3 ms·

Isn't it that nuclear power is only ecologically disastrous for the medium term while being mostly beneficial in the longer term? Here an article about wildlif

Isn't it that nuclear power is only ecologically disastrous for the medium term while being mostly beneficial in the longer term? Here an article about wildlife in Chernobyl - https://www.nature.com/articles/526166a https://www.nature.com/articles/526166a

rurban 9y ago
Exactly the opposite. Nuclear is only beneficial short term. The long term consequences are very long term, hundreds thousands of years. The problem of storing nuclear waste material is still unsolved and extremely expensive. Radiation poisoning is ecologically extremely disastrous. E.g. the shield in Chernobyl has to be rebuilt every few decades because the radiation weakens every shielding material over time.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > Exactly the opposite. Nuclear is only beneficial short term. > The long term consequences are very long term, hundreds thousands of years. That differs per isotope AFAIK. Also, you could regard it as temporary solution between coal, less efficient/safe/fill_in nuclear power plants, and solar/wind/biomass. Because global warming is here right now, and we gotta deal with it right now.
- acidburnNSA 9y ago
  I completely disagree. Using waste repositories like the one Finland is opening soon [1] keep the radiation out of the biosphere for well beyond the time it is dangerous. One soda can of nuclear fuel can provide a lifetime supply of carbon-free energy to a human at US consumption levels and make one soda can of gnarly radioactive waste. That waste is so small that it's feasible to safely dispose of it. The land, carbon, material, mining, etc. footprints of nuclear are tiny and that's what affect the environment. Nuclear is extremely clean. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
Cealeno 9y ago
It is beneficial because it gets rid of us. The presence of humans is worse that almost any cataclismic effect, even a nuclear explosion and lingering radiation. The radiation itself isn't beneficial in the long term, if that's what you're asking.

rurban 9y ago

Exactly the opposite. Nuclear is only beneficial short term. The long term consequences are very long term, hundreds thousands of years. The problem of storing nuclear waste material is still unsolved and extremely expensive. Radiation poisoning is ecologically extremely disastrous. E.g. the shield in Chernobyl has to be rebuilt every few decades because the radiation weakens every shielding material over time.

Fnoord 9y ago
> Exactly the opposite. Nuclear is only beneficial short term. > The long term consequences are very long term, hundreds thousands of years. That differs per isotope AFAIK. Also, you could regard it as temporary solution between coal, less efficient/safe/fill_in nuclear power plants, and solar/wind/biomass. Because global warming is here right now, and we gotta deal with it right now.
acidburnNSA 9y ago
I completely disagree. Using waste repositories like the one Finland is opening soon [1] keep the radiation out of the biosphere for well beyond the time it is dangerous. One soda can of nuclear fuel can provide a lifetime supply of carbon-free energy to a human at US consumption levels and make one soda can of gnarly radioactive waste. That waste is so small that it's feasible to safely dispose of it. The land, carbon, material, mining, etc. footprints of nuclear are tiny and that's what affect the environment. Nuclear is extremely clean. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

Cealeno 9y ago

It is beneficial because it gets rid of us. The presence of humans is worse that almost any cataclismic effect, even a nuclear explosion and lingering radiation. The radiation itself isn't beneficial in the long term, if that's what you're asking.