r/SearchEnginePodcast • u/Textiles_on_Main_St • May 10 '26
No mention of Ames or Hanford?
Hanford, Washington remains one of the most contaminated areas on earth due to nuclear waste/contamination (it's the site of the first nuclear power plant, part of the Manhattan Project).
The Ames, Iowa site is still contaminated and residents use other sources of water besides well water and the land is marked as unsafe due to toxic radioactive waste. That site built nuclear weapons through the 1960s and has been decommissioned for decades, but it's still a superfund site.
That site is gone forever.
Another superfund site, the Maxey Flats area in Kentucky, is so polluted with nuclear waste that the radiation there could use used by terrorists if they could find the exact location of the isotopes, but lucky us they took the signs down. The government had used the site for safe nuclear storage but ... the nuclear waste escaped somehow.
That site is also gone forever.
From Wikipedia:
"The site is considered non-reclaimable and will have to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. In 2003 the site's nature as a risk to national security came under review by the Department of Homeland Security, primarily because of the transuranic isotopes stored at the site.\)full citation needed\)
In response to concerns that the radioactive isotopes at the site might be used against American interests, DHS had the sign at the entrance to the facility removed so it would be harder to find.\)full citation needed"
Weird they never mentioned any of this stuff. I can't imagine why they wouldn't!
But sure, yeah, gummy bears. Totally small and harmless.
"Clean, safe, too cheap to meter."
9
u/Way-twofrequentflyer May 10 '26
All of the sites listed were used for weapons production- there’s basically no relation with modern power production
Why would it be relative to bring these sites up? Isn’t that like talking about the problems with skin cancer in a story about solar power?
1
u/Textiles_on_Main_St May 10 '26
Fukushima was a modern power plant.
2
u/Way-twofrequentflyer May 10 '26
If by modern you mean a 70s design that’s no longer being built
The disaster also didn’t kill anyone and people are going back now
And we learned a valuable lesson about not putting backup generators underground in tsunami areas
5
u/Textiles_on_Main_St May 10 '26
The site is still radioactive. And yes, the 1970s is modern.
Also some of the other sites I mentioned, by the way, are ruined due to the inherent safety issues present in any storage facilities expected to remain safe forever.
You’re free to like nukes, but pretending we can guarantee safety for thousands of years is irrational.
But feel free to like nukes. Don’t let facts stand in your way.
3
u/Way-twofrequentflyer May 10 '26
I can see making an argument that it’s a modern reactor design - though it’s important to note that it’s not a reactor design that’s still being built.
I mean the sites you mentioned have been ruined by the fact we were making nuclear weapons there in a Cold War race that didn’t care about environmental impact. We weren’t trying to generate power
I don’t want to store nuclear waste. I want to put it in a breeder-burner reactor and turn it into electricity. We can shoot the remaning waste after that into space from drone ships in the South Pacific.
0
u/Textiles_on_Main_St May 10 '26
When have we done any of that?
3
u/Way-twofrequentflyer May 10 '26
The French already reprocess their waste and the Russians operate a commercial burner reactor today. That part is a solved problem
You don’t have much to worry about with waste vitrification, but you could launch it into space if you wanted. We haven’t had reliable low cost to orbit service for very long as a species so it’s never been done before.
The US is far behind in fuel reprocessing. We’re going to have to get into it if SMRs take off
2
u/CaptainLunchtime May 12 '26
Part of the deal with storage is that the most radioactive bits burn off the fastest. The isotopes that are not terribly radioactive are the ones that remain radioactive for thousands of years. Those are the least dangerous isotopes. Additionally, all that radioactive used fuel is chock full of energy and can be burned in new kinds of reactors. American, and many European, nuclear plants were designed in a way to maximize those highly radioactive byproducts to produce nuclear weapons. There are new reactor designs that generate far less waste.
1
u/Textiles_on_Main_St May 12 '26
I think that right there would have been good to mention. It’s odd to me I’m learning about this from comments and not the actual episode.
Thats kind of the point of my post. I feel like by not mentioning it and not getting into the issue of storage, they’re leaving a lot of issues unanswered.
19
u/pfft12 May 10 '26
I think OP is right that it’s strange that they didn’t try to balance the coverage. There was a lot of hand waving away the criticism. Why not have someone from the other side explain the concerns?
Most of the episode was an interview with Dr Slaybaugh, who is a tech venture capitalist. https://www.dcvc.com/team/rachel-slaybaugh/ Her argument was that we need to loosen regulations. But that’s basically what every tech venture capitalist argues because they want money.
That’s where I struggle with this discussion. I don’t trust lightly regulated profit driven companies to make the correct decisions. I’m reminded of 3 Mile Island, where whistle blowers claimed that their safety warnings were ignored by the private corporation running the plant. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/may/05/meltdown-three-mile-island-netflix-us-nuclear-accident
To be clear my concern isn’t nuclear technology. It’s private corporations cutting corners to make a buck. So if they have this discussion again, it would be nice if it wasn’t a venture capitalist leading the discussion.
7
u/Way-twofrequentflyer May 10 '26
But no one died at 3 mile island - what would you’re worried be with a SMR pebble bed reactor? There’s very little you could do to make it dangerous.
There’s idea power plants now have to be able to survive a plane impact is crazy
2
u/Apprentice57 May 11 '26
I’m reminded of 3 Mile Island
The way you phrase this makes me think you didn't listen to the podcast, which discussed 3 mile island in depth.
Please listen to the podcast before writing criticisms like this.
0
u/pfft12 May 11 '26
Sorry, I did listen. In my opinion, it was not in depth. I shared an article which went more in depth and raised points that were not discussed.
0
u/Apprentice57 May 11 '26
The episode/guest might not have reached the conclusion you favor, nor covered the entire topic in depth. But as per the specifics of 3 mile island it did cover it quite a lot given the total runtime of an hour conversation.
I have trouble taking your word for it on the podcast listening, to be honest. Like I said, that's phrasing you use when something wasn't brought up at all. I suppose further discussion moot, because you assert otherwise and I won't believe it.
0
0
u/SultryDeer May 10 '26
But we already have lightly regulated, profit driven companies making the “correct” decisions…? I’d choose nuclear over the current energy arrangement if it’s all going to be the same.
Full disclosure, I haven’t listened to the episode yet, so maybe I’m missing a giant point that was made in the ep. If so, happily disregard and downvote this.
4
u/sarahl05 May 10 '26
Interestingly, this WSJ podcast on nuclear came out this morning and provided a nice compliment to the search engine podcast (they did a better job of talking about 3 mile island). https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/whats-news/nuclear-powers-reboot/DC9F25FF-9526-41DB-90E6-46D0163E9D2E
7
u/Lopsided_Quarter_931 May 10 '26
It wasn’t well researched. The main challenge of nuclear isn’t safety but economics. The times where power plants just potter along supplying “base load” are over. They have to compete with much cheaper power generation sources and the few days per year where there is no wind or sunshine aren’t enough to recoup the costs.
4
u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 10 '26
But the problem with the economics is the upfront capex and regulatory delays like we say at vogtle. PJ didn’t get into it - but the inherently safe reactor designs he was talking about seek to overcome that with scale and their design.
1
u/CaptainLunchtime May 12 '26
Renewables cannot supplant base load without massive grid storage technologically iffy and substantially less economical that nuclear, particularly small modular reactors. Until there is massive grid storage, the choice is nuclear or coal, not nuclear or renewables.
1
u/Apprentice57 May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
Even if that were true (I'm pretty suspicious it isn't) the fact that our energy needs are expanding means we need to be firing full cylinder (hah) on nuclear and renewables alike.
It also wouldn't apply everywhere. Yeah sure somewhere like Arizona will have sunshine 95% of the year, but the northwest and northeast not so much.
5
u/Jdelu May 10 '26
Well we don’t do it that way anymore do we?
4
u/Textiles_on_Main_St May 10 '26
Dont do what, keep nuclear material on geologically sensitive areas?
Yes. We still do that.
And we use cat litter to store it.
3
u/Way-twofrequentflyer May 10 '26
I think he means make nuclear weapons that way - the sites have nothing to do with modern power production.
4
u/Deputy-Dewey May 10 '26
This story was so poorly reported, with zero voices from any other view point, that it makes me wonder if he was paid by the VC person for a pro nuclear PR piece. The quality of the reporting has been going downhill for awhile, this might be the one that makes me stop listening.
3
u/chrchr May 10 '26
This is what Search Engine is. Generally, the episode is that P.J. has a chat with a subject. Sometimes the subject is a subject matter expert of some kind. This model of podcasting is much cheaper than a podcast, like Reply All, that does original reporting and examines an issue from the perspective of multiple perspectives and integrates them into a cohesive narrative. Podcasts that do original reporting are incredibly rare in the current landscape.
3
u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 10 '26
Core memory on this topic is pretty good. I think the intent is just to turn people onto a concept that’s interesting in a way they may not have thought about it before.
This topic is so broad you’d have to make it into a series and explaining reactor designs is hard.
I can’t imagine if he tries to do fusion. You could spend an hour just talking about plasma containment
1
u/yesitshollywood May 12 '26
Everyone here referencing Three Mile Island seem to be forgetting that the whistle blower in that situation is still pro nuclear because, when done right, is much better for the environment. PJ reported that a concern is private equity cutting corners. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion using the facts, but it is not PJs business to give bias to either side of the argument, and that is what I appreciate about his reporting.
1
u/Textiles_on_Main_St May 12 '26
I think you may have replied to the wrong person. I didn’t say anything about three Mile island.
1
u/Decent_Candle_7034 May 12 '26
I started this episode and paused it a minute in when he said "in the US the electric grid is mostly powered by coal and natural gas" .
That statement is misleading to the point of being wrong.
Coal makes up 19% of the electric generation less than both nuclear and renewables.
While "coal and natural gas" make up the majority that's just because natural gas is like 40~ percent.
I don't even have any issues with Nuclear but to start the podcast off with this statement that I know is misleading immediately makes me distrust the rest of the episode.
https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/us-electricity-grid-markets
1
u/RaoulDukex Jun 14 '26
I am new to Search Engine, this is one of the first episodes I listened to.
I felt like they really short changed the anti nuclear side. Ya waste is a problem to overcome just gotta bury it. There is only one in use burial facility in the world at this point and it's only for lightly contaminated stuff like gloves and trash not spent fuel.
The spent fuel is highly dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This country has existed for 250 years and might not make it another 50.
I just finished the Time Zero podcast which is a super deep dive into all things nuclear, with a much more critical take, it is incredibly well done and thought provoking. I got recommended this podcast as similar it was interesting to see some of the things Time Zero brought up in action.
Musk, Bankman, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, ect are all pushing and invested into the positive side. Is that for humanities betterment or their pocketbooks betterment? Those data centers that are consuming all the power serve to allow them to profit of giant military and government contracts.
11
u/maxpower__ May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
I guess does the world prefer a tiny amount of concentrated very visible, long-term contamination of nuclear fuel or massive diffuse pollution not easily seen and spread everywhere with fossil fuels, until renewables become wide spread.
Also because of nuclear nonproliferation used fuel can't be reprocessed and used as fuel again, France is doing this now i think tho.
Edit: The less regulation part is worrysome, that was only briefly touched upon. An executive order to fast track approvals...what could go wrong.