>> In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can be recycled

>Waste is not "recycled" it's reprocessed. Recycling is what you do with materials from renewable energy sources.

There is no need for you to try and redefine the word 'recycling'.

>..."Work on the first demonstration HTR-PM power plant, composed of two reactors driving a single steam turbine, began in December 2012 [...] On 12 September 2021, one of the two reactor achieved criticality, becoming the first 4th generation nuclear reactor in the world to do so, and is scheduled to be connected to the electricity grid before the end of 2021"

>So you have ONE reactor. In China. It took 9 years to get it into operation.

You misread what I wrote. What I wrote was:

>Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel

The obvious point I was making was that this isn't like nuclear fusion where there are huge challenges. The Integral Fast Reactor design was based on the EBR-2 which ran for over 30 years without problems and the IFR was killed for political reasons way back in the Clinton administration - as Clinton said "I know; it's a symbol." As you point out, the Chinese have developed a different type of 4th gen design and it is operational. The web page lists a few other designs that are being worked on.

>How is this again supposed to fight climate change?

You misread what I wrote. I never said this was important for climate change. I said that soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel. A breeder reactor could be used to basically burn all transuranic waste, getting much more energy out of the fuel - greatly reducing the need to mine uranium and reducing the material that needs to be stored. As I quoted from the wikipedia article:

>...The IFR extracts and recycles 99.9% of the uranium and Transuranium elements on each cycle and uses them to produce power; so its waste is just the fission products; in 300 years their radioactivity will fall below that of the original uranium

You obviously don't need a breeder reactor to deal with climate change - you just need to generate power without using fossil fuels (geothermal ,hydro, nuclear power, solar, wind, etc.)

>...No they don't...museums can store their art in some of the nuclear storage facilities...my god the crap some people believe...https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-The_art_of_radioactive...

It is more accurate to say they were able to make it into an art museum. If it wasn't obvious, one point here is that the volume of waste is low and another is that it can be stored safely enough that you can have tour groups come through.

>...As I said above and you could have found out with very little research (actually just reading some of the wikipedia articles you've linked would help),

Please don't lower yourself to trying to do personal attacks such as this - it is against Hacker News guidelines and people will simply ignore what you are saying if you can't follow the guidelines.

>...I won't even go into your whataboutism for coal because there is no connection to this discussion.

I bring that up to give context. Historically coal plants and nuclear plants can essentially be substitutes for each other as they both can produce similar amounts of electricity with high capacity factor. A double standard is:

>...the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

Focussing on the waste issues of nuclear power and ignoring the waste issues of its direct substitute would be a double standard.

Coal burning has produced hundreds of millions of tons of toxic solid waste products and has few safety regulations:

>…In the United States, due to few federal and state regulations concerning ash ponds, most power plants do not use geomembranes, leachate collection systems, or other flow controls often found in municipal solid waste landfills.

So it isn't surprising that:

>…The EPA classified 44 sites in the US as potential hazards to communities. Such a classification means that the waste sites could cause death and significant property damage if an event such as a storm, a terrorist attack or a structural failure caused a spill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_environmental_impac...

This will be a problem for many generations. Billions of dollars have been added to the cost of nuclear energy to have a fund to pay for waste management. Nothing of the sort has been done for coal waste - I think you would agree this is unfortunate. It is important for people to learn about the environmental impacts of burning coal as there actually are people who argue that nuclear power plants should be shut down when there are still coal plants that are operating.

In terms of "whaaboutism". The definition of Whataboutism is:

>...is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Your first response was:

>>I like how you talk about ignoring costs but don't even scratch on that nuclear waste burden which generations will have to carry.

You threw out a low effort comment to distract from talking about the issues I brought up in my original message. That is an example of the fallacy of whaaboutism.

>...You know...the one where you desperately try to play down the cost for nuclear waste storage instead just admitting that those costs are nowhere to be found in the energy prices.

That is simply wrong. It is pretty much accepted all over the world, that those who produce nuclear waste should pay for the costs of it. International organizations like the OECD, US department of Energy, etc compare cost estimates and approaches with each other. For LLW the costs are pretty well known and for ILW and HLW counties are getting better at figuring this out as planning continues on long term repositories. Funding in the US for this is provided by a tax on power generated through nuclear power since 1982. Billions of dollars have been collected from that tax and if it turns out that more money would be needed for long term storage, there would likely be additional taxes applied.

While I am sure there are areas that we disagree on, I hope we can both agree that in the future, the grid has to stop using fossil fuels and the grid has to be at least as reliable as it currently is.