4 ms·
Nuclear waste has a lifecycle of 1000s of years. The heat surplus kills river life. If things go southwards, whole regions are no longer livable for us humans.
by oaiey 4y ago
Nuclear waste has a lifecycle of 1000s of years. The heat surplus kills river life. If things go southwards, whole regions are no longer livable for us humans.
Nuclear energy is climate change wise, surely a good deal but environment wise and human population wise, the thing is not that easy.
And nuclear waste is only easy contained if you are the US, Russia, Canada or Australia. Because otherwise you do not have a significant sized land area where you can burry that waste without creating massive problems.
- arez 4y agoexactly, it might not have a big CO2 footprint, but that's not the whole picture, we just don't have any container that doesn't start leaking radioactive shit after some years, so is it really an alternative
- lambdadmitry 4y agoWe do though! The first geological storage is going online next year in Finland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re... There is nowhere to leak when we're talking multi-cm copper casks, metres of bentonite, and half a kilometre of bedrock.
- ralfd 4y agoPlants with cooling towers (like Isar 2) use evaporation for cooling and don't heat rivers.
- oaiey 4y agoAnd where does the water which was not evaporated in the tower? The surplus? It is raising the water some few degrees. But that is unfortunately enough.
- lambdadmitry 4y agoThe first geological repository goes online next year in Finland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re... . It's not in the sparsely populated north of the country either. There are no problems to speak of when you bury something under 500m of bedrock in thick copper and even thicker bentonite clay. There just aren't.