2 ms·

Radiation is a little out of the ordinary, sure. But it is not uniquely hazardous or long term. Particulate air pollution from normally operating fossil and bio

Radiation is a little out of the ordinary, sure. But it is not uniquely hazardous or long term. Particulate air pollution from normally operating fossil and biofuel combustion kills 8 million people per year according to the WHO. Climate change from CO2 causes long term ecosystem damage. Radioactive waste uniquely becomes less hazardous with time, unlike forever non-decaying thing like mercury. It's also small and easy to place into 500m of crystalline bedrock or massive salt where it will not impact anything.

acdha 4y ago
Well, fossil fuels aren’t the clean technology we’re talking about but again the thing I was referring to is timeframe: coal plants are nasty but the air pollution stops as soon as you shut them down and ecosystems recover. Not good, but beats the situation around, say, Chernobyl for coming centuries. And, yes, I’ve heard all of the boosters’ claims. Easy is not an accurate description but possible is and as I said before we’re going to need it. We just need to fully accept the responsibility that entails.
- m4rtink 4y ago
  Wont some of the heavy metals and radioactive particles from burned coal stick around for quite a while in the environment? All thy fly ash is also nasty to handle and store.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Sure, again, I'm not saying everything else is perfect but note that this thread is about the clean energy transition — nuclear is better than burning coal but when you're comparing it to wind/solr/hydro/geothermal none of those have anything like the same need for long-term planning.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Nuclear waste can be cleaned up Fukushima was cleaned up 11 years after the incident. Since Pripyat and the area around Chernobyl was only built to support the nuclear plant, there was no incentive to clean it up.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Yes, cleanup is possible. Note that I said it wasn't easy. I don't think anyone would describe the Fukushima cleanup as easy.

acdha 4y ago

Well, fossil fuels aren’t the clean technology we’re talking about but again the thing I was referring to is timeframe: coal plants are nasty but the air pollution stops as soon as you shut them down and ecosystems recover. Not good, but beats the situation around, say, Chernobyl for coming centuries. And, yes, I’ve heard all of the boosters’ claims. Easy is not an accurate description but possible is and as I said before we’re going to need it. We just need to fully accept the responsibility that entails.

m4rtink 4y ago
Wont some of the heavy metals and radioactive particles from burned coal stick around for quite a while in the environment? All thy fly ash is also nasty to handle and store.
- acdha 4y ago
  Sure, again, I'm not saying everything else is perfect but note that this thread is about the clean energy transition — nuclear is better than burning coal but when you're comparing it to wind/solr/hydro/geothermal none of those have anything like the same need for long-term planning.
Manuel_D 4y ago
Nuclear waste can be cleaned up Fukushima was cleaned up 11 years after the incident. Since Pripyat and the area around Chernobyl was only built to support the nuclear plant, there was no incentive to clean it up.
- acdha 4y ago
  Yes, cleanup is possible. Note that I said it wasn't easy. I don't think anyone would describe the Fukushima cleanup as easy.