5 ms·
Because constructing nuclear power plants and mining uranium don't have toxic carbon byproducts? What are the toxic byproducts you are talking about specifical
by shafyy 5y ago
Because constructing nuclear power plants and mining uranium don't have toxic carbon byproducts?
What are the toxic byproducts you are talking about specifically?
> The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives.
Haha, if it were that easy. Nuclear waste can be radioactive up to 1 million years. Can you give me an example of a successful long-term nuclear storage facility that exists today?
All we're doing currently is storing nuclear waste in temporary storage and rolling over the need to deal with this problem to future generations.
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago> Can you give me an example of a successful long-term nuclear storage facility that exists today? Sure. The earth is full of radioactive material (also known as rocks) that have been 'stored' successfully for millions of years.
- ls15 5y ago> Can you give me an example of a successful long-term nuclear storage facility that exists today? There are natural deposits of radioactive material and there have been natural nuclear reactors on our planet.
- Fishman343 5y agoNuclear power may be kicking the can down the road, but burning coal is just leaving the can for our immediate offspring already in their 20s and 30s. The article says least-cost, we're fresh out of perfect solutions.
- shafyy 5y agoWhat are you talking about? Of course coal is worse than nuclear power. The discussion is about renewables vs. nuclear.
- fsflover 5y agoThere is no fight between renewables and nuclear. They need each other. It's a fight against coal.
- sokoloff 5y agoThe discussion should be about all the ways we need to act to meet our energy needs (including efficiency measures to reduce overall demand). Pitting nuclear against only renewables offers the “nothing different can be done; continue to burn coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels” conclusion.
- Ndymium 5y agoFinland is building a long term storage facility[0] that is estimated to open in 2023–2025. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
- ThrustVectoring 5y agoIf it's active for a million years it has to be less dangerous per unit mass out of mathematical necessity. At some point you wind up with something that's about as dangerous as a banana, at which point you can dispose of it however you want.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago> Nuclear waste can be radioactive up to 1 million years. You do understand that "long half-life" = "less radioactive", by definition?
- shafyy 5y agoSure, but Plutonium and Uranium have a very long radio toxicity time span still: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Spent_nuclear_fuel_decay_sievert.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Spen...
- Turing_Machine 5y agoThat graph shows it as being less toxic than the original ore, which makes sense as it's purified uranium without any of the nasty fission products that are hanging around in the ore. It gradually approaches the ore level over time, which again makes sense, as the fission products are going to build back up. The point here is that the uranium is going to decay no matter what you do, whether in the controlled environment of a reactor with some attention paid to proper disposal, or in the completely uncontrolled environment of the original ore bed, where it's quite possibly going straight into the water table.
- cameldrv 5y agoThe Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.