• LEX@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “There would still be waste that would have to be disposed, but the amount of long-lived waste can be significantly reduced,” Gehin said.

      “Significantly less” is not defined. Is it 80% less? 50? 30? 10? The guy they’re quoting, who has a vested interest in selling us this tech, sure doesn’t say and uses the qualifier ‘can be’. In fact, I can’t seem to find that information anywhere, let alone this article.

      Irregardless, there’s still waste that will take hundreds (thousands?) of years to decay. The solution is renewable energy.

      • SomewhatOffBeat@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re obviously not willing to change your mind, so this will be my last response. Googling “breeder reactor” will show you plenty of peer reviewed papers and findings from past experimental reactors that can answer your questions.

        Apart from that, the point of the technology is obviously not to replace renewables, it’s to

        1. Phase out coal and oil as fast as possible.
        2. Get rid of the nuclear waste we already accumulated (by turning it into energy).

        Especially point 2, you are obviously and rightfully worried about nuclear waste - breeder reactors are the solution, the only one we currently know of. What else do you suggest we should do with that waste? Store it for millennia?

        • LEX@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not that I’m not willing to change my mind, it’s that I’m hugely suspicious of the recent push for Nuclear. Energy companies dumped massive amounts of money into the technology and want to see a return on those failed investments. So I am skeptical that there’s not some astroturfing and/or disinformation going on.

          That said, when I was doing the research, I was looking up Fast Fusion, not Breeder Reactors so I’ll look into it.

          Also, your point about using nuclear to phase out of coal and into renewable has merit, but I think there’s a danger that we get stuck on nuclear as it becomes easier/cheaper than coal and so development in green tech, like batteries, languishes for another four decades or whatever.

          Anyways, I’ll look into breeder reactors and, who knows, maybe have a change of heart (maybe).