Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "We Solved Nuclear Waste Decades Ago" video.

  1.  @bobbun9630  There's natural nuclear waste from a spontaneous reactor in Gabon. It's been there for like two billion years without incident. Does that count as proven?
    6
  2. We're close to the theoretical max efficiency of solar, and it's still an intermittent power source that depends on your latitude.
    4
  3. lmao
    2
  4. Okay. Now apply that logic to all energy sources.
    2
  5. Average anti-nuclear response lol.
    2
  6. So we'll have to tank our economies, stop driving, stop eating meat, etc because people don't want geological repositories in their state? That's great. Not missing the forest for the trees at all.
    1
  7.  @DartJedi  It's not about all or nothing, we're being told that our energetic needs make our standards of living unsustainable. While staring down the barrel of such an extremist, anti-human stance we should be clinging to our means of delivering clean power. But people raise a fuss. Do you not see the issue? Fast buck? One of the critiques of nuclear power is how long it takes to recoup the investment. The people who borderline call for a command economy, at least in the energy and transportation sector, actually raise this issue! The longer the half-life the safer it is. Obviously the cars wouldn't have nuclear reactors, they'd have batteries charged by the grid. The issue is, an EV charged by a grid that isn't green is still an offender against the net zero goals.
    1
  8. The DU is not "highly radioactive". If you get poisoned by it, you die from the heavy metal poisoning. Not the radioactivity.
    1
  9. Have valves to bypass the faulty pump and drive the water with a spare? Have passive cooling systens?
    1
  10.  @zackwildman3410  Fukushima is mostly cleaned up. It didn't take 50,000 years. People don't want to come back because once they return the compensations are removed.
    1
  11.  @zackwildman3410  The Fukushima disaster was not like Chernobyl. Chernobyl actually had two explosions happen within the reactor, one of which blew the upper biological container. The rupture of the reactor and fires spread a large amount of materials. In Fukushima, the meltdown was contained but the generation of hydrogen caused gas explosions which blew the top of the buildings. They don't need a sarcophagus like Chernobyl.
    1
  12.  @zackwildman3410  I really don't know what's going to happen because so many people left and have already declared they'd rather move on and forget about returning (since the people left, so did most jobs and many homes were damaged by the tsunami itself). So I'm not really sure what options the government has because if the area is going to remain vacant they might not want to invest more money than they'd need.
    1
  13.  @zackwildman3410  The decommissioning of the plant was approved last year and it already started. They're pumping the water out and pulling the spent fuel.
    1
  14. The world's known uranium deposits have increased by 25% in the last 10 years. This is falling for the same old fallacy of "we only have 30 years of oil". We kept discovering more/known reserves became profitable. Uranium is almost as common as tin or zinc in the Earth's crust. Fuel reprocessing would also extend our supply. Then we'd also have thorium.
    1
  15. A secret project designed to mass murder civilians had a dark aftermath? Shocked, I am.
    1
  16. Coal mines also produce long term pollution.
    1
  17. It's easier to contain energy than mass. Who would habe thought?
    1
  18. Fukushima easily survived the earthquake and tsunami. It was the electrical part that got flooded and safety procedures to turn the cooling off caused a situation where it couldn't be restarted.
    1
  19. Chernobyl was built with a lackluster biological shield to save money. Anerican reactors can handle a plane being hijacked and crashed into the concrete dome.
    1
  20. As opposed to perfectly safe chemical factories or tankers/oil rigs.
    1
  21.  @qwerty6574  Are you?
    1
  22.  @qwerty6574  I didn't say fossil fuels on their own. But we have all kinds of dangerous things that can get hit during a war. A dam break has killed more people than Chernobyl.
    1
  23. Well we have to deal with the waste of everything you use, but you never cared. It's just nuclear that gets you to complain.
    1
  24.  @MrLarryBaude  Nuclear energy also doesn't produce waste during energy production, it produces waste when fuel is spent. This kind of problem is created by many aspects of human action. Nuclear waste is ironically one of the easiest to handle because it can be turned into a glass/ceramic object that doesn't dissolve, doesn't release dust, etc.
    1
  25. Never seen ceramic or glass leak.
    1
  26. No, we don't. And we'd have to ruin a lot of land by implementing that much renewable.
    1
  27. DU is legal.
    1
  28. That's only because gas powered plants can throttle and back off quickly and sell their power at a premium to deal with short term peaks in demand. Nuclear has to sell power ahead of time for cheap and only cover an estimation of the base load.
    1
  29. I will unironically volunteer my basement. No, it doesn't need monitoring. It will stay there, there's a natural nuclear reactor in Gabon, has been there for 2 billion years.
    1
  30. "Higher" than the background levels, but not high enough to matter.
    1
  31.  @LennardA320  You'll literally get more radiation from a banana than eating fish from the Pacific. If I exhale, the atmosphere will have more CO2. Doesn't mean it's significant. The longer the half life, the less radiation it emits. The short half life isotopes are the deadliest because they zap you with more energy.
    1
  32. The state-ran Chernobyl ran fine, didn't it?
    1
  33. The natural nuclear reactor in Gabon has been there for 2 billion years.
    1