Transport risks, storage risks are a big deal. Fuck up, and it gets into our system or excludes us from part of the world.
As for storage, I was hired to help with data systems support for 100 to 1000 year engineering.
Rooms get made, people never go into them again. Machine rooms get made to hold the machines, that service the machines... storage rooms get made to hold stuff, and on and on it goes. Once things get hot, they stay hot basically permanently. Space requirements continue to grow as the waste from handling waste grows.
The costs are high. The risks are high. The space requirements are high, so much more than that nice football field package mentioned in the fluff piece.
Human requirements are high. Generations of people will service that waste, and reserve space requirements are high, because nobody has been able to think the problem all the way through and insure success.
It is a big scale problem. Any error makes it bigger. It will outlive generations of people.
From that perspective, nuclear energy is like a high interest loan. The money is good, but servicing it is brutal as is the timeline relentless.
And this is a closed system we live in. Containment is temporary no matter what gets said. And the service is ongoing, no matter what gets said.
On a cost / return basis, investing in green energy is a much better deal. And servicing that means more energy, not so much paying for energy already developed and long gone.
Recycling green energy gear is meaningful today and will improve.
Most importantly, mere mortals can work the problem and not make 100k year toxic problems along the way.
We can do that work now, should have been doing it two decades if not more ago. And as we do it, we improve just like we did for fossil fuels.
First off, I don’t mean to argue against renewable sources of energy!
Second, you could google recycling if you wanted to. It generates electricity which is cool! We generally don’t do it in the US, but we could if storage became unsafe or expensive.
When I asked what it means, there is more to it than the currently high risk, high labor, high energy input, high cost process.
All of which should be a temporary measure at most!
What does it mean?
A few things:
Major investment in recycling means major investments in nuclear, and that cycle means having to make green energy a priority and that being a lot more difficult than it needs to, and should be.
It also means continuing to produce toxic elements, containment and all that I just discussed.
What it does not mean or lead to is an acceptable end game.
All this talk avoids the fact that we end up with high concentrations of very toxic elements that can be kilo-decade time scales.
What we should do is make the investments in energy and storage we are now getting really good at, and that do not come with the crazy burdens we are just not very well equipped to deal with.
You know smoking generates a buzz, which is cool! Never mind the cancer and other impacts to follow.
You know, a big spoonful of sugar and a shot of caffeine is a big hit, so is adrenaline. Hell of a crash afterword.
We are in a place where we need to get off the fossil fuels.
No matter what we do, we are late, and there is a ramp up time.
Nuclear is a quick hit with high start costs, high risks and a very long burden that will be with us for so long we don't even have the ability to manage the problem with confidence. Hope and cope is where we are at.
Green energy is not as quick, but it will not come with all the downsides, and if we put people to work on a scale like we did for fossil fuels, we can get where we need to be, without that high burden, and in a clean, sustainable way.
High energy, healthy food takes a bit longer to ramp up, but there is no crash and overall labor output is higher, more consistent.
Generating nuclear power also generates major league problems that must be managed for an extremely long time and none of it is sustainable.
I just wrote part of why above.
Green energy is sustainable. And is improving rapidly, will continue to as well. And it comes with tech mortals can use, build, manage, etc...
TL;DR: Advancing nuclear comes at the expense of advancing green, renewable energy.
It prolongs a crutch we need to be rid of and that is highly toxic, high density energy.
Transport risks, storage risks are a big deal. Fuck up, and it gets into our system or excludes us from part of the world.
As for storage, I was hired to help with data systems support for 100 to 1000 year engineering.
Rooms get made, people never go into them again. Machine rooms get made to hold the machines, that service the machines... storage rooms get made to hold stuff, and on and on it goes. Once things get hot, they stay hot basically permanently. Space requirements continue to grow as the waste from handling waste grows.
The costs are high. The risks are high. The space requirements are high, so much more than that nice football field package mentioned in the fluff piece.
Human requirements are high. Generations of people will service that waste, and reserve space requirements are high, because nobody has been able to think the problem all the way through and insure success.
It is a big scale problem. Any error makes it bigger. It will outlive generations of people.
From that perspective, nuclear energy is like a high interest loan. The money is good, but servicing it is brutal as is the timeline relentless.
And this is a closed system we live in. Containment is temporary no matter what gets said. And the service is ongoing, no matter what gets said.
On a cost / return basis, investing in green energy is a much better deal. And servicing that means more energy, not so much paying for energy already developed and long gone.
Recycling green energy gear is meaningful today and will improve.
Most importantly, mere mortals can work the problem and not make 100k year toxic problems along the way.
We can do that work now, should have been doing it two decades if not more ago. And as we do it, we improve just like we did for fossil fuels.