3 ms·

You mentioned the benefit, lower carbon emissions. You didn't mention the cost. I searched "France nuclear waste." The first response was a BBC article https:

by spodek 7y ago

You mentioned the benefit, lower carbon emissions. You didn't mention the cost. I searched "France nuclear waste." The first response was a BBC article https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26425674 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26425674 saying "France generates around three quarters of its electricity from nuclear power but despite decades of activity it is no nearer a solution to the perils of nuclear waste. Many countries agree the hazardous material - some of it at temperatures of 90C - has to be disposed of deep below ground where it can be isolated from all living things for tens of thousands of years whilst the radiation slowly reduces." Tens of thousands of years is long. Unless I'm missing something, we have no idea the problems that may arise in a period longer than since Egyptian pyramids. I'm comparing nuclear pollution not to coal, but to had similar resources been put into reducing consumption.

gridlockd 7y ago
The claim that nuclear waste has to be stored for millennia is a false premise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Transmutation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Transmutatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Re-use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Re-use It would be unwise to gamble on technological progress making 100% green energy feasible, but not making safe nuclear waste disposal feasible. Consider that nuclear waste can be stored temporarily way into the future, but climate action and reliable energy is needed right now. If I had to choose between the environmental impact of climate change and the odds of some nuclear leaks thousands of years down the road, I'd go with nuclear. Such radiation isn't that harmful and the effects will either be localized or diluted.
driverdan 7y ago
That's a much smaller problem than the problems coal power creates.

by spodek 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

The claim that nuclear waste has to be stored for millennia is a false premise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Transmutation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Transmutatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Re-use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Re-use It would be unwise to gamble on technological progress making 100% green energy feasible, but not making safe nuclear waste disposal feasible. Consider that nuclear waste can be stored temporarily way into the future, but climate action and reliable energy is needed right now. If I had to choose between the environmental impact of climate change and the odds of some nuclear leaks thousands of years down the road, I'd go with nuclear. Such radiation isn't that harmful and the effects will either be localized or diluted.

driverdan 7y ago

That's a much smaller problem than the problems coal power creates.