3 ms·
Nuclear is carbon clean yes, However it is by far dirtier than any other generation method, if we stop the coal plants today, in few hundred years CO2 levels wi
by philipkglass 6y ago
Nuclear is carbon clean yes, However it is by far dirtier than any other generation method, if we stop the coal plants today, in few hundred years CO2 levels will revert back and temperatures will normalize. The half life of the radioactive waste is in ten of thousands of years.
If the world continues on a high-emissions trajectory, and people do not later pursue active remediation measures to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, it will take hundreds of thousands of years for natural silicate weathering to draw down atmospheric concentrations to preindustrial levels. More than half will be removed by faster processes, within 1000 years, but a significant minority of the excess will go away over the course of ~400,000 years:
https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122/figures/1 https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122/figures/1
This is actually longer than the time it will take for the majority of fission products and actinides generated in nuclear fuel to decay. The waste CO2 problem is also distributed over the whole globe rather than easily confined to storage casks like spent nuclear fuel is.
- manquer 6y agoCoal is bad, Co2 is bad, the idea is not the coal is better, we have more than two options, no point in jumping from frying pan into the fire. Neptuimum-237 has half life of 2.144 Million years and is produced as nuclear fuel waste and one of most mobile nuclides at the Yucca repository. It will take 100's of millions of years for sizeable quantity to go through its decay chain and be safe. There are safer better options than nuclear to coal. A 1000 year time line of natural restoration is not acceptable and needs to be addressed, but trading it for millions of years is not the right solution.