4 ms·

Regarding numbers like CO2 emission per MW that is definitely true. However, the highly destructive, scary and dangerous trash that it does produce is like a c

Regarding numbers like CO2 emission per MW that is definitely true. However, the highly destructive, scary and dangerous trash that it does produce is like a comical epitome of the kind of visible pollution the first generation green movement was fighting. There is a reason that dystopian sci-fi trash heap illustrations always feature a leaking nuclear barrel. Combined with the fact that Germany is just (fairly) densely populated everywhere, criticism of storage solutions are not about endangered desert lizard species, but about radiation spikes in elementary schools. I'm both German and would like to re-establish nuclear here as a necessary evil, but I get the contra points. I hope this gives some perspective :)

adastra22 5y ago
The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools. And water does such a good job of stopping the radiation that is actually a pretty good way of storing it. And that's without considering fuel reprocessing, which would not only drastically reduce the raw fuel need (and therefore increase the green value of nuclear power), but would reduce the final waste product to something that could fit in a broom closet. The scale of the nuclear waste problem is seriously, seriously oversold.
- zardo 5y ago
  > The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools. Hanford alone has enough liquid nuclear waste to fill 80. Does that waste not count?
  - adastra22 5y ago
    I meant from the civil power program, not weapons development.
zajio1am 5y ago
> criticism of storage solutions are not about endangered desert lizard species, but about radiation spikes in elementary school Note that storage solution for radioactive waste is necessary even without nuclear reactors, as there are plenty of radiocative waste from radiology/radiotherapy devices and also associated accidents, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident .

adastra22 5y ago

The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools. And water does such a good job of stopping the radiation that is actually a pretty good way of storing it. And that's without considering fuel reprocessing, which would not only drastically reduce the raw fuel need (and therefore increase the green value of nuclear power), but would reduce the final waste product to something that could fit in a broom closet. The scale of the nuclear waste problem is seriously, seriously oversold.

zardo 5y ago
> The entirely of the nuclear waste produced by the United States since the beginning of its atomic program could fit in a couple of olympic sized swimming pools. Hanford alone has enough liquid nuclear waste to fill 80. Does that waste not count?
- adastra22 5y ago
  I meant from the civil power program, not weapons development.

zajio1am 5y ago

> criticism of storage solutions are not about endangered desert lizard species, but about radiation spikes in elementary school Note that storage solution for radioactive waste is necessary even without nuclear reactors, as there are plenty of radiocative waste from radiology/radiotherapy devices and also associated accidents, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident .