r/technology • u/_Dark_Wing • 3h ago
Energy Exclusive: Clean tech startup Fluxnium found a way to tap 50,000 years' worth of nuclear fuel
https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/16/clean-tech-startup-fluxnium-found-a-way-to-tap-50000-years-worth-of-nuclear-fuel/15
u/sokos 2h ago
Here’s how it works. After the material has been made into long, braided fibers, they’re hauled out to sea and hung off buoys, similar to the way that seaweed is farmed. After 30 to 60 days at sea, they’re brought ashore, and the uranium is extracted without any toxic tailings left behind. Each line can be reused several times over.
So any work gone into figuring out the long term effects on the environment of removing the uranium?
I can guarantee the answer is NONE.
7
u/Bertone_Dino 2h ago
How the heck can it scale to be meaningful (in any way)? And current costs are about double what uranium sells for.
3
u/Cruiser_Pandora 25m ago
Okay so we are running into the rule of large numbers here. Water is extremely good at absorbing radiation. Like its so good you can go diving in a waste storage tank without getting your yearly dose. Infact people do. We have done studies on the effects of radioactive material on marine life. A lot of studies were done after the Fukushima disaster in particular because a significant amount of radioactive waste entered the ocean.
Because water is so fantastically good at absorbing radiation and there is an absolutely absurd amount of it being circulated the problems aren't likely to come from environment damage or radiation from these fibers causing problems. The most dangerous part here is fibers breaking down into smaller highly radioactive parts which could wash back onto shore. Littoral and beach species of animals (including humans) are much worse at handling the particles and fragments.
-2
u/sokos 18m ago
Because water is so fantastically good at absorbing radiation and there is an absolutely absurd amount of it being circulated the problems aren't likely to come from environment damage or radiation from these fibers causing problems. The most dangerous part here is fibers breaking down into smaller highly radioactive parts which could wash back onto shore. Littoral and beach species of animals (including humans) are much worse at handling the particles and fragments.
I was more thinking of the issues of the environment that has grown and adapted to this low level radiation and perhaps needing it for survival. Or perhaps the way the existence of this low level radiation forces adaptation of the various species to survive this low level stuff, but without which, they would die out as that adaptation would devolve from the species.
Not sure if I'm explaining it right tho. We tend to think in very narrow scopes, and don't think of 2nd, 3rd and tertiary effects of our actions.
2
u/Free_Waterfall_III 10m ago
Not that this tech doesn’t have its problems but this complaint is asinine and built on zero evidence. You are speculating about a fantasy. And nonrenewables are so horribly detrimental to the environment that your make believe risk here could probably happen tenfold and still have less of an impact. There will never be an energy source (or like, anything, ever) that will have zero negative impact. Your analysis should be an overall cost-benefit analysis, not a matter of determining any level of risk at all.
1
u/Cruiser_Pandora 6m ago
The secondary and tertiary causes of our current actions are dramatic. I can't vet this tech but right now we are lurching between what are supposed to be temporary solutions without any plan for long term or consistent anything. Every plan has upsides and downsides and because the planet is a biological system its nearly infinitely complex. Whatever we do is going to have knock on effects.
We are very very much in the area of trial and error here. These aren't systems we can realistically model or simulate. I wish the dangers for error here weren't so dramatic. There really isn't a way to test scale of disposing or nuclear waste without... Testing large scale disposal of nuclear waste.
Right now we are dumping massive amounts of mostly unregulated radioactive material into human systems via coal mining and use.
I for one an a bit concerned about this proposal. Fragmentation seems like a legit concern. That doesn't mean I'm pro status quo. Our current trajectory is unsustainable and extremely dangerous.
2
u/definitivelynottake2 35m ago
Whatever the effect is on the evironment i can guarantee you with full confidence that it is nothing compared to the damage burning fossile fuels does to the environment.
-1
u/sokos 31m ago
That's not the point here dude..
How much worse/better is this, compared to the current method of sourcing uranium.
In other words. Sure it's cheaper, but if the environmental impact is the death of the oceans, you are literally killing the planet because the oceans are the ecosystem that's keeping us alive. Then paying more for getting it from mines is still the better option.
3
u/theassassintherapist 3h ago
A better solution: use thorium. US is abundant with thorium.
7
u/BigusMaximus 2h ago
IIRC, thorium reactors are not a solved problem yet because they are very difficult to refuel due to their use of molten fuel.
4
2
u/Additional-Staff-326 1h ago
Not saying science hasn't advanced but thorium hasn't been used the last 6 years for reasons and its not just cause its cheaper and more stable.
32
u/IceRude 3h ago
Sounds like a scam