7 ms·

> Now for some extra fun, overlay this with graphs over CO2 emissions. Some other fun: Overlay this with a graph of nuclear waste production.

exabrial 5y ago
* Designate literally 1sq mile away from everyone. * Install a single swimming pool. Maybe a hot tub. Leave out Tiki bar. * Put 'waste' there. * Realize this argument is stupid.
lm28469 5y ago
https://twitter.com/laydgeur/status/1433463215321669633?lang=en https://twitter.com/laydgeur/status/1433463215321669633?lang... This red cube is the entire amount of nuclear waste produced by France. And you'll never get in contact with any of it. On the other hand do you know what's filtering coal and gas particulates out of the air ? Your lungs every single day of your life ah, and coal emits more dangerous radioactive waste than nuclear power plants, and again, your lungs are getting their fare share of it: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/035/43035329.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...
exabrial 5y ago
So a couple of kilos of potentially recyclable material, that we're going to encase in concrete/glass instead, vs trillions of tons of soot
nicolaslem 5y ago
Pick your poison, the former is one of the biggest threats to humanity right now, the latter is a footnote in our list of problems.
Manuel_D 5y ago
France produces ~2kg of nuclear waste per person per year [1]. Most of that waste is recycled into fuel. 1. https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...
- natmaka 5y ago
  France doesn't recycle nuclear fuel anymore (since 2013). Source: https://www.rtl.fr/actu/debats-societe/nucleaire-que-deviennent-les-dechets-des-centrales-en-france-7797980852 https://www.rtl.fr/actu/debats-societe/nucleaire-que-devienn... AFAIK it may restart around 2029 The waste repository (Cigéo) isn't ready, and nobody knows how much it may cost (maybe up to 35 billions €). The buffer (La Hague) is nearly saturated. Source: https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/parlementaire/traitement-des-dechets-nucleaires-il-y-a-un-risque-de-saturation-de-la-hague https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/parlementaire/traitement-...
- jsnodlin 5y ago
realusername 5y ago
I'll take that any day over CO2 emissions, thank you
belorn 5y ago
The point of a graph is to illustrate a number that fluctuate and changes over time. Nuclear waste production does not. We could graph how much money Germany is funding the Russian military by buying gas, coal and oil. We could also graph how much radioactive particels get released into the environment through fossil fuel combustion. However both would just correlate directly with how much fossil fuel they consume which would then follow the graph of CO2 emissions. One line is plenty enough to describe all those things without having to be too explicit about the trade offs being made in Germany compared to France.
- natmaka 5y ago
  Does nuclear relieves this pressure? Doubt so, as France buys a fair part of its uranium to Kazakhstan, which will very probably stop to supply if Putin says just a word. The US buys 50% of its uranium to them: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-us-utilities-push-white-house-not-sanction-russian-uranium-2022-03-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-us-utiliti...
  - liketochill 5y ago
    Canada has lots of uranium if Kazakhstan stops supplying
    - natmaka 5y ago
      It may solve the problem for Canada. Maybe for the US, if there is enough supply. Maybe even for France and Germany, but doubt so. Moreover ore grade falls with extraction, and extraction-related emissions grow accordingly. Maybe up to 110g/ CO2-e/kWhel: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332
- Archelaos 5y ago
  > The point of a graph is to illustrate a number that fluctuate and changes over time. Nuclear waste production does not. I would expect that more nuclear waste is produced when more nuclear energy is produced and less waste when less energy is produced. Isn't that a fluctuation?
FDSGSG 5y ago
Which kind of nuclear waste are we talking about? VLLW? LLW? ILW? HLW?
- Tagbert 5y ago
  Uh… the scary kind? /s A lot of people don’t really know much about waste from reactors other than that it is “bad”.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
It's stupid to fret about nuclear waste. All plants, worldwide over all human history, for 20% of the power production of the entire planet, 100% green, have produced less than one half of one football field of barrels. We can stop climate change on one field of barrels every 31 years Thanks to mining byproducts, nuclear produces less and lower level radioactive waste than solar or wind Zero humans in history have died from nuclear waste It's just something scared people say to sound like they know something important
- krageon 5y ago
  > less than one half of one football field This is not a useful metric, except to impress folks that know almost nothing about the field. Even then it is misleading, because the storage requirements are so strenuous that it cannot be assumed to be done well. > We can stop climate change on one field of barrels every 31 years Instead, we will have radioactive children in 50 years. > Zero humans in history have died from nuclear waste Quite simply a fabrication.
  - exabrial 5y ago
    If you're going to have strong opinions, at least be educated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
- tucosan 5y ago
  In the meantime, a barebones crew operates Chernobyl infrastructure, while the sacrophagus was shelled by Russian troops. Europes nuclear power Zaporizhzhia plant is surrounded by Russian troops and sustained damage: > At 11:28pm local time on the 3 March 2022, a column of 10 Russian armored vehicles and two tanks cautiously approached the Power Plant.[18][19][20] The action commenced at 12:48am on the 4 March when Ukraine forces fired anti tank missiles and Russian forces responded with a variety of weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades.[19] During approximately two hours of heavy fighting a fire broke out in a training facility outside of the main complex, which was extinguished by 6:20am,[21][22] though other sections surrounding the plant sustained damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Enerhodar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Enerhodar

exabrial 5y ago

* Designate literally 1sq mile away from everyone. * Install a single swimming pool. Maybe a hot tub. Leave out Tiki bar. * Put 'waste' there. * Realize this argument is stupid.

