Comment on nuclear

• Saleh@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Can’t have a runaways reaction like the Titanic was unsinkable.

  source

  • kameecoding@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Well there is a difference between marketing and physics

    source

    • Saleh@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      If you want a reaction that you can take energy away from the reaction, the reaction needs to create more energy than it needs to maintain itself. If you fail to take that energy away, the reaction will accelerate and your output will grow even further.

      It is basic physics.

      source

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Impossible?

        www.eria.org/…/8_Ch.2-Safety-Economics-SMR.pdf

        Page 7

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Flippant “it sounds truisms” are not useful for discussion and can even spread misinformation.

    So please: explain your comment or stop repeating it

    source

    • Saleh@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      For starters we are talking about concepts, not actually built and tested Reactors. If you have any connection to scientific research, technology development or engineering, you should know that between hypothesis, laboratory testing, prototype development, technology upscaling, establishment of production lines and finally long term operation routines there is a lot that will not be like expected, has to be revised, adjusted, scrapped, redesigned…

      The history of nuclear energy is riddled with cases of hubris leading to disasters. It is evident that so far humans were unable and unwilling to give safety the proper considerations.

      But from a practical point of view anyone with some industry experience would find the idea insane, that Small and Modular systems, so high throughput of small batches would increase safety. It is much more complicated to provide Quality and Safety checks in such an environment. Especially as these would be done by multiple for profit companies, the necessary oversight would be more difficult to provide for the regulation authorities, so in the medium run we will get Boeing like situations. Just that cost cutting and mingling will lead to reactors contaminating large swaths of areas on top of potentially killing hundreds of people.

      So now you explain, why we should totally listen to the claims made by for profit cost cutting companies, that are solely based on concepts, without any actual field testing.

      Because that was exactly the Titanic situation. People believed it to be unsinkable and decided to cut on costs for emergency measures. Reality proved them wrong on the first and last voyage.

      source

      • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        For starters we are talking about concepts, not actually built and tested reactors

        Oh so you’re saying you’re completely full of shit because you’re talking about the theoretical consequences of theoretical devices that don’t even exist yet?

        source
  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    i mean, the titanic was also definitionally, not unsinkable, they just called it that.

    source
• ahornsirup@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  But Fukushima did render a fairly large area uninhabitable, and the ongoing cleanup is still costing billions every year.

  Also, there’s still no solution to nuclear waste beyond burying it and hoping that no one digs it up.

  Renewables exist, and, combined with upgrading the grid and adding sufficient storage facilities, can provide for 100% of electricity demand at all times. Without any of the risks associated with nuclear power (low as they may be, they exist), and without kicking a radioactive can down the road for hundreds of generations.

  source

  • tamal3@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    100% minus the energy requirements of AI 🫠

    source
  • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Uninhabitable? Most of the evacuations were unnecessary, and there would have been less loss-of-life if most people sheltered in-place. In the year following the event, nearby residents received less than 20% of lifetime natural background radiation, about 2 chest CT scans, or a bit more than an airline crew, and less than a heavy smoker.

    As for waste, dry casks are plenty good. The material is glassified, so it can’t leach into ground water, and the concrete casing means you get less radiation by sitting next to one, as even natural background radiation is partially blocked. Casks are also dense enough for on-site storage, needing only a small lot to store the lifetime fuel use of any plant. A pro and a con of this method is that the fuel is difficult to retrieve from the glass, which is bad for fuel reprocessing, but good for preventing easy weapons manufacturing.

    Meanwhile, coal pollution kills some 8 million people annually, and because the grid is already set up for it, when nuclear plants close they are replaced with coal or oil plants.

    Upgrading the grid is expensive, and large-scale storage is difficult, and often untested. Pumped hydro is great for those places that can manage it, but the needed storage is far greater, and in locations without damable areas. Not only would unprecidented storage be necessary, but also a grid that’s capable of moving energy between multiple focus points, instead of simply out of a plant. These aren’t impossible challenges, but the solutions aren’t here yet, and nuclear can fill the gap between decommissioning fossil fuels and effective baseline storage.

    Solar and Wind don’t have the best disposal record either, with more efficient PV cells needing more exotic resources, and the simple bulk of wind turbines making them difficult to dispose of. And batteries are famously toxic and/or explosive. Once again, these challenges have solutions, but they aren’t mature and countries will stick with proven methods untill they are. That means more fossil fuels killing more people unnecessary. Nuclear can save those people today, and then allow renewable grids to be built when they are ready.

    source
  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Also, there’s still no solution to nuclear waste beyond burying it and hoping that no one digs it up.

    what about shit like lead? Or arsenic? That shit doesn’t go away, yet we still use it all over the place, maybe not arsenic, but still lead is huge.

    source
  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    But Fukushima did render a fairly large area uninhabitable, and the ongoing cleanup is still costing billions every year.

    ironically, there has been research to determine that a lot of the initial evacuation actually exposed people to MORE radiation, than had they not evacuated, interestingly, they did see an increase in cancer rates, and what not, down the road. However, it wasn’t statistically significant compared to other stats from other places.

    So even if it did matter, it seems in terms of healthcare, it was a statistical anomaly, more than a concern.

    Plus now we have some really cool radiation detecting networks that are volunteer(?) led, it’s been a while since i’ve read into this, but these systems give us a MUCH better idea of what’s happening now with radiation, than when it happened. So if it did happen again, the results would be even better.

    source