3 ms·
If you count the harm done to the environment by fossil fuels while we've been waiting for wind and solar to actually become practical replacements in all cases
by chc 11y ago
If you count the harm done to the environment by fossil fuels while we've been waiting for wind and solar to actually become practical replacements in all cases, their effects are extremely devastating and long-lasting.
I think that's pretty much the reason people seem "opposed" to them. It's not that people hate wind or solar power per se, but that waiting for them to swoop in and save us means sticking with fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, which people don't like.
- stephenr 11y ago> their effects are extremely devastating and long-lasting But barrels of radioactive waste that need to be stored for 1000s of years are basically just marshmallows and titty sprinkles, right?
- chc 11y agoCompared to what climate change could to the world, absolutely.
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoThe "radioactive waste" that lasts for 1000s of years is Plutonium. It's "waste" because existing reactors aren't designed to use it as fuel. New reactors could. And we already have tons and tons of the stuff. All the existing reactors in operation produce it every day. The only way to actually get rid of it is to build new reactors that use it as fuel.
- ohyes 11y ago"Radioactive waste" (industry term is spent fuel). Is stored in a spent fuel pool and then moved to dry cask storage. (A concrete and lead reinforced shipping container). No barrels involved. (At least in the US). In other countries they recycle the fuel in fast breeder reactors to make more fuel. The real issue is what do to do with the steel from decommissioning reactors, as it is radioactive and can't be recycled into new fuel or non radioactive steel. Tldr; nuclear plant operations are not like they are in cartoons.