Let's nuke climate change!

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain

Oh yeah. Tell that to your great grandchildren.

YouTube

@sonhouse said
The point of the piece was reliability. Nuke works no matter the weather while solar, wind and such needs energy storage as part and parcel of the deal to run reliably.
I imagine only geothermal would be as reliable as nuclear.
That is separate from the nasty problem of waste fuel and storage of that spent nuclear fuel.
I see some work done where the fuel is incorporat ...[text shortened]... soviets decades ago. I think something like 75 used reactors dumped overboard that way. Real smart.

@metal-brain said
Nope. This article says the government subsidies nuclear waste storage. It is too expensive in the long term.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/[WORD TOO LONG]

If we took all the nuclear waste that was sitting around in the USA today from the past 50 years of running reactors and recycled it, we could use it to power the entire USA for about 93 years without mining anything else. Discussion of recycling waste

@wildgrass said
It can be recycled to generate more energy. But because of the fear mongering, it's not been developed in the US.

If we took all the nuclear waste that was sitting around in the USA today from the past 50 years of running reactors and recycled it, we could use it to power the entire USA for about 93 years without mining anything else. Discussion of recycling waste

https://whatisnuclear.com/factoids.html

@metal-brain said
Breeder reactors? How many are in operation? There must be a reason why.

"this factoid would require much to be done in order to actually happen"

What is the obstacle? Back to reality.

@wildgrass said
HA. You pasted the link, read and copied the first sentence but didn't read any further? I'm not surprised. Your quote continued...

"...Enough nuclear power plants to power the entire USA would need to be built. "

@Metal-Brain
NASA says otherwise:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/

@metal-brain said
No, I am referring to the link you posted. Furthermore, that is not my quote.

Nuclear is more dangerous than coal. Saying otherwise does not make it so.

@wildgrass said
Of course we need a lot more nuclear infrastructure to recycle waste. You only quoted the part about it being difficult, but obviously storing waste is also problematic as you've pointed out. Recycling it is a far better option.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
NASA says otherwise:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/

@metal-brain said
Breeder reactors? How many are in operation? There must be a reason why.

"this factoid would require much to be done in order to actually happen"

What is the obstacle? Back to reality.

@metal-brain said
What quote? You are thinking of someone else. If I quoted what you claim show my post with that quote or stop pretending I did.

@metal-brain said
Breeder reactors? How many are in operation? There must be a reason why.

"this factoid would require much to be done in order to actually happen"

What is the obstacle? Back to reality.

Twelve states have banned the construction of nuclear plants until the waste problem is resolved. But there is no enthusiasm for building the proposed waste depository. In fact, the Obama administration pulled the plug on the one high-level waste depository that was under construction at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.

The outlook might be different if Congress were to lift the ban on nuclear-fuel recycling, which would cut the amount of waste requiring disposal by more than half. Instead of requiring a political consensus on multiple repository sites to store nuclear plant waste, one facility would be sufficient, reducing disposal costs by billions of dollars.

Some will say the United States can’t afford to build a nuclear recycling facility. But such a plant already is under construction at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River nuclear reservation in South Carolina. That facility will produce mixed-oxide fuel for generating electric power, not from power-plant waste, but from surplus plutonium now in U.S. weapons stockpiles.

By lifting the ban on spent fuel recycling we could make use of a valuable resource, provide an answer to the nuclear waste problem, open the way for a new generation of nuclear plants to meet America’s growing electricity needs, and put the United States in a leadership position on climate-change action.

If France and other nations can do it, why can’t we?

@wildgrass
I noticed Andrew Yang wants to nuke climate change just like you.

@metal-brain said
@wildgrass
I noticed Andrew Yang wants to nuke climate change just like you.