(March 11, 2022 at 5:52 am)pocaracas Wrote: Hehe.... sure, give every small town some weapons grade uranium and see how well that goes.

Power plants don't get weapons grade fuel.

There is a HUGE difference in the purity level.

---

(March 11, 2022 at 5:59 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Like fossil fuels, nuclear fuel is non-renewable.  It's just another short-term fix.

Decades versus (at least) centuries.

(March 11, 2022 at 6:28 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(March 11, 2022 at 5:52 am)pocaracas Wrote: Hehe.... sure, give every small town some weapons grade uranium and see how well that goes.

Decades versus (at least) centuries.

So what? Assume 1,000 years; a drop in the bucket to the lifetime of human civilization, if it lasts. Is all the radioactive byproducts that will last for hundreds of thousands of years worth it?? In my opinion, no way.

---

(March 11, 2022 at 6:22 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(March 11, 2022 at 5:59 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Like fossil fuels, nuclear fuel is non-renewable.  It's just another short-term fix.

True. But it's cleaner. And it may help us meet energy demands until we get renewable energy going worldwide. All while not negatively impacting climate change.

In the short run, maybe, assuming no natural disasters; in the long run, see above.

(March 11, 2022 at 8:46 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 11, 2022 at 6:28 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Decades versus (at least) centuries.

So what?  Assume 1,000 years; a drop in the bucket to the lifetime of human civilization, if it lasts.  Is all the radioactive byproducts that will last for hundreds of thousands of years worth it??  In my opinion, no way.

---

The actual amount of highly radioactive material is quite low. And the lower level stuff is less dangerous overall than a lot of the stuff emitted by conventional plants.
People tend to freak out about radioactivity, but you get more from a stone wall than you would get from most man-made sources. And definitely more if you ever fly in an airplane.

Either a thousand years is long compared to the life of a civilization, or the civilization lives long enough to progress well beyond having any justification for freaking out about nuclear waste.

(March 11, 2022 at 9:48 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Either a thousand years is long compared to the life of a civilization, or the civilization lives long enough to progress well beyond having any justification for freaking out about nuclear waste.

Not interested. No new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States since the 70s, and I hope that such will continue to be the case.

(March 11, 2022 at 10:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 11, 2022 at 9:48 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Either a thousand years is long compared to the life of a civilization, or the civilization lives long enough to progress well beyond having any justification for freaking out about nuclear waste.

Not interested.  No new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States since the 70s, and I hope that such will continue to be the case.

That’s a personal preference, not a justification for the position in light of known realities and stated objectives.

Also, the idea that no new nuclear plants have been built in the US since the 70s is false.  2 are being built right now.

Well. I stand corrected then.

I think that it is unfortunate, but, that's just my opinion.

Also worth noting, America’s entire nuclear power program has made about as much waste in 60 years as the average coal plant emits in less than an hour. Yes, you read that correctly, our entire fleet of nuclear power plants creates .0002% of the waste of a single coal plant.

And the kicker is that a lot of that waste (96%, specifically) can still be recycled. and we know this because France has been doing exactly that for decades.

(March 12, 2022 at 12:23 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Also worth noting, America’s entire nuclear power program has made about as much waste in 60 years as the average coal plant emits in less than an hour. Yes, you read that correctly, our entire fleet of nuclear power plants creates .0002% of the waste of a single coal plant.

And the kicker is that a lot of that waste (96%, specifically) can still be recycled. and we know this because France has been doing exactly that for decades.

Renewable energy is even safer. You can replace the 200+ coal plants in the US with nuclear; it will only delay the inevitable, even by 1,000 years, but, such will still come, eventually. In the process many tons and tons of nuclear waste will be produced that will need to be safely stored for the next quarter of million years. And, that presupposes that none of that waste will escape back into the environment.

In any case, carbon emissions continue to rise, up 2.5 ppm over last year, and so, nuclear power isn't reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which continue to rise.

And, unfortunately, renewable energy sources aren't as practical as we might like.