4 ms·

How is nuclear power „clean“ with all the radioactive waste that needs to go somewhere when burnt down?

krastanov 8y ago
When the used fuel rods are properly stored, even the primitive nuclear reactors we use today release quite a bit less radiation than burning coal (not event mentioning CO2 and so on). Even after including all major nuclear accidents, nuclear plants have saved lives compared to coal plants (and they have pretty good track record when compared against even renewable sources). However, storing the fuel rods properly is borderline impossible due to politics, so your questions probably still stands.
- hennsen 8y ago
  I admit i don’t know much about the coal burning radiation output. And im even further away from knowing the perfect solution to the worlds energy needs. So i have many questions, driven by the wish to live in a intact environment and leaving it to those who come in a good state. Where and how exactly is the radiation release of coal plants happening? I can imagine its maybe a difference if a smaller dose of radiation is put out slowly and spread more (in time and space terms)than if it’s concentrated on one point? Radiaton is anywhere thats clear... but we rarely get strong radiation caused illnesses from just catching cosmic radiation do we? And how exactly are politics preventing proper storage? I definitely don’t wanna promote coal, but where are these numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima and Tchernobyl and the many smaller incidents? Also i often wonder - where could science of reusable energy and reduced consumption be if the billions invested in nuclear research were invested there instead?
  - danmaz74 8y ago
    > And how exactly are politics preventing proper storage? Basically, NIMBY. Even if it's perfectly safe, some people will always worry about "but what if all physicists, seismologists etc. etc. are wrong (or lying)"?
    - codingminds 8y ago
      Like with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine ?
  - sjwright 8y ago
    > numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima The number of people who died from the radiation which escaped during the Fukishima nuclear disaster is currently zero.[0] Even factoring in the worst-case projections for every nuclear energy disaster, nuclear power is still the safest—or certainly one of the safest—forms of utility-scale electricity generation. If you're looking for a form of energy which is normally safe but kills thousands in a disaster scenario, the answer is hydro. In one instance, a dam failure killed 171,000 people. Solar panel installers and wind turbine workers occasionally die from falls. (Also, solar panel manufacturing can be a dirty/toxic process.) Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas, biomass) kill because miners, workers and citizens breathe in coal dust and smoke particulates belched into the atmosphere. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Mortality rate in deaths per trillion kilowatt hours: Source Rate ----------------- Coal 100,000 Oil 36,000 Biofuel 24,000 Gas 4,000 Hydro 1,400 Solar 440 Wind 150 Nuclear 90 ----------------- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#5a58db18709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
    - zeristor 8y ago
      How are people being killed by Solar? Panels dropped on heads? Pollutants from production? A proportion of deaths from mining and refining silicon?
      - majewsky 8y ago
        Why is this downvoted? I have the same question.
        zeristor 8y ago
        I like to think the up button is small, and it was an accidental downvote, its happened to me a few times.
        majewsky 8y ago
        I don't know, there's the "unvote"/"undown" buttons to correct these kinds of mistakes, but I guess most people won't double-check.
        hennsen 8y ago
        I’ve been told not to discuss downvoting (see faq). That said i think too there should be a proposal to comment what you don’t like on downvoting as it is in stackoverflow... otherwise people neber know how to change their behavior.
