this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
1018 points (97.0% liked)

Science Memes

11399 readers
591 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1018
nuclear (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
148 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Yup meltdowns happen sometimes. AND there’s the century-long legacy of radioactive waste!

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Oh joy, I get to bust out these bad boys again! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU

There's also that one guy who touched the hot part and is now using that tiny blister to conduct a decades-long smear campaign against the kinds of pots used at Three Mile Island.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

kyle hill is interesting to me because when he is making videos about nuclear it is either the most terrifying nuclear horror story yet or facts and statistics about how safe nuclear is. I personally believe nuclear to be a super safe and efficient way to create energy, its just something I noticed. Makes me think about how common coal accidents are and how little they are covered compared to something supposedly scary like nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

Nuclear has the same problem as aviation, by average it's many many times safer than most alternatives, but any time something goes wrong it has a high chance of going extremely wrong and making an international scene. So it's generally safer but every accident makes world news.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You’re so right - we should just pump all our crap out into the biosphere instead and keep burning coal.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Solar and wind are currently both cheaper than coal, and rapidly getting cheaper.

Nuclear is more expensive, and the cost is growing. There will be almost certainly be no private investment in nuclear in the future unless it's ideologically driven.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Come on let’s get some price breaks on the solar towers!

I totally know what solar towers are

Wiki: Eye of Sauron

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nuclear is more expensive, and the cost is growing. There will be almost certainly be no private investment in nuclear in the future unless it’s ideologically driven.

even if this is the case, i still think it's a good idea to at least invest in research and development in nuclear fission, which might even help fusion down the road. Not to mention it's always good to have alternatives. Would be a shame if we found out that solar panels are actually the new asbestos or something silly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

The only problems with solar are incoming president McFuckface’s tariffs, and AI’s propensity to use every goddamn moving electron in the world.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

almost certainly no private investment in nuclear in the future

I too refuse to read any news, ever, if it doesn’t support my viewpoint. Definitely no current investments in nuclear at the moment.

I like wind and solar! They’re not the whole of the solution for the whole globe though. There’s no reason to keep spreading the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda for them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Sorry, I meant to say new private investment

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I agree. We should deal with nuclear waste in the same way we handle the waste from other fossil fuels: by spreading it over the entire planet in a thin, even coating so that everyone is equally affected!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Back in middle school, our science teacher decided to make the class do a debate about different types of energy sources in order to learn about their advantages and disadvantages. I was on the pro-nuclear team, and we were wracking our brains trying to come up with a rebuttal to "but what about the waste?" until some madlad basically came up with this great argument:

We can just dump all of the nuclear waste on Belgium. It will take a really long time before it fills up, and nobody cares about Belgium anyway

The anti-nuclear team had no good response, and we actually got a point for that argument because we looked up the relevant statistics (nuclear waste output, belgium surface area, etc.) and calculated exactly how long it would take to turn belgium into a radioactive wasteland.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There's a really simple answer to the waste problem though. And it's super, blatantly obvious.

All nuclear material is basically ground up rocks that we dug out of a hole and then filtered the spicy bits out of. So grind it back up, pour it into concrete and stuff it back down the same hole it came from. Of course, you can't legally do that, but that's only because we have a ton of rules what constitutes safe disposal, etc. Recreating the original conditions basically meant you're (re)creating something unsafe, but we do that in a LOT of places.

EDIT: For example there are regions in Belgium and the Netherlands where there is so much naturally occuring arsenic in the ground, that if you scoop a bucket full of dirt, walk 50 meters across the provincial border and put pour it out, you're comitting (at least) three different crimes. That's legally valid, after all, the bucket contains polluted material, but practically nonsense since you literally just picked it up, and it's been like that long before people ever got there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

fair argument

I want to add something to it:

First of all, a lot of that uranium seems to have been there and slowly decaying for a long time. I think, what we humans did was to "wake it up" and turn it into some more violently-reacting other elements, for the sake that we get the energy out of it at an acceptable pace. Now, though, it's severely more dangerous than it was before.

Also, I've an idea about what to do with the waste: Since the waste tends to activate itself due to neutron activation, put a lot of it (but just barely not enough to make a bomb) together and it will activate itself to react violently at very high speeds, but just barely not fast enough to explode (make a bomb). That way, you can get a lot of heat out of it rather quickly, and are left with burned-out material (which contains less radioactive potential).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

First of all, a lot of that uranium seems to have been there and slowly decaying for a long time. I think, what we humans did was to “wake it up” and turn it into some more violently-reacting other elements, for the sake that we get the energy out of it at an acceptable pace. Now, though, it’s severely more dangerous than it was before.

it's weird, but it's not "more violent" it's just more energetic. Either through enrichment, making it more potent, which is an industry standard across the entire western world. Or through making fertile material, like uranium 238, fissile by going through the decay chain until it becomes something more spicy, like pu 239 or whatever.

The big problem is that the energy it releases is definitionally incompatible to human life. That's the ONLY problem.

oh and btw, nuclear reactors are physically incapable of "going critical" it's physically impossible. 90% of the concern is it breaking containment from being really fucking hot, which is notably, really hard to deal with.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Or through making fertile material, like uranium 238, fissile by going through the decay chain until it becomes something more spicy, like pu 239 or whatever.

Yeah that's what i meant.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

century-long legacy

At least millenia, might be epochs (million years) ...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The dangerous radiation disappears much much sooner then that. And if its millions of years, the local life would adapt, more then it already has. Interesting related info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Interesting link, thanks. Also, radiotrophic fungus is speculation at this point and has never been found in nature.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

Though if Chernobyl is any indication in a few decades nature works its way around it.

[–] stoy 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Luckily waste storage is a solved problem.

Drill hole in bedrock, put waste in hole, backfill with clay.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

Drill hole in bedrock, nuclear waste falls into the void and despawns, problem solved