Engineers: nothing is safer, more reliable, and more energy dense than nuclear. We need it for the future.
Libs: but have you considered ignoring science and continuing to use petroleum based products while also propping up neocolonialism for lithium and other rare earth metals?
Am ingeneer can math...English harder
There are fuel mixtures that dont create as much waste( not used now because we are using left over bombs from Russia)
Waste can be reprocessed and used as fuel (it's not done now bc it could theoretically be used for bombs)
The waste that is generated decays at different rates. One of the more dangerous materials cs137 has a half life of 30 years, so in 210 years all the cesium is gone (or it's at back ground radiation) plutonium has a half life of 24 million years, but if it's reprocessed it will be used as fuel and knocked apart into smaller elements that decay faster. This is why the fuel rods sit in pools for the first 10 years or so to decay after that they can be moved to dry cask storage.
It's not that much trash... An Americans life time radioactive waste (under current energy consumption) would fit in their hand.
The most dangerous part imo is the mining and not because of radiation. Because of heavy metal poisoning. My college had a nuclear reactor and I've touched low enriched uranium. It was normal metal. There are stories of people touching high enriched uranium and it's kinda warm.... The problem. Is it is like lead. It will fuck up your insides and kids. See what happened after dessert storm when they made munitions out of uranium or look at the deviation in the 4 corners region on the indians there.
The waste could be used energy. Probably not much tho. There are things called rtg ...radiation? Thermal generators which use thermoelectric ....magic to make energy but may not be worth it
There are different types of radiation. Some are worse then others. Nuclear engineers practice " the cookie test".
Four cookies made of radiation you have to eat one, put one in your pocket, hold one in your hand and throw the other across the room. Which do you do?
There is also amounts of radiation to take into account. For example as a person working with radiation I can take 5 REM a year for the rest of my life and most likely never get cancer from exposure to those sources. In fact I would also rather take that bargain and over the course of a 50 year career get 250 REM instead of getting CORONA once.
Counterpoint , astronomical amounts of power will be needed for desalination and carbon capture technologies to stop climate change.
That's a disingenuous interpretation of radiation comrade
I think only the French have had a breeder ...
Yup reprocessing and breeders are hard to come by because they can be used to produce weapons grade material and require more "red tape" . The IAEA will be all over a breeder reactor. /Reprocessing plant.
Hi! It's actually more dangerous to do that! The amount of explosions due to space flight is relatively high! This would cause essentially a dirty bombs. Some nuclear reactors can actually use nuclear waste as fuel, alternatively places like WIPP naturally encase the waste in salt and keep it from entering the water table and protect those who live near by. The biggest problem is that people don't understand radiation, and proper handling of radiation is expensive so people cut corners to save money which has never harmed anyone. Lol
I will have to endeavor to make good comments lol
What score do you need to post? I have an account but can't post
I'd rather take the yearly rad worker max dose for 50 years than catch covid. Once tbh. And you are right the thing that makes nuclear dangerous is they are essentially one off designs from the 50s built in the 70s and being maintained 50 years later (at the end of their expected lifespans.... Next gen reactors literally could never do a chernobyl or 3 mile island or fukushima