      - the8472 8y ago
        falling from roofs
  - jabl 8y ago
    > Where and how exactly is the radiation release of coal plants happening? Coal plants don't burn pure elemental carbon, the black stuff that is dug up from the ground contains a lot of other stuff as well, such as sulphur (acid rain, etc.), and, yes, various radionuclides. So when the coal is burned, part of the radionuclides go up the smokestack, others are left in the ash. Realistically, compared to all the other environmental destruction associated with coal power, the radioactivity release is a non-issue. At the same time, it's good to keep in mind that except for major disasters like Chernobyl, an operating coal plant releases orders of magnitude more radioactivity to the environment than an operating nuclear plant. > I definitely don’t wanna promote coal, but where are these numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima and Tchernobyl and the many smaller incidents? You cannot usually say that person X died due to coal power production (except for things like coal mining accidents (which are quite common), maintenance worker falling etc.), but at a population level coal pollution causes an increase in respiratory illnesses, strokes, etc. which, again, at population level kills people. If you want to learn more, you can start e.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents > Also i often wonder - where could science of reusable energy and reduced consumption be if the billions invested in nuclear research were invested there instead? I'm not sure what "reusable energy" is supposed to mean, but yeah, sure, energy efficiency would probably be better than it is now. Would it be better enough to cover the loss of nuclear energy, and it's partial replacement by fossil power such as coal? I doubt it.
- makomk 8y ago
  I'm not sure they actually do. The highest figure nuclear proponents have come up with for radiation exposure from coal is about three times nuclear power plants, if you only count the source of radiation exposure that coal and nuclear have in common, and that's for very polluting 1970s-era coal power plants of a type that probably wouldn't be allowed to operate today. Besides, coal power is dying out in the US anyway.
Lazare 8y ago
By that logic, solar, wind, and hydro aren't clean either; they all generate some amount of pollution and environmental side effects. And since nothing is truly "clean", I guess we can all just use coal, right? Sarcasm aside, "clean" in this context has a very specific meaning, which nuclear meets. The fact that it isn't an entirely magical source of side-effect free power is not relevant.
- TheRealPomax 8y ago
  solar, wind, and hydro don't leave a persistent waste product that takes hundreds of thousands of years to become safe to stand next to. Nuclear has a special class of unclean all on its own - it's both much cleaner than coal on the immediate term, and way less clean on the "beyond timescales that humans can understand" scale.
  - Ygg2 8y ago
    Sure they do. It's called buildings. Some nuclear waste can be recycled to lower lifetime waste that degrades on sensible timescales, but let's hate on all nuclear power because it's not magical.
    - TheRealPomax 8y ago
      yes, let's confused my statement for hate on nuclear, despite being pro nuclear. Makes sense to me.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    You do realise those “beyond timescales humans understand” substances are already in the Earth’s crust? And the longer something takes to decay, the safer it is. Long time scales are a plus.
    - TheRealPomax 8y ago
      Let's not fall for the "why are you worried about coal waste, there are layers and layers of soot in the crust already, and no one's bothered by those" excuse.
TomMarius 8y ago
It's possible to easily take the whole waste and safely store it until it breaks down (it takes a while, though) - that makes it clean as opposed to other kinds of plants that pollute the air.

