How weird is that!?
Dealing with all the contaminated water and spent fuel has never been resolved properly so even if the reactor doesn’t fail there’s still huge problems, but those are usually just left for later… 
6 Likes
But, but, but - TOO CHEAP TO METER !
6 Likes
Ooh, the opposite of radiation!
5 Likes
Coal has the nasty problem that the waste tends to be shot straight into the air. It’s pretty much the worst source of energy we have. Saying that something is better than coal is like saying your medical procedure is less invasive than trepanning.
8 Likes
I gew up near an experimental plant that burned something called Orimulsion (spelling?), a synthetic oil. It left black speckles over everything in roughly a 5 mile radius and was the most likely cause of hundreds of children having lung problems of which asthma was the least damaging.
8 Likes
Orimulsion indeed 
wow, that’s a TIL for me. Bitumen from Orinoco in a water and phenol mix; so the black specks were “just” soot from badly managed combustion. “Soot” being short-hand for a lot of unpleasant, carcinogenic carbon compounds.
An alcohol-based surfactant recently replaced the original phenol-based version; improving the transport properties of the fuel and eliminating the health concerns associated with the phenol group of surfactants.
Lovely stuff /s … “eliminating”… seems optimistic.
6 Likes
That is quite the wikipedia article in general. Disadvantages: it’s sticky. Oh, should I mention you probably shouldn’t be burning through bitumen on a planet with humans? Eh, technical details like that can go in the human article.
5 Likes
I’m starting from the position that we’re not going to decrease total population, nor energy consumption per capita any time soon.
I care about the human cost of energy production, so I am pro-nuclear power - What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy? - Our World in Data
If the response is “but renewables + storage” - similar investment that’s already been thrown at storage might have given us reactors that produce non-radioactive waste by now. Nuclear waste is dangerous because it’s still giving off energy. One of the reasons we use the wasteful processes is to produce nukes (which I am 1000% against) but also to produce materials for nuclear medicine (which is awesome).
3 Likes
Obviously, humanity needs to shed our addiction to coal. And obviously, newer reactor designs are better than older reactor designs. The question is, do we still want to be reliant on nuclear power a hundred years from now.
3 Likes
This is untrue. About three times more has been invested in nuclear research than in renewables. And that’s a huge might on no nuclear waste that doesn’t seem to have any path towards achieving that goal.
Whereas it’s very clear that improvements in renewables has been steady and will likely continue. Increased investment in nuclear at the expense of renewables is a ridiculous plan.
Congressional Research Seevice
Renewable Energy R&D Funding History:
A Comparison with Funding for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, Energy Efficiency, and Electric Systems R&D
Summary
Energy-related research and development (R&D)—on coal-based synthetic petroleum and on atomic bombs—played an important role in the successful outcome of World War II. In the post- war era, the federal government conducted R&D on fossil and nuclear energy sources to support peacetime economic growth. The energy crises of the 1970s spurred the government to broaden the focus to include renewable energy and energy efficiency. Over the 41-year period from the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) inception at the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 1978 through FY2018, federal funding for renewable energy R&D amounted to about 18% of the energy R&D total, compared with 6% for electric systems, 16% for energy efficiency, 24% for fossil, and 37% for nuclear. For the 71-year period from 1948 through 2018, nearly 13% went to renewables, compared with nearly 5% for electric systems, 11% for energy efficiency, 24% for fossil, and 48% for nuclear.
12 Likes
3 Likes
About 10min walk from my home. If that’s too far there’s one in this building, two large ones less then 100 metres from here and the other about 300 metres.
9 Likes
6 Likes
I stand corrected on this point
4 Likes
I won! I won!
7 Likes
A bit tough to do if one lives in a high rise in the city.
I’ll just put some duct tape on the windows.
5 Likes
Not gonna lie, I did look up the entrance to my nearest bomb shelter yesterday. Luckily the mountains here are full of tunnels, so there are several close to my home and my place of work.
(I don’t actually anticipate having to use one, but then this is 1minute’s worth of research that can really make a difference in a worst case scenario)
5 Likes
Full version!
8 Likes
Just hang a chain in front of the parking lot that says DO NOT ENTER—problem solved 
3 Likes