lm28469 5y ago

https://twitter.com/laydgeur/status/1433463215321669633?lang=en https://twitter.com/laydgeur/status/1433463215321669633?lang... This red cube is the entire amount of nuclear waste produced by France. And you'll never get in contact with any of it. On the other hand do you know what's filtering coal and gas particulates out of the air ? Your lungs every single day of your life ah, and coal emits more dangerous radioactive waste than nuclear power plants, and again, your lungs are getting their fare share of it: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/035/43035329.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...

exabrial 5y ago

So a couple of kilos of potentially recyclable material, that we're going to encase in concrete/glass instead, vs trillions of tons of soot

nicolaslem 5y ago

Pick your poison, the former is one of the biggest threats to humanity right now, the latter is a footnote in our list of problems.

Manuel_D 5y ago

France produces ~2kg of nuclear waste per person per year [1]. Most of that waste is recycled into fuel. 1. https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...

natmaka 5y ago
France doesn't recycle nuclear fuel anymore (since 2013). Source: https://www.rtl.fr/actu/debats-societe/nucleaire-que-deviennent-les-dechets-des-centrales-en-france-7797980852 https://www.rtl.fr/actu/debats-societe/nucleaire-que-devienn... AFAIK it may restart around 2029 The waste repository (Cigéo) isn't ready, and nobody knows how much it may cost (maybe up to 35 billions €). The buffer (La Hague) is nearly saturated. Source: https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/parlementaire/traitement-des-dechets-nucleaires-il-y-a-un-risque-de-saturation-de-la-hague https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/parlementaire/traitement-...
jsnodlin 5y ago

realusername 5y ago

I'll take that any day over CO2 emissions, thank you

belorn 5y ago

The point of a graph is to illustrate a number that fluctuate and changes over time. Nuclear waste production does not. We could graph how much money Germany is funding the Russian military by buying gas, coal and oil. We could also graph how much radioactive particels get released into the environment through fossil fuel combustion. However both would just correlate directly with how much fossil fuel they consume which would then follow the graph of CO2 emissions. One line is plenty enough to describe all those things without having to be too explicit about the trade offs being made in Germany compared to France.

natmaka 5y ago
Does nuclear relieves this pressure? Doubt so, as France buys a fair part of its uranium to Kazakhstan, which will very probably stop to supply if Putin says just a word. The US buys 50% of its uranium to them: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-us-utilities-push-white-house-not-sanction-russian-uranium-2022-03-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-us-utiliti...
- liketochill 5y ago
  Canada has lots of uranium if Kazakhstan stops supplying
  - natmaka 5y ago
    It may solve the problem for Canada. Maybe for the US, if there is enough supply. Maybe even for France and Germany, but doubt so. Moreover ore grade falls with extraction, and extraction-related emissions grow accordingly. Maybe up to 110g/ CO2-e/kWhel: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332
Archelaos 5y ago
> The point of a graph is to illustrate a number that fluctuate and changes over time. Nuclear waste production does not. I would expect that more nuclear waste is produced when more nuclear energy is produced and less waste when less energy is produced. Isn't that a fluctuation?

FDSGSG 5y ago

Which kind of nuclear waste are we talking about? VLLW? LLW? ILW? HLW?

Tagbert 5y ago
Uh… the scary kind? /s A lot of people don’t really know much about waste from reactors other than that it is “bad”.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

It's stupid to fret about nuclear waste. All plants, worldwide over all human history, for 20% of the power production of the entire planet, 100% green, have produced less than one half of one football field of barrels. We can stop climate change on one field of barrels every 31 years Thanks to mining byproducts, nuclear produces less and lower level radioactive waste than solar or wind Zero humans in history have died from nuclear waste It's just something scared people say to sound like they know something important

krageon 5y ago
> less than one half of one football field This is not a useful metric, except to impress folks that know almost nothing about the field. Even then it is misleading, because the storage requirements are so strenuous that it cannot be assumed to be done well. > We can stop climate change on one field of barrels every 31 years Instead, we will have radioactive children in 50 years. > Zero humans in history have died from nuclear waste Quite simply a fabrication.
- exabrial 5y ago
  If you're going to have strong opinions, at least be educated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
tucosan 5y ago
In the meantime, a barebones crew operates Chernobyl infrastructure, while the sacrophagus was shelled by Russian troops. Europes nuclear power Zaporizhzhia plant is surrounded by Russian troops and sustained damage: > At 11:28pm local time on the 3 March 2022, a column of 10 Russian armored vehicles and two tanks cautiously approached the Power Plant.[18][19][20] The action commenced at 12:48am on the 4 March when Ukraine forces fired anti tank missiles and Russian forces responded with a variety of weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades.[19] During approximately two hours of heavy fighting a fire broke out in a training facility outside of the main complex, which was extinguished by 6:20am,[21][22] though other sections surrounding the plant sustained damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Enerhodar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Enerhodar