h a l f b a k e r yIncidentally, why isn't "spacecraft" another word for "interior design"?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Nuclear waste is a big reason the anti nuclear lobby purports to be anti nuclear power. As a theoretical, what would be the argument against diluting the waste to the radioactive level the originally mined ore was found in and returning it to where you found it?
Again, this is just a thought experiment
but would there be an argument against this? Any nuke scientists out there that can evaluate this? Is there something in the process of mining uranium oar, processing it, powering nuclear power plants and then diluting it with inert substances like sand or whatever that would make it more dangerous that it was when it was just there in the ground? Seems like after you used the nuclear bits it would be less radioactive and easier to grind up, mix with even the original tailings and just put it back where you dug it up.
Obviously this is more of a question than an idea.
Hmm, those 3 its in a column are kind of interesting.
Somewhere in here you'll find brief mention of what the french do.
https://youtu.be/96...si=MI4zT0r-b7mQ7_d5
Which leaves negligible amounts of waste at the end that really shouldn't be a big deal to find somewhere to put. [Skewed, Aug 25 2024]
Build nuclear reactors? Yea right. Like those guys who want me to get on one of these.
https://www.album-o...908-when-alb3804039
Planes are dangerous, not gonna catch me in one. I don't care if they make them out of titanium, aluminum or bricks for that matter. They're death traps. [doctorremulac3, Aug 25 2024]
Worth watching.
https://rumble.com/...ear-scare-scam.html
[doctorremulac3, Aug 27 2024, last modified Aug 28 2024]
[link]
|
| |
Dilute it? why? .. just use it, most of it can be reprocessed and used in reactors again, you'd literally be burying usable fuel, like digging coal up and then burying most of it back where you found it, after you burnt a small fraction of it < the french have the right idea .. just bury the very small fraction you eventually end up left with somewhere deep, plenty of holes in the ground we already dug < anywhere that's not geologically active where it can't leak into the water table will do .. I strongly suspect that it's just not really the problem most think it is, like global warming, specifically carbon release ;p |
|
| |
Sk, we're on the same page, I'm very pro nuclear power but I was looking at an anti-nuke site and their main reason for not wanting these (they say) is because all that nuclear waste will cause Godzillas to pop out of the ocean. |
|
| |
So this would be a thought experiment to begin the discussion, say if it WERE possible to return the waste back to its natural state safely would you support that? If they say no then you can pretty much assume it's not criticism of the system they're talking about it's just some sort of cultural thing. |
|
| |
4th gen plants really are a necessity and we've got so much bad info out there it's gonna be hard to do what we have to do to keep the lights on without burning coal which releases a hell of a lot more radioactivity into the air than modern design nuclear power plants. |
|
| |
So this should probably be put under "social:debate" more than where I put it. |
|
| |
Changed this to "public:debate" which is more appropriate. |
|
| |
To be clear, the idea isn't to actually do this, proposing this as a theoretical would be like a test to see if you can establish enough of a Venn diagram overlap to get a discussion going. |
|
| |
But I don't want this to get off track. The proposition is, if we COULD do it practically would it be agreeable? And it's a thought experiment to break through any brick walls between anti and pro nuclear power people. |
|
| |
But for me it would be a test to see if they're even worth talking too. |
|
| |
//parts of the reactor, coolants, etc// |
|
| |
Secondary radioactive waste that is something like 90% or more of all the waste produced by operating nuclear reactors, as I understand it that stuff typically takes at most a couple hundred years or less to reach safe levels of radioactivity. |
|
| |
Most of Chernobyl and the stuff left lying around it falls into this category and is reasonably safe to visit or stand around or near for relatively brief periods even now so soon after the event. |
|
| |
They even do tourist trips to the place now and it's only been decades. |
|
| |
Ergo a long way from an unmanageable problem that'll persist, and need to be sequestered, for millennia. |
|
| |
There's also the reductio ad absurdum, embrace and amplify pursuasion. |
|
| |
If somebody says nuclear reactors are dangerour citing Chernobyl say "I know right? It's like those crazies that want us to fly around on airplanes, like I'm gonna get in one of these crazy contraptions." Then show them the picture of the crashed Wright Flier in the link and let them say "Well, actually that's old technology. They're much safer now." |
|
| |
Then just get a look of shock on your face and say "Really? Hmm. Maybe technology does get safer with improvements over time." |
|
| |
Then they'll hug you and thank you for helping them see things differently because people love you when you do that. There's no two words in the English language that will engender instant friendship more than "Well... actually..." |
|
| |
But seriously, can't give up. We have a civilization that needs electricity and we can't have mysticism level nonsense regarding decisions that are this important. |
|
| |
I've got nothing I just wanted to see if it set you off. |
|
| |
Tell me more about this uranium oar. That's gotta be quite the rowing experience! |
|
| |
Well actually, I like being corrected. It's a little embarrassing sometimes but you end up with better understanding of stuff. |
|
| |
This for instance. Could this be rebutted by saying it's so beyond practical it's like saying "If you could wave a magic wand to make it go away would you?" |
|
| |
So this has to have a little smidge of practical applicability to work, and that I'm not super sure of. |
|
| |
And I'm glad 21Q pointed out I spelled ore wrong so there's that. |
|
| |
There is a legitimate, and potentially useful, argument against your idea of putting the nuclear waste back where it came from. There are better places to put nuclear waste. There are places more stable geologically, more stable in terms of erosion, better understood hydrology. That argument applies to both the ore and the waste. So, by mining radioactive materials, using them and then disposing of them properly, what we're doing is just a long-winded way of putting natural radioactive materials in a safer place. |
|
| |
Perhaps a radioactive leak from a natural source could be... "highlighted" to help make this point? |
|
| |
//But seriously, can't give up. We have a civilization that needs electricity and we can't have mysticism level nonsense regarding decisions that are this important.// |
|
| |
Pushing electric cars while building no new nuclear and decommissioning working nuclear is self-sabotaging and makes me wish some adults were in charge at some level at any point in the last 40 years. |
|
| |
My god I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear common sense like that, thank you B. |
|
| |
(I live in California, home of high tech and ironically, a ton of electric cars that are supposed to be powered by good intentions.) |
|
| |
//a ton of electric cars that are supposed to be powered by good intentions.// |
|
| |
It's an obvious case for a ton of nuclear power. Although nuclear electricity generation is poor at intermittent loads, that problem goes away if you also need fresh water. You can switch desalination on and off whenever you like, seems like a good fit with California. |
|
| |
Yea, and we have an interesting battle going on here in California regarding a plant here that generates about 8.6% of all our power and about a quarter of our green energy. It was slated to be shut down by next year due to politicians deciding on such matters but thankfully, some folks from Stanford and MIT entered into the discussion and it's gonna be kept open, at least for now. |
|
| |
The link tells the story, I would think it would make an interesting and important documentary for us ALL to watch. |
|
| |
By the way, I had proposed years ago that nuclear plants be built hundreds of feet underground away from water table areas. Looks like they're considering that now. |
|
| |