the cask into the atmosphere prevents that. (even though those casks are made to withstand anything short of a nuclear bomb going off next to it)
also expensive.

[Anonymous No.5483735]

>>5483723

There are other options, but those mostly apply to the newer technologies which would cost a lot of money to implement in a new plant (but then would cost extremely little to maintain), but nobody (in America) can get funding for them because of the uneducated nuclearphobic public who hear the word nuclear or radiation and get a fear boner.

Also, on not producing: That would be ideal, but the problem is, if you don't produce the nuclear waste, then you're going to have to make the electricity another way, which will either produce a lot of greenhouse gases (which are just released into the air and NOT swept under any metaphorical rug), or be prohibitively expensive.

Nobody would support nuclear power if solar/wind wwere economically feasible (in terms of money and land use), but they currently aren't, so Nuclear fission tech is a very good bridge technology to temporarily use until we can make something better (like Fusion or tidal or geothermal or better solar)

[Anonymous No.5483744]

>>5483731

i second launching them into the sun. just seems so bad ass.

if the damn casks can withstand being t-boned by a rocket powered train i think it can survive a fall at terminal velocity.

[Anonymous No.5483749]

>>5483735
>then you're going to have to make the electricity another way
Do you mean a different method within a Atomic Power Plant, or a different type of Power Plant entirely?

Also, thanks for the information

[Anonymous No.5483756]

>>5483731
>>5483744

Typical western mind set. Send our trash off for other people to deal with.

[Anonymous No.5483762]

>>5483756
yes, the sun-people

[Anonymous No.5483788]

>>5483749

Generally using a different power plant altogether, as no economically viable nuclear tech exists which produces NO waste (however a lot of them produce useful waste; see breeder reactors)

Speaking of economic viability, while I don't have a source on this, common sense says that the cost of materials, labor, fuel, etc to launch waste and shit far enough to be out of our orbit would probably cost a lot more in money and energy than that waste produced in the first place. I could be wrong, though.

[Anonymous No.5483793]

>>5483735

>then you're going to have to make the electricity another way

Adding onto this (my) previous statement; or you could just use less electricity.

I forgot to mention this before, because it'll never happen.

[Anonymous No.5483808]

>>5483762

[Anonymous No.5483828]

1. a lot of the high level waste will be reused in the future as more fuel for newer reactor designs

2. there are multiple sotrage facilitys being made at the moment, (off the top of my head, 2 in usa, 2 in germany, 1 in finland)

3. considering the rapid speed of technology advancments, leaving it to future generations isnt that bad of an idea- by then we will have materials that can cheaply, more effectively encase the materials or other solutions not possible with current technology (safe space elevator perhaps)

[Anonymous No.5484050]

Well, I dont know how it is for the rest of the world but in Germany the taxpayer has to pay for handling the waste, not the energy companies who praise nuclear power for being so cheap. Which is fucking outrageous.

The main reason why people don't like nuclear power though is because they're ignorant, uninformed and generally afraid of radiation because it's unnatural or whatever.

[Anonymous No.5484060]

>>5484050
That IS bullshit. No wonder they abhor nuclear so fucking much.

[Anonymous No.5484066]

>>5484050
Um...If the energy company pays for it, who do you think they are going to charge for it? You think they are going to take a hit on profits, or pass the charge on to the customer (taxpayer)?

No matter what, the taxpayer pays for it in the end, because, no matter what the taxpayer is the only creator of wealth. So don't sweat the semantics, just revel in your cheap and safe(ish) power, germanbro.

[Anonymous No.5484082]

>>5484066

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/30/germany-nuclear-power-plant-shut-down_n_868786.html

They won't be able to for long

[Anonymous No.5484084]

>>5483731
So we have to make it less expensive!

[Anonymous No.5484098]

>>5483685
What's the source on that pic?

[Anonymous No.5484103]

>>5484084
>>5483731
This. The heavier something is, the more it costs to get it into space. And nuclear waste is heavy shit.

