4 ms·

Risk is not the only reason to move away from nuclear energy. There's also the problem of radioactive waste, which will need to be dealt with for many, many yea

Risk is not the only reason to move away from nuclear energy. There's also the problem of radioactive waste, which will need to be dealt with for many, many years (German laws require secure storage for one million years). I won't claim that radioactive waste is more problematic than burning coal here, because I don't know enough about the topic. But it needs to be taken into account in the discussion. Calling nuclear energy "emissions free" is just wrong in my opinion: it just generates a different kind of emissions, nuclear waste.

nickik 9y ago
Nuclear waste is not actually a huge problem if you look at resources spent. Its only a 'problem' because anti-nuclear people demand totally unreasonable requirements and managed to put them into law. Plus the waste majority of the problem would go away, newer reactor types could consume lots of the old 'waste'. The US alone has enough 'waste' to power the whole US for years and years. It is of course not allowed to even research these reactors in many places. While it might not be 'emission free' it is free of uncontrolled emission. You know exactly where and how much radiation is produced and you can easily set it up so that not a single human or animal is hurt by it.
- lispm 9y ago
  > newer reactor types could consume lots of the old 'waste'. These reactors don't exist in Germany, and they won't exist in the next two decades and they need a whole new industry around it. These types of industries (reprocessing plants, fuel production, etc.) nobody wants to have in a dense European country and which are extremely expensive. Setting up these new reactors and the corresponding new fuel industries far away. If somebody wants to invest the many billions, good luck - but hopefully not anywhere near Germany.
  - nickik 9y ago
    You don't have to build a storage room for millions of years if you know that technologically its is quite feasible to use these resources in the next 1-2 generations. If nuclear energy development would not be stopped and opposed on every step both in development and deployment these things would have been solved long ago. The needed technology essentially exists for 40 years. Basically the problem only exist as long as people are determined to not develop nuclear technology any further. As for your 'dense population argument' that is essentially another 'nuclear is very dangerous and needs to be far away from people' argument. Every reasonable large country in Europe has enough space for these things, if you use real rather then fantasy risk assessment. Also, in a global market there is no reason why any of that stuff has to be in your country.
    - lispm 9y ago
      > technologically its is quite feasible to use these resources in the next 1-2 generations. These generations are far away and spent fuel piles up. Many countries have huge amounts of spent fuel near reactors. See Fukushima -> lots of spent fuel in pools in reactor buildings. This caused lots of problems in combination of the poor design (pool high in the building), failing backup electricity and failing outside electricity delivery (-> failing cooling of the pools). > If nuclear energy development would not be stopped and opposed on every step both in development and deployment these things would have been solved long ago. That's why nuclear thrives in China. Nuclear depends on and supports top-down authoritarian government and decision making. I'm happy that we have stopped this early. > Every reasonable large country in Europe has enough space for these things, if you use real rather then fantasy risk assessment. The faulty steel in the not yet running and extremely expensive French EPR is real and not a fantasy. http://www.french-nuclear-safety.fr/Information/News-releases/Flamanville-EPR-reactor-vessel-manufacturing-anomalies http://www.french-nuclear-safety.fr/Information/News-release...
    - kuschku 9y ago
      You might not know it, but by international treaties, Germany is banned from operating or having fuel reprocessing facilities. As result, it either has to be reprocessed expensively in France, or stored directly. > Also, in a global market there is no reason why any of that stuff has to be in your country. You do know how prohibitively expensive transport is, and how many legal requirements there are (to avoid hijacking by some rogue nation)?
      - germanier 9y ago
        Are you sure this is actually true? What would the name of those treaties be? There is a (unilateral) German law against such facilities and (regular private law) contracts to use the British and French ones.
        lispm 9y ago
        I don't think this is true. Germany actually was trying to build a Reprocessing Plant, against massive protest, it was given up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing_plant_Wackersdorf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing_plant_Wac...
- walshemj 9y ago
  Dump it in subduction zones would also help
emiliobumachar 9y ago
Fun fact: coal also produces radioactive waste, by freeing up naturally radioactive particles that would otherwise remain stuck in coal rocks deep into the Earth. The current "solution" to that radioactive waste? None whatsoever. We're breathing it up as we type. I'll admit that nuclear waste is more dangerous due to being concentrated, but, if the standards were the same as with coal, a reasonable solution would be to dump the waste in the ocean and take steps to ensure it mixes up.