When the used fuel rods are properly stored, even the primitive nuclear reactors we use today release quite a bit less radiation than burning coal (not event mentioning CO2 and so on). Even after including all major nuclear accidents, nuclear plants have saved lives compared to coal plants (and they have pretty good track record when compared against even renewable sources). However, storing the fuel rods properly is borderline impossible due to politics, so your questions probably still stands.

hennsen 8y ago
I admit i don’t know much about the coal burning radiation output. And im even further away from knowing the perfect solution to the worlds energy needs. So i have many questions, driven by the wish to live in a intact environment and leaving it to those who come in a good state. Where and how exactly is the radiation release of coal plants happening? I can imagine its maybe a difference if a smaller dose of radiation is put out slowly and spread more (in time and space terms)than if it’s concentrated on one point? Radiaton is anywhere thats clear... but we rarely get strong radiation caused illnesses from just catching cosmic radiation do we? And how exactly are politics preventing proper storage? I definitely don’t wanna promote coal, but where are these numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima and Tchernobyl and the many smaller incidents? Also i often wonder - where could science of reusable energy and reduced consumption be if the billions invested in nuclear research were invested there instead?
- danmaz74 8y ago
  > And how exactly are politics preventing proper storage? Basically, NIMBY. Even if it's perfectly safe, some people will always worry about "but what if all physicists, seismologists etc. etc. are wrong (or lying)"?
  - codingminds 8y ago
    Like with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine ?
- sjwright 8y ago
  > numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima The number of people who died from the radiation which escaped during the Fukishima nuclear disaster is currently zero.[0] Even factoring in the worst-case projections for every nuclear energy disaster, nuclear power is still the safest—or certainly one of the safest—forms of utility-scale electricity generation. If you're looking for a form of energy which is normally safe but kills thousands in a disaster scenario, the answer is hydro. In one instance, a dam failure killed 171,000 people. Solar panel installers and wind turbine workers occasionally die from falls. (Also, solar panel manufacturing can be a dirty/toxic process.) Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas, biomass) kill because miners, workers and citizens breathe in coal dust and smoke particulates belched into the atmosphere. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
- sjwright 8y ago
  Mortality rate in deaths per trillion kilowatt hours: Source Rate ----------------- Coal 100,000 Oil 36,000 Biofuel 24,000 Gas 4,000 Hydro 1,400 Solar 440 Wind 150 Nuclear 90 ----------------- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#5a58db18709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
  - zeristor 8y ago
    How are people being killed by Solar? Panels dropped on heads? Pollutants from production? A proportion of deaths from mining and refining silicon?
    - majewsky 8y ago
      Why is this downvoted? I have the same question.
      - zeristor 8y ago
        I like to think the up button is small, and it was an accidental downvote, its happened to me a few times.
        majewsky 8y ago
        I don't know, there's the "unvote"/"undown" buttons to correct these kinds of mistakes, but I guess most people won't double-check.
      - hennsen 8y ago
        I’ve been told not to discuss downvoting (see faq). That said i think too there should be a proposal to comment what you don’t like on downvoting as it is in stackoverflow... otherwise people neber know how to change their behavior.
    - the8472 8y ago
      falling from roofs
- jabl 8y ago
  > Where and how exactly is the radiation release of coal plants happening? Coal plants don't burn pure elemental carbon, the black stuff that is dug up from the ground contains a lot of other stuff as well, such as sulphur (acid rain, etc.), and, yes, various radionuclides. So when the coal is burned, part of the radionuclides go up the smokestack, others are left in the ash. Realistically, compared to all the other environmental destruction associated with coal power, the radioactivity release is a non-issue. At the same time, it's good to keep in mind that except for major disasters like Chernobyl, an operating coal plant releases orders of magnitude more radioactivity to the environment than an operating nuclear plant. > I definitely don’t wanna promote coal, but where are these numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima and Tchernobyl and the many smaller incidents? You cannot usually say that person X died due to coal power production (except for things like coal mining accidents (which are quite common), maintenance worker falling etc.), but at a population level coal pollution causes an increase in respiratory illnesses, strokes, etc. which, again, at population level kills people. If you want to learn more, you can start e.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents > Also i often wonder - where could science of reusable energy and reduced consumption be if the billions invested in nuclear research were invested there instead? I'm not sure what "reusable energy" is supposed to mean, but yeah, sure, energy efficiency would probably be better than it is now. Would it be better enough to cover the loss of nuclear energy, and it's partial replacement by fossil power such as coal? I doubt it.
makomk 8y ago
I'm not sure they actually do. The highest figure nuclear proponents have come up with for radiation exposure from coal is about three times nuclear power plants, if you only count the source of radiation exposure that coal and nuclear have in common, and that's for very polluting 1970s-era coal power plants of a type that probably wouldn't be allowed to operate today. Besides, coal power is dying out in the US anyway.

Lazare 8y ago

By that logic, solar, wind, and hydro aren't clean either; they all generate some amount of pollution and environmental side effects. And since nothing is truly "clean", I guess we can all just use coal, right? Sarcasm aside, "clean" in this context has a very specific meaning, which nuclear meets. The fact that it isn't an entirely magical source of side-effect free power is not relevant.

TheRealPomax 8y ago
solar, wind, and hydro don't leave a persistent waste product that takes hundreds of thousands of years to become safe to stand next to. Nuclear has a special class of unclean all on its own - it's both much cleaner than coal on the immediate term, and way less clean on the "beyond timescales that humans can understand" scale.
- Ygg2 8y ago
  Sure they do. It's called buildings. Some nuclear waste can be recycled to lower lifetime waste that degrades on sensible timescales, but let's hate on all nuclear power because it's not magical.
  - TheRealPomax 8y ago
    yes, let's confused my statement for hate on nuclear, despite being pro nuclear. Makes sense to me.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  You do realise those “beyond timescales humans understand” substances are already in the Earth’s crust? And the longer something takes to decay, the safer it is. Long time scales are a plus.
  - TheRealPomax 8y ago
    Let's not fall for the "why are you worried about coal waste, there are layers and layers of soot in the crust already, and no one's bothered by those" excuse.

TomMarius 8y ago

It's possible to easily take the whole waste and safely store it until it breaks down (it takes a while, though) - that makes it clean as opposed to other kinds of plants that pollute the air.