Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ...
by godelski on Thursday September 03, 2020 @06:56PM
(#24369781)
This doesn't really counter my argument. The key part is that it has different kinds of waste. There are more factors than the radioactivity. For example sites like Hanford have melted fuel, which might have inspired that green goo that people associate with nuclear waste, but a power plant only produces solid waste. Aerosols and liquids have vastly different storage requirements and added complexity requirements than storing the typical fuel pellets and solid matter from power generating reactors.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ...
by throwaway0a5e on Thursday September 03, 2020 @08:05PM
(#24370290)
>Aerosols and liquids have vastly different storage requirements
So whip the aerosol into some epoxy and when it cures throw it in the cask with the rest of the stuff.
If you just want to make something that's not solid and reactive into something solid and non-reactive modern chemical science has nearly infinite options.
Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ...
by godelski on Thursday September 03, 2020 @08:20PM
(#24370417)
While I agree with you, for the most part, there is a cost and complexity issue. I was really just trying to tell marsh that they aren't making accurate conclusions from the selected data that they are pulling from to generate their absurd anti-nuclear stance.