• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Those problems literally HAVE been solved.

    And are those designs in production today, or still on the drawing board?

    What percentage of reactors today have this new design that you speak of?

    the entire United States hasn’t even made enough fuel to fill a football field since we started using nuclear power.

    Citation required, because I remember them having to dig out a huge underground storage mine somewhere in the Southwest (nearby Vegas if my recollection is accurate) to handle all the waste that would be generated between all the power station reactors and all the hospitals that use radioactive devices and everything else.

    • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yes those designs are already in use today. Modern reactors are incredibly safe. The only modern disaster was Fukushima and that didn’t even cause any deaths and was brought on by a tsunami.

      And here is your source. And this is for ALL nuclear waste in the world.

      The volume of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) produced by the civil nuclear industry is small. The IAEA estimates that 392,000 tonnes of heavy metal (tHM) in the form of used fuel have been discharged since the first nuclear power plants commenced operation. Of this, the agency estimates that 127,000 tHM have been reprocessed. The IAEA estimates that the disposal volumeb of the current solid HLW inventory is approximately 29,000 m3.1 For context, this is a volume roughly equivalent to a three metre tall building covering an area the size of a soccer pitch.

      This is a good video to learn more about nuclear power and how many people misunderstand it.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Fair enough, thanks for sharing.

        So like I said, the catastrophic failure effects are my primary concern, though I am concerned about dealing with the waste product.

        Having said that, that’s still a lot of waste that your documentation is talking about, and it’ll be around for centuries. I don’t think it makes your point as well as you think it does.

        Better to have other forms of energy that doesn’t generate that sort of waste, or make sure we have one hell of a foolproof (not verified by biased corporations) of preventing that waste from getting into the environment either accidentally or on purpose/terrorism.

        • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The waste is still very much a non issue in the short term (i.e. 100 years) while we desperately need clean energy options now. And that waste is nothing compared to the billions of tons of c02 we release yearly. And we DO have ways of stopping it from getting into the environment. It’s not some new thing that they are just now figuring out. That issue was solved years ago! The storage containers they use can literally be hit by speeding freight trains and not leak. There have been almost no incidents of spent nuclear fuel causing environmental damage. I honestly think that oil companies have been gaslighting people (no pun intended) about how “dangerous” nuclear is just so they can keep building more refineries.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Got to ask and why Japan is dumping all that water into the ocean from Fukushima if it’s easy to handle and store.

            Yes, I know, they deemed it safe to do so, but still, why aren’t they just storing it instead (like they have been so far; just make new storage, there’s plenty of land, especially around where people can’t live anymore), if it’s so easy to do so, as you advocate?

            What today’s science deems as safe may be deemed as hazardous by tomorrow’s science.

            Also, transportation to the storage locations, and the maintenance of the storage locations, still an issue. Other forms of energy doesn’t have the storage of waste byproducts problem.

            I honestly think that oil companies have been gaslighting people (no pun intended) about how “dangerous” nuclear is just so they can keep building more refineries.

            Trust me I’m very anti-oil, I can’t wait for fusion to come along finally, and for solar/battery to be better and more widely used than it is today.