3 ms·

"Nuclear waste is stored in highly stable geological layers" That is just factually wrong. "Despite advanced schemes in Finland, not a single country worldwide

"Nuclear waste is stored in highly stable geological layers" That is just factually wrong. "Despite advanced schemes in Finland, not a single country worldwide has an operational underground repository." [1] That was 2014 and plans have stalled or have been abandoned altogether due to local opposition and technical problems. The reality is that in nearly all cases storage is onsite or in other above ground locations. France still has a plan to build and operate an underground storage facility in Bure [2], but costs have exploded due to not just very rose colored estimates at the start, but also due to running into problems such as water seepage and not being able to handle certain failure scenarios such as a transport catching fire. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26425674 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26425674 [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o

renaudg 7y ago
So on the one hand with nuclear, we're talking about one swimming pool's worth of waste since the beginning of the French nuclear programme. Currently stored safely enough, long term solution identified and implementation in progress. You find this unacceptable. On the other hand, we have renewables with no solution in sight (let alone implemented) for the intermittence problem (awaiting an hypothetical scientific breakthrough in batteries). In practice, you rely on coal for the day-to-day base load. Coal, for only a year's worth of running a country's trains generates "700.000 tons of solid ash (usually stored in the open air), plus 1.000 tons of soot and fine particles, including tons / dozens of tons of arsenic, lead, thallium, mercury, even uranium and thorium". You call this the reasonable option. And in another comment, you even feel entitled to lecture the Belgians and French about their nuclear plants near the border that might hypothetically fail one day, when 7 of the 10 worst polluters in Europe are Germany's lignite plants (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-lignite-plants-eus-top-polluters-free-democrats-attack-eeg/german-lignite-dominates-list-most-polluting-european-power-plants https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-lignite-plants-e...), with coal killing 23.300 people in Europe every year (https://endcoal.org/health/ https://endcoal.org/health/) right now, with certainty
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  Let me put your 'swimming pool' into the right context: Q: In principle, using AECB's regulatory limits, how many ''civilians'' can be overdosed by 100 grams of plutonium? 0.1 micrograms can overdose one civilian 0.1 grams can overdose one million civilians 1 gram can overdose ten million civilians 100 grams can overdose one billion civilians 600 grams can overdose six billion civilians Q: If there is a serious accident involving 120 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX), how many civilian overdoses could, in principle, result? if NONE of the plutonium is safely contained there is a potential for one billion two hundred million civilian overdoses if 90 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for one hundred and twenty million civilian overdoses if 99.9 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for one hundred and twenty thousand civilian overdoses if 99.999 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for one thousand two hundred civilian overdoses {1} http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html
  - renaudg 7y ago
    You're being disingenuous now. It feels like arguing about aviation being the safest means of transportation and having someone answer "but it's scary and deadly when it happens!" This will be my last answer. It's obviously not a swimming pool of plutonium ! Plutonium is less than 1% of the waste in the first place, and it's removed and recycled. In any case, nuclear waste is vitrified into glass with an estimated 10.000 years lifespan. Fukushima casualties : 1 confirmed from radiation, 2202 from evacuation, over 15000 from the tsunami itself. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... : "These numbers are very low compared to the estimated 20,000 casualties caused by the tsunami itself, and it has been estimated that if Japan had never adopted nuclear power, accidents and pollution from coal or gas plants would have caused more lost years of life" Again, coal causes 35.000 deaths per year across Europe. Every, year. Right now. Coal or gas are currently mandatory in the renewables + nuclear-free mix that Germany has chosen as the future. Why aren't you out protesting already ?
    - PeterStuer 7y ago

renaudg 7y ago

So on the one hand with nuclear, we're talking about one swimming pool's worth of waste since the beginning of the French nuclear programme. Currently stored safely enough, long term solution identified and implementation in progress. You find this unacceptable. On the other hand, we have renewables with no solution in sight (let alone implemented) for the intermittence problem (awaiting an hypothetical scientific breakthrough in batteries). In practice, you rely on coal for the day-to-day base load. Coal, for only a year's worth of running a country's trains generates "700.000 tons of solid ash (usually stored in the open air), plus 1.000 tons of soot and fine particles, including tons / dozens of tons of arsenic, lead, thallium, mercury, even uranium and thorium". You call this the reasonable option. And in another comment, you even feel entitled to lecture the Belgians and French about their nuclear plants near the border that might hypothetically fail one day, when 7 of the 10 worst polluters in Europe are Germany's lignite plants (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-lignite-plants-eus-top-polluters-free-democrats-attack-eeg/german-lignite-dominates-list-most-polluting-european-power-plants https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-lignite-plants-e...), with coal killing 23.300 people in Europe every year (https://endcoal.org/health/ https://endcoal.org/health/) right now, with certainty

PeterStuer 7y ago
Let me put your 'swimming pool' into the right context: Q: In principle, using AECB's regulatory limits, how many ''civilians'' can be overdosed by 100 grams of plutonium? 0.1 micrograms can overdose one civilian 0.1 grams can overdose one million civilians 1 gram can overdose ten million civilians 100 grams can overdose one billion civilians 600 grams can overdose six billion civilians Q: If there is a serious accident involving 120 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX), how many civilian overdoses could, in principle, result? if NONE of the plutonium is safely contained there is a potential for one billion two hundred million civilian overdoses if 90 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for one hundred and twenty million civilian overdoses if 99.9 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for one hundred and twenty thousand civilian overdoses if 99.999 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for one thousand two hundred civilian overdoses {1} http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html
- renaudg 7y ago
  You're being disingenuous now. It feels like arguing about aviation being the safest means of transportation and having someone answer "but it's scary and deadly when it happens!" This will be my last answer. It's obviously not a swimming pool of plutonium ! Plutonium is less than 1% of the waste in the first place, and it's removed and recycled. In any case, nuclear waste is vitrified into glass with an estimated 10.000 years lifespan. Fukushima casualties : 1 confirmed from radiation, 2202 from evacuation, over 15000 from the tsunami itself. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... : "These numbers are very low compared to the estimated 20,000 casualties caused by the tsunami itself, and it has been estimated that if Japan had never adopted nuclear power, accidents and pollution from coal or gas plants would have caused more lost years of life" Again, coal causes 35.000 deaths per year across Europe. Every, year. Right now. Coal or gas are currently mandatory in the renewables + nuclear-free mix that Germany has chosen as the future. Why aren't you out protesting already ?
  - PeterStuer 7y ago