the waste it produces is highly problematic.
It’s a solved problem. www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU
Comment on Anon questions our energy sector
Hugohase@startrek.website 4 weeks agoYes, but energy density doesn’t matter for most applications and the waste it produces is highly problematic.
rtxn@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Remotedeck@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
If something is Nuclear enough it can generate heat, its just the reactors make use of an actual reaction that nuclear waste can’t do anymore. Yever watch the Martian, he has a generator that’s fuel is lead covered beads of radioactive material, it doesn’t generate as much as reactors but it’s still a usable amount.
rtxn@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
If something is Nuclear enough it can generate heat
That’s an extreme oversimplification. RTGs don’t use nuclear waste. Spent reactor fuel still emits a large amount of gamma and neutron radiation, but not with enough intensity to be useful in a reactor. The amount of shielding required makes any kind of non-terrestrial application impossible.
The most common RTG fuel is ^238^Pu, which emits mostly alpha and beta particles, and can be used with minimal shielding. It can’t be produced by reprocessing spent reactor fuel. In 2024, only Russia is manufacturing it.
^90^Sr can be extracted from nuclear fuel, and was used by early Soviet RTGs, but only terrestrially because the gamma emission requires heavy shielding. Strontium is also a very reactive alkaline metal. It isn’t used as RTG fuel today.
StrongHorseWeakNeigh@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Ooops@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
“85% of used fuel rods can be recycled” is like “We can totally capture nearly all the carbon from burning fossil fuels and then remove the rest from the atmosphere by other means”.
In theory it’s correct. In reality it’s bullshit that will never happen because it’s completely uneconomical and it’s just used as an excuse to not use the affordable technology we already have available and keep burning fossil fuels.
StrongHorseWeakNeigh@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Gullible@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
They’re saying that plausible uses don’t necessarily translate to real world use, in practice. I have no stake in this, just translating
Ooops@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Fossil fuel lobbyists know very well that their business model is running into a dead end. So now their goal is to extend it as long as possible.
Today’s fossil fuel propaganda isn’t “Climate change from CO₂ isn’t real” anymore. It’s “We can totally fix this with carbon capturing later”, “Renewables are actually bad for the environment” and “Better don’t build renewables now as a much better solution will be available soon™ <insert SMRs or any other fairy tale how new reactor will totally be cheap and not producing waste here>”. Yet it’s not happening. Nuclear is uneconomically expensive and produces toxic waste we actually don’t know how to handle safely for the amounts of time it stays toxic.
Nuclear basically only has a very limited amount of fake arguments constantly used in variations of the same chain:
“Nuclear is perfectly safe!”
“That’s not the problem. The problems are the massive costs and the waste.”
“But we can recycle most of the waste. Also renewables produce so much waste, too.”
“But you actually don’t do it because it’s very expensive and makes nuclear power even less economicallly viable. Also how is recycling wind-turbine blades and solar-panels unrealistic but recycling nuclear waste is not?”
“But nuclear would be economically viable and so much cheaper if it wasn’t so over-regulated.”
“It’s only perfectly safe because it’s highly regulated.”
“<Inserts insults about you being brain-washed to fear nuclear power here>, also they will totally become much cheaper with SMRs any day now…”
In the end it’s always the same story. Nuclear might be safe but it is insanely expensive and produces radioactive waste. No, the fact that you can theoretically recycle the waste doesn’t matter, because you don’t do it. No, it will not become cheap magically soon. And no it is not expensive because it’s highly regulated because without those regulations we can start at the top again and talk about how safe it is.
There are only two reasons to pretend otherwise: you work in nuclear power and need to sell your product or you work in fossil fuels and need to keep the discussion up so people keep talking instead of actually working to get rid of them. And the nuclear industry and lobby is actually not that massive compared to the fossil fuel one. So it’s very clear where the vast majority of nuclear fan boys get their talking points. Have you ever thought about the fact why pro-nuclear is so massively over-represented on social media? 😉
marcos@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Capturing all the extra carbon from the atmosphere is not as expensive as it sounds like. It can easily be done by a few rich countries in very few decades once we stop adding more there every day.
Recycling nuclear waste is one of those problems that should be easy but nobody knows what the easy way looks like. It’s impossible to tell if some breakthrough will make it viable tomorrow or if people will have to work for 200 years to get to it. But yeah, currently it’s best described as “impossible”.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
What?
For starters, carbon capture takes an insane amount of power. And to follow up: we couldn’t even build the facilities is “a few decades” even if we free power and infinite money.