Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by credit_guy on Monday October 14, 2024 @09:38PM
(#41844079)
I see some moving goal posts here. If long term storage exists, then it's not perfectly good long term storage. It's not a true Scotsman.
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by dumbo-octopus on Monday October 14, 2024 @10:46PM
(#41844440)
> Nuclear fission is safe, clean, secure, and reliable.
> The only extant long term storage isn’t safe, clean, secure, or reliable
> You’re moving the goalposts! You should be happy with imperfect storage!
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by credit_guy on Monday October 14, 2024 @11:11PM
(#41844543)
Nope. No nuclear energy supporter will state that nuclear energy is perfectly safe, clean, secure or reliable. Nothing is perfect, why would the bar for nuclear energy be perfection?
Nuclear energy is not perfectly safe for the obvious reason that we've had Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. It is not perfectly clean, since it produces nuclear waste. It is not perfectly secure, just look at the Zaporizhzhia power plant. It is not perfectly realiable: there are times when a lot of French reactors went offline because the water in rivers was too warm.
What exactly is your argument?
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors
by dumbo-octopus on Monday October 14, 2024 @11:12PM
(#41844552)
That was a direct quote from the parent.
In one sense it does exist (i.e. it's buried in salt beds 2,000 feet below surface), but is it safe?
In 2014 there was an explosion of a waste container and radioactive particles were spread throughout the facility and up to the surface by the air processing equipment in the mine.
It seems like it's not just a binary choice, but more of a continuum of how safe is the particular solution compared to others.