Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

localroger

(3,782 posts)
11. Excuse me but you do not seem to know what you are talking about
Sun Jul 17, 2022, 08:31 PM
Jul 2022

The primary process that generates energy in a nuclear reactor, fission, replaces a single atom of uranium or plutonium with two atoms from the middle of the periodic table. These fission remnants tend to be both highly radioactive and chemically toxic, and there is no use for them. They cannot be reprocessed into more nuclear fuel.

These waste products are essential results of the use of fission to generate energy -- you can't get away from them. And they are extremely dangerous. It is also untrue that nobody has ever been harmed by them. The Soviets had an explosion at a processing facility caused by poor storage practices that poisoned hundreds of square kilometers of the landscape around it, well before Chernobyl. These waste products have no value to anybody and it is nearly impossible to get rid of them in a way that we can be sure will never contaminate ground water or otherwise re-emerge into the environment, particularly if we lose the records of where and what they are.

It is also a primary result of the fission process that one atom is replaced by two, and regardless of atomic weight atomic nuclei tend to want to be about the same distance apart in solid matter. This causes the fuel rods to distort as their fuel is burned and replaced by these waste elements, which was a major difficulty for early reactors before this effect was understood. I will grant that this is now understood and generally accounted for in reactor design but it's a thing that took people by surprise. You really don't want to be fucking around with powerful forces that take you by surprise.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Carry on cbabe Jul 2022 #1
Upton Sinclair stated it so well: ZZenith Jul 2022 #2
An apt criticism of natural gas dependent "renewable energy" schemes, perhaps? hunter Jul 2022 #5
Exactly equivalent. Carrying on about Fukushima in particular is abysmally stupid... NNadir Jul 2022 #3
Well allow me to be the first localroger Jul 2022 #8
I have no use, zero, for carrying on about Three Mile Island, nor do I have any use for doing... NNadir Jul 2022 #10
I do not have an "absurd fear" of radioactive materials. I have respect for them. localroger Jul 2022 #12
So your Dad was a scientist? You did a high school project?. NNadir Jul 2022 #15
I see you missed the part where I work in industry with high technology localroger Jul 2022 #16
I'm responsible for buying millions of dollars of high tech equipment. NNadir Jul 2022 #17
You see only what you want to see, and hear only what you want to hear localroger Jul 2022 #18
Is world total turbine capacity a small multiple of the Danish figure? 4dog Jul 2022 #4
It doesn't take too much spreadsheet work to estimate an answer to your question. NNadir Jul 2022 #7
Accidents are bad, but they are not the deal-killer with nuclear localroger Jul 2022 #6
Actually, the deal killer of "waste" should apply to dangerous fossil fuels, not used nuclear fuel. NNadir Jul 2022 #9
Excuse me but you do not seem to know what you are talking about localroger Jul 2022 #11
Really? I'm getting a lecture on nuclear fuels and fission physics? NNadir Jul 2022 #13
Well if you think I'm ignorant... localroger Jul 2022 #14
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»A Commentary on Failure, ...»Reply #11