[Anonymous No.5484106]

>>5484098
Do a google reverse image search.

[Anonymous No.5484111]

>>5484103

Really? Graphite is heavy as shit? I didn't know that nuclear moderators gained that much weight from absorbing neutrons...

[Anonymous No.5484117]

>>5483685
Spread it thinly over a large area.

Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.5484126]

>>5484111

Depleted Uranium is very heavy.

[Anonymous No.5484134]

>>5484111
So when they say "nuclear waste" all they're talking about is the graphite for moderating the reaction? What about the fission products?Are you saying they're not trying to get rid of that stuff?

[Anonymous No.5484173]

>>5484126

U-238 is a byproduct of isotope separation, not nuclear fission reactions. The majority of natural uranium is U-238 (99.27%). After a half life or two, U-238 will decay into U-235 which is fissile which is WHAT IT WOULD BE DOING ANYWAY IF WE LEFT IT IN THE GROUND. Why would we launch our future's nuclear fuel into space? Moderators and control rods are what is actually considered nuclear waste because once they absorb neutrons they can no longer serve there purpose in the reactor. Further, these are what make nuclear reactors dangerous because when they explode (Chernobyl) this material can be ejected into the atmosphere. The corium remains in the reactor or melts through to below where it can cause a secondary explosion when it reaches the water table (the Fukushima Daiichi threat).

>>5483685

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors. Unpressurized, no isotope separation because thorium only comes in one isotope, fuel is abundant like uranium except is currently a waste product of rare earth metal mining...See the yubtub videos for more propaganda.

[Anonymous No.5484190]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal

Much cheaper, safer, and easier. I honestly don't know why we're fucking around with WIPP and Yucca mountain.

[Anonymous No.5484194]

>>5483793
>or you could just use less electricity.
>because it'll never happen.

Well you're not wrong.

[Anonymous No.5484198]

>>5484173

Nuclear Fuel is still mostly 238. It's not enriched to pure 235.

[Anonymous No.5484203]

Outrageous calls for nuclear energy have echoed in the halls of Washington.

This is the worst possible thing that we can do, falsely, dumbly, in the name of so-called "Green Power."

Based on personal experience, here are the reasons:

1. The volts produced by nuclear reactors are too big to fit inside the power lines, and they never reach their destination. Instead, they leak out onto the desert sands, and kill the native life - mostly endangered species like the spotted owl.

2. The volts are square instead of round, like the other kind of volts made in natural ways. The square nature of the volts, makes them have to work lots harder and they cannot get through the smart meters now being installed by electric companies. This means they will pile up in the meters and report false useage and we will have to pay for what we didn't even receive. It's a plot, folks.

3. Nuclear Volts make your stereo sound funny.

4. Nuclear volts get into your toaster and make it burn your toast, no matter how low you set the appliance.

5. Sometimes at night, during the winter, the nuclear volts seep out of the outlets, onto the floor and burn your bare feet when you go to the bathroom.

6. Sometimes nuclear volts make your alarm clock run backwards, and you wake up the day before you went to bed.

7. Nuclear volts sometimes come out of the water faucets, and make your water spurt out of the light bulb sockets.

Just say "no" to nuclear energy.

[Anonymous No.5484206]

>>5484203
>nuclear volts

[Anonymous No.5484207]

I'll just leave this here. First 5 minutes is the tl;dr of the video. If you're interested at all in this you'll probably find yourself watching all 2 hours.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

[Anonymous No.5484227]

>>5484198

Touche sales man...

[Anonymous No.5484244]

We could use a photomultiplier a couple of times and then interference a couple of times and use a solar panel with a really high energy band to collect all of the radiation given off by it.

[Anonymous No.5484266]

>>5484203
4/10

[Anonymous No.5484306]

>>5484203
Fuck off mtp

[Anonymous No.5484311]

>>5483685
Wow. It's surprising to see someone willing to admit they're ignorant and on top of that, willing to learn.

