Comment on Reactor goes brrr

• azulavoir@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Existing crude power is worse at most of these

  source

  • Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    What is “crude power”?

    source

    • azulavoir@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Coal/oil/gas

      source

      • Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        People arguing against nuclear power for it’s cost, unclear timlines, usually don’t argue for coal, oil and gas.
        Wind and solar are cheaper, continue to get cheaper and can be built within years, not decades.

        Also, renewables are a proven technology while proposals for new nuclear reactor tech are often never been deployed successfully (as in running continuously and actually contributing to the grid).

        Also, it’s not even that stable. France had to import power from Germany’s (renewables) because half of their nuclear reactors were failing in 2022. [1]

        [1] www.nytimes.com/2022/…/nuclear-power-france.html

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Nuclear waste. Long term storage of said waste

  Solved issue, caskets can be stored above ground and take up very little space, buried if it starts to take up too much surface space

  Dependence on raw materials that are only available in a few places

  Thorium rather than uranium fuel solves this

  Lack of economic viability

  Just not true

  Lack of clear timelines for development of new technologies

  Also not true

  Oh, and the old blowy uppy thing, of course.

  Seriously not an issue these days, we don’t build them and run them like the Soviet Union did anymore

  source

  • Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    If you think nuclear waste is a “solved issue” you just show how little you understand the subject matter. So you’re going to store nuclear waste above ground for a couple of millennia? How’s that going to work out? And thorium reactors might some day become a viable technology. But that is at best decades away. That is not a solution for any present day problem. And what about all those old and aging legacy reactors that are being kept running beyond their design lifespan? Surely nothing can go wrong there.

    But it doesn’t matter. Despite all the irrational exuberance of the nukebros it’s just not going to happen. The economics were never there and still aren’t.

    source

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      So you’re going to store nuclear waste above ground for a couple of millennia?

      Literally yes, it’s not just left out in the open air, they’re stored in specialized containers that use inert gas and concrete to block the radiation from getting out. They can also then be buried beneath the ground for extra protection

      And thorium reactors might some day become a viable technology. But that is at best decades away.

      It is most certainly not decades away at best unless fear mongering managed to slow research more than it already has done, but that’s not an issue with the technology at all

      And what about all those old and aging legacy reactors that are being kept running beyond their design lifespan? Surely nothing can go wrong there.

      You update them, which is how they’re operating beyond their initial designed lifespan. Current idea in the field is to replace aging uranium reactors with molten thorium as they’re apparently pretty simple to convert over

      To quote you on this topic:

      you just show how little you understand the subject matter

      source

      • Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        You’re telling me humanity will able to manage nuclear waste for hundreds to thousands of years, given the fall of multiple great societies over the last few thousand years?

        It’s not even a solved problem how to communicate danger with signs[1], and you think knowledge about where nuclear waste is being stored will be preserved for a thousand years?

        I really envy you for your optimism in humanity.

        [1] youtu.be/lOEqzt36JEM

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • lost_faith@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    An interesting watch: Thorium Reactors

    source

    • roguetrick@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I didn’t watch the whole thing but his dismissal of uranium 233 as “hard” to turn into a bomb is flat out wrong. It has many of the properties of plutonium 239 and would be perfectly fine for an implosion fusion/fission device. You just need to chemically reprocess the fuel from a reactor to get it, just like they did with plutonium. The first Soviet fusion bomb was uranium 233 for christ sakes. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233

      source