nickik 9y ago

Nuclear waste is not actually a huge problem if you look at resources spent. Its only a 'problem' because anti-nuclear people demand totally unreasonable requirements and managed to put them into law. Plus the waste majority of the problem would go away, newer reactor types could consume lots of the old 'waste'. The US alone has enough 'waste' to power the whole US for years and years. It is of course not allowed to even research these reactors in many places. While it might not be 'emission free' it is free of uncontrolled emission. You know exactly where and how much radiation is produced and you can easily set it up so that not a single human or animal is hurt by it.

lispm 9y ago
> newer reactor types could consume lots of the old 'waste'. These reactors don't exist in Germany, and they won't exist in the next two decades and they need a whole new industry around it. These types of industries (reprocessing plants, fuel production, etc.) nobody wants to have in a dense European country and which are extremely expensive. Setting up these new reactors and the corresponding new fuel industries far away. If somebody wants to invest the many billions, good luck - but hopefully not anywhere near Germany.
- nickik 9y ago
  You don't have to build a storage room for millions of years if you know that technologically its is quite feasible to use these resources in the next 1-2 generations. If nuclear energy development would not be stopped and opposed on every step both in development and deployment these things would have been solved long ago. The needed technology essentially exists for 40 years. Basically the problem only exist as long as people are determined to not develop nuclear technology any further. As for your 'dense population argument' that is essentially another 'nuclear is very dangerous and needs to be far away from people' argument. Every reasonable large country in Europe has enough space for these things, if you use real rather then fantasy risk assessment. Also, in a global market there is no reason why any of that stuff has to be in your country.
  - lispm 9y ago
    > technologically its is quite feasible to use these resources in the next 1-2 generations. These generations are far away and spent fuel piles up. Many countries have huge amounts of spent fuel near reactors. See Fukushima -> lots of spent fuel in pools in reactor buildings. This caused lots of problems in combination of the poor design (pool high in the building), failing backup electricity and failing outside electricity delivery (-> failing cooling of the pools). > If nuclear energy development would not be stopped and opposed on every step both in development and deployment these things would have been solved long ago. That's why nuclear thrives in China. Nuclear depends on and supports top-down authoritarian government and decision making. I'm happy that we have stopped this early. > Every reasonable large country in Europe has enough space for these things, if you use real rather then fantasy risk assessment. The faulty steel in the not yet running and extremely expensive French EPR is real and not a fantasy. http://www.french-nuclear-safety.fr/Information/News-releases/Flamanville-EPR-reactor-vessel-manufacturing-anomalies http://www.french-nuclear-safety.fr/Information/News-release...
  - kuschku 9y ago
    You might not know it, but by international treaties, Germany is banned from operating or having fuel reprocessing facilities. As result, it either has to be reprocessed expensively in France, or stored directly. > Also, in a global market there is no reason why any of that stuff has to be in your country. You do know how prohibitively expensive transport is, and how many legal requirements there are (to avoid hijacking by some rogue nation)?
    - germanier 9y ago
      Are you sure this is actually true? What would the name of those treaties be? There is a (unilateral) German law against such facilities and (regular private law) contracts to use the British and French ones.
      - lispm 9y ago
        I don't think this is true. Germany actually was trying to build a Reprocessing Plant, against massive protest, it was given up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing_plant_Wackersdorf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing_plant_Wac...
walshemj 9y ago
Dump it in subduction zones would also help

emiliobumachar 9y ago

Fun fact: coal also produces radioactive waste, by freeing up naturally radioactive particles that would otherwise remain stuck in coal rocks deep into the Earth. The current "solution" to that radioactive waste? None whatsoever. We're breathing it up as we type. I'll admit that nuclear waste is more dangerous due to being concentrated, but, if the standards were the same as with coal, a reasonable solution would be to dump the waste in the ocean and take steps to ensure it mixes up.