4 ms·
Yeah, exactly. Even though it is costly to deal with, per kilogram, there is very little of it when compared to amount of energy produced. An atomic plant might
by lmilcin 6y ago
Yeah, exactly. Even though it is costly to deal with, per kilogram, there is very little of it when compared to amount of energy produced. An atomic plant might use couple dozen tonnes of fuel which is peanuts compared to the amount of waste from coal power plant.
There are no technical problems with storage that we can't solve. The biggest problem is that nobody wants it around.
- rtx 6y agoThere is no problem at all. Even a nuclear disaster is less harmful than the pollution we currently releasing in the atmosphere.
- rtkwe 6y agoSingular or irregular events are easier to comprehend and be afraid of than something like pollution that's somewhat invisible and happening everywhere.
- imtringued 6y agoNuclear disasters reduce the available budget to build more nuclear power plants. Even with the assumption of a $30 billion dollar nuclear plant Japan could have enough money to build dozens of those if it didn't have to clean up Fukushima.
- lmilcin 6y agoI don't think this is true. Countries do not decide to build or not build nuclear power plants based on budget, because nuclear is the cheapest way to produce power at scale. It has mostly to do with sentiment people have towards nuclear power and trust that the project can be done safely.
- cbmuser 6y agoEven without considering the amount of energy produced, it’s nothing. The US has accumulated 83.000 tons in decades. Compare that to the billions of tons CO2 that coal plants blow into the atmosphere.
- lmilcin 6y agoCoal plants do not just blow CO2 into the atmosphere. What is left after burning coal is highly toxic and does not degrade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coal_ash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coal_ash Though, I agree CO2 is bigger problem. Unless you just bought property in Greenland and wait for it to live up to its name.