>Is the main argument against Atomic Energy, that we have no safe method of disposing of the dangerous wastes, true?

I don't know if I'd say that is the main argument, but it is not true.

The waste produced by nuclear power plants is dangerous, yes. But how many people have been killed by nuclear waste, and how many have been killed by air pollution from oil/gas?

The simple fact is that nuclear waste is highly concentrated and low in quantity. All the nuclear waste produced worldwide could be stored in a single location. That's without re-processing it into more usable fuel. [Do that and you reduce the waste even further.]

[Anonymous No.5484312]

>>5484266
>>5484206

not realizing stale copypasta

[Anonymous No.5484649]

>not dumping all the waste in vulcanoes

[Anonymous No.5484670]

>>5483756

mfw this statement

[Anonymous No.5484695]

>>5484190
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal

the problem is that it is still on the earth. Non-organic material degrades over time. the mindset of "lets just bury it using a method that will work for at least 500 years. by then im sure humans would have worked out how to get rid of it properly is doing it wrong in the worst possible way.

[Anonymous No.5484712]

>>5484695
Because half-life is not a real thing and nuclear waste doesn't become less dangerous over time.

Protip: if it's highly active, it becomes less dangerous really fast, if it's less active, it's not very dangerous in the first place and will become less so as it gets diluted.

[Anonymous No.5484732]

Can't we just pour lots of cold water on it to make it safe?

[Anonymous No.5484735]

>>5484712
>implying the 24,000 year half life of pu-239 is a short time.

[Anonymous No.5484751]

>>5484735
>implying you didn't read the word 'diluted'
Also, Pu-239 is a useful isotope, if there's dangerous amounts of it in the waste, someone will figure out a way (if there already isn't) to get it out of the waste.

[Anonymous No.5484753]

>>5483685

There are a variety of methods for disposing of nuclear waste, beyond simply sweeping it under the rug (or mountain, as it were).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_disposal#Management_of_waste

[Anonymous No.5484757]

>>5484732

they already do that.

there really is no mass storage center, so many nuclear facilites store it on site in huge storage pools laced with boron. but even the storage space of these pools is finite.
the rods must be spaced apart far enough to prevent a reaction from occurring. but now you have added another problem, Where to put the contaminated water.

[Anonymous No.5484789]

I recommend the documentary "Into Eternity" for anyone interested in nuclear waste management. Really interesting stuff and raises good questions too.

[Anonymous No.5484811]

>>5483685

there is no "main" argument against atomic energy

there is only fear.

fear of the unknown.

people are fucking terrified of radiation, but they understand amost nothing about it.

liquid flouride thorium reactors could power the entire planet for thousands of years, and consume almost all the current nuclear waste, with no carbon emissions, and they would be 100% safe.

the amount of radioactive waste produced by liquid flouride thorium reactors is so small, that it would be cost effective to launch the waste into space on chemical rockets.

but we would be able to use liquid flouride thorium reactors as power sources in spacecraft, which would open up the solar system for MANNED exploration and colonisation.

but it wont happen, because irrational faggots who are terrified of anything with the word "nuclear" or "radiation" in it, will never allow it to happen, and they are too fucking stupid to learn the truth about nuclear technologies, that SOME are dangerous and SOME are PERFECTLY SAFE.

SAFER THAN COAL AND GAS.

tl;dr - fuck stupid people.

[Anonymous No.5484823]

>>5484811

but... muh 503c non-profit!

fear of the unknown is right. Galileo was jailed for bucking the trend.

[Anonymous No.5484828]

>>5484111
>>5484134

"nuclear waste" refers to the reaction products of the fission itself. the extremely unstable isotopes that are a direct product of the fission.

the other products are largely harmless, and graphite moderators are obsolete technology.

and the cost of transporting the volatile radioactive waste into space, is still economically viable, due to the tiny amount of it.