
Nuclear power can prevent use of “the atmosphere as a waste dump” - jseliger
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/scientists-nuclear-power-can-prevent-use-of-the-atmosphere-as-a-waste-dump/
======
hengheng
So what are we going to use as a nuclear waste dump?

Transmutation hasn't really become practical, so I'm out of ideas on this one.
And while I really really like modern nuclear reactor design, I haven't seen
anybody run a reactor who is competent at it. Looking at Chernobyl or
Fukushima, the problem seems that people don't like to admit mistakes. It's a
social problem more than anything else, and the fact that you can't have a
neutral discussion around nuclear power doesn't help either.

~~~
DanBC
Chernobyl happened in 1986. 25 year old Soviet technology is not a good advert
for anything, especially not nuclear stuff.

Fukushima seems to have been the result not of mismanagement, but of a
coincidence of catastrophes.

NASA needs some nuclear fuels, so nuclear energy programmes could help them.
[http://news.discovery.com/space/as-nasas-plutonium-supply-
dw...](http://news.discovery.com/space/as-nasas-plutonium-supply-dwindles-esa-
eyes-nuclear-energy-program.htm)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6414717](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6414717)

~~~
hengheng
Chernobyl was bad technology, but the crash happened more due to bad decision-
making and irresponsible acting. The same is true for Fukushima, which is my
whole point.

~~~
DanBC
Yes, Chernobyl had terrible decisions. But having Soviet workers and Soviet
technology is an awful combination, and so it _weakens_ your point to mention
Chernobyl, because people will say "We don't use stupid old power plants; we
have better workers".

Fukushima had an earthquake, and went into shutdown mode. They then had a
tsunami, which broke cooling systems. I'm not sure what bad decisions and
irresponsible acting caused that accident? What could they have done
differently?

I guess building a power plant in an earthquake zone in a place where a 13 m
tsunami can get it is sub-optimal.

~~~
hengheng
Every now and then I look at the caliber of issues that my local nuclear power
plants have (German here, you'd expect we know what we're doing). Missing
screws in critical places, wrong kind of concrete used, diesel generator not
plugged in ... nothing but stupid little mistakes, but precisely the ones that
should not happen in a place like this. Safety procedures in automotive and
aviation seem better than this. NASA has learnt how to avoid stupid mistakes
30-40 years ago, yet we haven't.

So no, I have not found anybody, Soviet or not, who drives a nuclear plant
responsibly. Those who could apparently are too expensive, and those who do
are not apt. If somebody finds a way to cut costs at the expense of security,
it will be done more often than not.

Fukushima wsa build into a _known_ earthquake and tsunami region. From what I
remember it was more like a 4 sigma vs 5 sigma issue; if they had built a dike
1-2 meters higher they would have been fine. So essentially it was a cost
issue, and I fail to see how a 20 meter dike can be deemed too expensive
around a cash cow like this.

------
kunai
This sounds insane, but what if spent rods were stored in a spacecraft,
launched into space, and then controlled safely out of Earth's orbit, and on a
path away to exit the solar system? Similar to the Voyager spacecraft,
perhaps?

~~~
hengheng
What if one out of those thousand rockets fails?

~~~
kunai
Fine; set up the launch site in Antarctica. :P

