Comments by "Bob thebomb" (@bobthebomb1596) on "SPECIAL REPORT: Going Nuclear – The Clean Energy Debate" video.

Good point, well explained. I maybe wouldn't have said ANY long-term waste, as clearly there is some, but far less and far shorter lived than the luddites would have people think. This is of course dependant upon the development of liquid fuel cycles and fast-neutron or thorium based technology, but the world could have these now if it had not turned away from nuclear and thus nuclear research.
9
@williamsmith1741 I was not intending to criticise, I agree with your OP. The "anti's" however will jump on any minor point as an excuse to discredit your information.
5
@peacepoet1947 And your point is?
3
We wouldn't have human induced climate change is what she meant, as you probably know. For the record King Cnut was actually trying to prove that even as a king he was not omnipotent and could not turn back the tide.
3
@tezzo55 My choice of ozone depletion was a real world example of how humans can affect climate change. In this case both negatively and positively. Australians could have had "actual heat right now" if a nuclear/renewables strategy had been followed decades ago; just look at France and Sweden for examples. Australia does not have to turn off its coal stations overnight, but it should move to a more environmentally sustainable model and nuclear is one of the options available to achieve that goal.
2
@desertrat7634 You cannot exclude history or the fact that pretty much any fission process can be used to produce weapons grade material. Certainly the reactor designs that are likely to be constructed in the next 10-15 years can.
1
Of which over 95% remains fuel.
1
Of course not, but I would have no problem if it were buried hundreds of feet underground.
1
Inflexible? Aside from routine maintenance and refuelling it runs 24/7.
1
Care to explain that gem of knowledge?
1
@Abu Mohandes Do some research
1
@Abu Mohandes Try the subject in question.
1
@Abu Mohandes No. After a suitable period the fission products can be removed from the waste for safe disposal. The remainder (mostly U238) but also 235 and transuranic's can then be converted to the chloride salt and used as fuel in a fast spectrum reactor. There are a number of companies working on those reactors as we speak.
1
@Abu Mohandes Not reprocessing as practiced for decades. Traditional reprocessing is the extraction of U235 and plutonium from waste fuel to produce new mixed oxide fuel. Only around 2% of spent fuel is recoverable for use in conventional reactors. Fast spectrum reactors are able to consume the U238 and actinide component , thus consuming around 96% of the waste. You read too much into what was undoubtedly a quick comment on a Youtube video.
1
You cannot get away from the fact that the nuclear power and nuclear weapon industries have historical links, to try and do so only feeds the impression of a cover up. However, the two do not always go together. Any country wishing to develop a nuclear weapon can do so; it just requires the will to spend the money and withstand the wrath of other nations. No country can hide a weapons program behind a nuclear energy industry. To produce weapons a country has to enrich uranium or reprocess fuel/spent fuel. The IAEA will demand access to any facility with the capacity to produce weapons grade material and failure to allow such access will automatically raise suspicion (looking at you Iran)
1
@theseustoo Did the Tsunami destroy Fukushima? No. It took out the mains power supply and back up generators required to sustain coolant flow to the reactor.
1
@desertrat7634 You are missing the point here. For nuclear power to be accepted in a country like Australia it is the general public that have to be convinced. The top four arguments used against nuclear power are cost, safety, waste disposal and nuclear weapons proliferation. All four of which have some level of validity. You cannot dismiss proliferation by claiming that power and weapons are entirely separate, when the public can see how they have gone hand in hand in the past. If you want to win over an opponent, start by acknowledging the truth. That way they are more likely to listen to your follow up arguments.
1
@thegreyghost5846 And STILL you miss the point. It is not those who understand the processes involved that you have to convince, it is the majority of the general public who's views on nuclear power are founded on historic events and media headlines. How much time do you think they will afford your arguments if you begin by telling them there are no links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons? Can those links be broken? Are they overstated? Yes, but you will never have the opportunity to prove so because they will have stopped listening to you.
1
@thegreyghost5846 I don't view it as the main problem either, but it was the only point raised in your original post. That is what I reacted to.
1
@MolecularArts I know that weapons grade material is usually produced via a different route, but it still requires a reactor in order to breed the Pu.
1
You have already dismissed the answer. However, if you really want a full explanation see the comment by William Smith (above)
1
Reduce it to the minimum quantity possible and bury it.
1
Yes, we (British) did so back in the 50's and early 60's
1
Ageist.
1
@theseustoo Yes it would. The only reason Fukushima developed the way it did was because they lost the back up generators. A modern design would allow more time to bring them back online (if they were taken out at all). A molten salt design would be unaffected as it requires no active cooling.
1
It's certainly taught us the dangers of locating diesel generators at ground level. Fukushima however was an old reactor design.
1
@tezzo55 Hardly a "Young fella" The point is that humans have the means to affect the climate to a greater extent now than they have ever had - just look at ozone depletion. Like it (or believe in it) or not, the world IS going to switch away from fossil fuels for heating and power generation. Australia can either go with it, or be left behind.
1
@williamsmith1741 The trouble is, there are a lot of uninformed people who will see their arguments and dismiss your comments, because they know no better. Which would be a shame. It's not worth arguing over tbh, I was only trying to offer a suggestion, knowing that I have fallen into the same trap.
1
@jaymiewilliamson2521 Can't argue with flat earthers. Goodbye.
1
Wearing out and/or breaking down does not mean a catastrophe, all depends on design.
1