3 ms·
> some of which already had issues with flooding Is flooding a problem for nuclear waste? It's hard to imagine it being stored in a way that it could contamina
by dmos62 6y ago
> some of which already had issues with flooding
Is flooding a problem for nuclear waste? It's hard to imagine it being stored in a way that it could contaminate water.
Either way, that's a minute detail. A straw man, if you will. Even with the occassional accidents, whether it's kaboom or something more benign, nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil.
Plus, that used fuel will likely be reused in the future. I think having to store a lot of nuclear fuel is a much better problem than having to extract carbon out of the atmosphere, or building difficult to recycle chemical batteries out of scarce resources.
- redprince 6y ago> Is flooding a problem for nuclear waste? It's hard to imagine it being stored in a way that it could contaminate water. Schacht Asse II was never a sound choice for waste storage because of several incidents of water ingress even during the time it was an active salt mine. Water ingress became worse after the facility was reused to dump low and medium level waste into it. This wasn't some orderly storage either. Drums of waste were unloaded into caverns by dozers and then closed off with salt. It was accepted that drums would crack open right there and then. Saltwater is highly corrosive and it will eat these drums in short order. Waste immobilized with concrete will also not resist for long. The current plan is to extract the waste out of this mine again before it floods and widespread nuclear contamination will result. This cock-up will cost the German tax payer an estimated 4 to 6 billion EUR.