[alternative_a]

The notion of clean in context of energy is environmental in nature. Nuclear is “clean” in context of green house effect and carbon footprint only. It is not clean in the wider scope of Earth’s environment. For it to be truly clean, we need to address operational risk and by product disposal to an extent that damage to the environment, thus “clean”, is effectively impossible.

The ‘substantial’ aspects of nuclear energy place generational demands on humanity and whoever will inherit the earth after humans. No other energy source places this burden on humanity. None.

[polotics]

Not at all true that nuclear puts more generational demand that any of the other energy sources, taking scale into consideration. Just compute how many wind-turbine poles, how many eventually-leaky solar panels, how much surface of land used up, or flooded, for a given MWh of generated power: Nuclear is arguably least impact. And scrubbing CO2 is going to be a massive undertaking, most likely will not be undertaken, again the generational impact is enormous, a lot more than some localized dump with Cesium, even if not buried as it should, and will, be.

[alternative_a]

Be honest. Are you worried e.g. that some future post Armageddon creatures are going to bring disaster to themselves because of mucking around with some remnants of wind turbines out in the sea? The risks of nuclear fission by products are open ended. The effects you are mentioning are all bounded, and well understood.

“Substantial” aspects mean nuclear fission by products. This matter is just that: matter. It exists regardless of any other consideration. It comes into being because of the fission process. This coming into being creates the “burden” I was talking about.

Until we can safely send them to orbit and then to deep space it will not be “clean”. Of course then we’re polluting deep space.

[kgabis]

Storing spent nuclear fuel is a well understood problem, we can do it safely and it doesn't put future generations at risk.

[alternative_a]

I am interested in learning more. Can you elaborate on the parameters of the risk models? Is continuity of any technological competencies assumed? Stuff like that. (TIA)

[Moldoteck]

Vitrification(solidification) and store safely underground somewhere with smaller risks of earthquakes. Ideally you would want the fuel to be reprocessed(like France did it) or to be used by a breeding reactor, this way the waste will be more dangerous only for about 300 years(it'll still be radioactive after but much less compared to waste that wasn't reprocessed or used by a breeding reactor. Why it's not done? It costs more money and most countries decided for now it's ok without these steps and breeding reactors kinda exist but are too few and not very well studied to build more

[alternative_a]

Thank you.

I mentioned risk models in another comment. In your opinion, is nuclear energy safe from irrational (state) actors? For clarification, note that even hydroelectric energy has a risk factor that it can not be protected against irrational state actors. Recent events in Ukraine a case in point. And that ‘system failure’ did have environmental impact.

The point I am trying to make regarding nuclear (fission) energy is that hazard and catastrophe are a continual concern, and will remain so long after we are gone. Unquestionably, nuclear fission is far less damaging than many other energy systems but on the hazard side of the equation it stands alone. We rely on various wishful thoughts, such as assured grasp of human competence, greed, rationality, to say nothing of failures in other systems (such as software guidance for missiles) and also acts of God such as geological events. And for how long? For the lifetime of the existence of the hazardous material and processes.

[credit_guy]

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

[alternative_a]

Thank you.

[amanda99]

> The risks of nuclear fission by products are open ended.

This is just FUD.

The orders of magnitude worse CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere where it is in such low concentration that we'll have no chance of ever removing it from there is much worse than nuclear waste for humanity's future. At least nuclear waste is concentrated and there is very little of it, so it can be treated and handled appropriately.

[alternative_a]

We’re discussing the notion of ‘environmentally clean’ energy sources. Your red herring of known dirty energy sources is the “FUD”.

Nuclear is not environmentally clean. I remain mildly amazed that this is debate worthy.

[amanda99]

I just wanted to call out this particular statement for being FUD. It's a common "argument" from anti-nuclear folks who are just scared of nuclear waste because "but it's radioactive and I'm scared of it". Really it's just an inability to look at the facts and be rational.

I also remain mildly amazed that the adoption of nuclear is still debate worthy. I suppose there are whole generations scared beyond repair from the Cold War and nuclear weapons, so that they cannot see past that.

[alternative_a]

Please. And you managed to shade generations “scared” (do you mean old folks?) to make a point.

Make the case that the material from nuclear fission can be disposed of without any risk whatsoever to whoever is coming to inhabit this planet after you. Short term analysis is what got us here but it is fine and “practical” but does not merit the “clean” badge.

To spare any additional non rebuttals, no, I am not “scared” of there existing nuclear reactors for energy. It is not a matter of immediate concern to me personally and I find the industry’s claims of safety to be believable. What is not believable is that we have found a means of disposing of radioactive material which is guaranteed to not pose any danger in the future, “environmentally” speaking.