5 ms·

Sure they are, nuclear consequences are worst if they really blow up, and some always will. And what about the trash... I don't think it's greener energy than c

Sure they are, nuclear consequences are worst if they really blow up, and some always will. And what about the trash... I don't think it's greener energy than coal...

namdnay 5y ago
> and some always will no? why would they? > And what about the trash The whole of France produces less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material. Hardly a big issue finding somewhere to safely bury that. > I don't think it's greener energy than coal ? of course it is, coal is insanely dangerous, germany burning coal is killing people every day. And then there's the impact on global warming
- foobarawayquux 5y ago
  I was curious about that quote "less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material" and looked it up: Based on the orano group marketing site: https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio... it's 200 grams per inhabitant in France, which is 67 million. 200 grams * population of france in metric tons is 13.4 t That's quite good, even if it isn't 10 tons. Of course you still need a location for the short-lived (~300 year) nuclear waste.
  - namdnay 5y ago
    https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-exactitude-chiffres#:~:text=Ainsi%2C%20la%20masse%20totale%20de,de%20moins%20de%2010%20tonnes https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-ex....
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  This is more than 10 tons per year. With no plan to store it long-term... And Germany does have plans to move to more renewable energy. It is a lot easier to get rid of coal plants than it is to get rid of nuclear plants...
  - namdnay 5y ago
    What do you mean by "no plan to store it long-term"? We do store it long-term. It's vitrified, then sunk into underground concrete bunkers in geologically stable areas.
wwtrv 5y ago
No, if you add up all the people who died due to nuclear accidents it’s still insignificant compare to coal. Of course there are no hard numbers, but according to estimates over 30k people in Euorope & the US die because of coal (800k) globally. By comparison Chernobyl caused 4000–16000 deaths over several decades.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  That's not a valid comparison. Nuclear energy accounts only for a much smaller amount of energy production. It's a very weak argument to just wave your hand over how to multiply nuclear energy by one or two orders of magnitude, without major incidents, without nuclear pollution, and without the nuclear waste problem getting more out of hand than it already has.
masklinn 5y ago
> I don't think it's greener energy than coal... I mean, you can think what you want but you’re objectively wrong on literally every metric except initial building costs and lining the pockets of private companies and investors, and it’s really not hard to find that out.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Only if you ignore mining the stuff, storing the waste and decommissioning old plants. Nuclear power is somewhat greener than coal, but not that much and has different problems.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > Only if you ignore mining the stuff, storing the waste and decommissioning old plants. Coal mining, owing to the volumes involved, is significantly more damaging (entire regions remain visibly devastated despite not having had any coal in a century). Storing the waste has only ever been a NIMBY issue, the volumes are basically non-existent — unlike the tailings and terrils from coal mining. Decommissioning old plants is also pretty much a joke. > Nuclear power is somewhat greener than coal, but not that much and has different problems. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude greener and safer than coal, and we now know that in the worst case scenario it gets greener because turns out human activity is observably worse for wildlife than increased background radiation.

Sure they are, nuclear consequences are worst if they really blow up, and some always will. And what about the trash... I don't think it's greener energy than coal...

namdnay 5y ago

> and some always will no? why would they? > And what about the trash The whole of France produces less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material. Hardly a big issue finding somewhere to safely bury that. > I don't think it's greener energy than coal ? of course it is, coal is insanely dangerous, germany burning coal is killing people every day. And then there's the impact on global warming

foobarawayquux 5y ago
I was curious about that quote "less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material" and looked it up: Based on the orano group marketing site: https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio... it's 200 grams per inhabitant in France, which is 67 million. 200 grams * population of france in metric tons is 13.4 t That's quite good, even if it isn't 10 tons. Of course you still need a location for the short-lived (~300 year) nuclear waste.
- namdnay 5y ago
  https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-exactitude-chiffres#:~:text=Ainsi%2C%20la%20masse%20totale%20de,de%20moins%20de%2010%20tonnes https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-ex....
bayesian_horse 5y ago
This is more than 10 tons per year. With no plan to store it long-term... And Germany does have plans to move to more renewable energy. It is a lot easier to get rid of coal plants than it is to get rid of nuclear plants...
- namdnay 5y ago
  What do you mean by "no plan to store it long-term"? We do store it long-term. It's vitrified, then sunk into underground concrete bunkers in geologically stable areas.

wwtrv 5y ago

No, if you add up all the people who died due to nuclear accidents it’s still insignificant compare to coal. Of course there are no hard numbers, but according to estimates over 30k people in Euorope & the US die because of coal (800k) globally. By comparison Chernobyl caused 4000–16000 deaths over several decades.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
That's not a valid comparison. Nuclear energy accounts only for a much smaller amount of energy production. It's a very weak argument to just wave your hand over how to multiply nuclear energy by one or two orders of magnitude, without major incidents, without nuclear pollution, and without the nuclear waste problem getting more out of hand than it already has.

masklinn 5y ago

> I don't think it's greener energy than coal... I mean, you can think what you want but you’re objectively wrong on literally every metric except initial building costs and lining the pockets of private companies and investors, and it’s really not hard to find that out.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
Only if you ignore mining the stuff, storing the waste and decommissioning old plants. Nuclear power is somewhat greener than coal, but not that much and has different problems.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Only if you ignore mining the stuff, storing the waste and decommissioning old plants. Coal mining, owing to the volumes involved, is significantly more damaging (entire regions remain visibly devastated despite not having had any coal in a century). Storing the waste has only ever been a NIMBY issue, the volumes are basically non-existent — unlike the tailings and terrils from coal mining. Decommissioning old plants is also pretty much a joke. > Nuclear power is somewhat greener than coal, but not that much and has different problems. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude greener and safer than coal, and we now know that in the worst case scenario it gets greener because turns out human activity is observably worse for wildlife than increased background radiation.