3 ms·

Nuclear is clean by the criteria that is applied to energy these days, which is in the context of climate change. Because that is the actual big problem we have

Nuclear is clean by the criteria that is applied to energy these days, which is in the context of climate change. Because that is the actual big problem we have. Sure, it generates nuclear waste that must be stored, but it doesn't uncontrollably emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

AmericanChopper 3y ago
It doesn’t exactly “generate” nuclear waste. The fuel is extracted from nature, not “generated”, and the spent fuel is mostly just the same thing with slightly less fissile isotopes in it.
- DennisP 3y ago
  Partly true. The bulk of the waste is just U238, which isn't really dangerous. However, instead of the U235 there are unstable fission products, left over after heavy atoms split. They provide most of the radioactivity for the first century or two. There's also plutonium, formed when U238 absorbs a neutron without fissioning, and other transuranics formed in similar ways. The transuranics make up most of the long-term radioactivity. (This is an appealing thing about fast reactors; they fission more of the transuranics so only the fission products are left, and overall you're back to the radioactivity of the original ore in a couple centuries.)
- philipkglass 3y ago
  Freshly discharged spent fuel is many orders of magnitude more radioactive than the source material because of the fission products generated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission_product That's also why an explosive breach of an operating reactor, like at Chernobyl, is far more dangerous than an explosive accident at a uranium mining site. The danger of radioactive materials is inversely proportional to their half-lives, so acute danger from fission products lasts only a few centuries. But it's pretty important to contain those fission products until said centuries have passed.
cesarb 3y ago
> Nuclear is clean by the criteria that is applied to energy these days [...] Sure, it generates nuclear waste that must be stored, but it doesn't uncontrollably emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Whether nuclear is clean or not depends on whether you're looking inside or outside of the can. From the outside it's clean, because the "non-clean" part is very well contained inside the reactor and/or fuel pools and/or dry storage casks. But if that barrier is ever breached (and a lot of the cost and complexity of nuclear is because of all the work necessary to keep it intact at all times), you mix the inside with the outside, and nuclear is no longer clean. Sure, it would still not produce greenhouse gases (other than all the concrete necessary to build the plant, but that applies to other kinds of power plants too), but it's hard to argue that uncontained toxic radioactive heavy metals are "clean".
- belorn 3y ago
  It is defined as clean because they don't just put up a big chimney and let all the waste go into the air where it is someone else problem to fix. The closes comparison to nuclear power in term of environmental impact is underground mining, except that nuclear generally do not impact ground water. Both produce a lot of toxic waste products, and both store it where it hopefully won't get into contact with any human being.

AmericanChopper 3y ago

It doesn’t exactly “generate” nuclear waste. The fuel is extracted from nature, not “generated”, and the spent fuel is mostly just the same thing with slightly less fissile isotopes in it.

DennisP 3y ago
Partly true. The bulk of the waste is just U238, which isn't really dangerous. However, instead of the U235 there are unstable fission products, left over after heavy atoms split. They provide most of the radioactivity for the first century or two. There's also plutonium, formed when U238 absorbs a neutron without fissioning, and other transuranics formed in similar ways. The transuranics make up most of the long-term radioactivity. (This is an appealing thing about fast reactors; they fission more of the transuranics so only the fission products are left, and overall you're back to the radioactivity of the original ore in a couple centuries.)
philipkglass 3y ago
Freshly discharged spent fuel is many orders of magnitude more radioactive than the source material because of the fission products generated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission_product That's also why an explosive breach of an operating reactor, like at Chernobyl, is far more dangerous than an explosive accident at a uranium mining site. The danger of radioactive materials is inversely proportional to their half-lives, so acute danger from fission products lasts only a few centuries. But it's pretty important to contain those fission products until said centuries have passed.

cesarb 3y ago

> Nuclear is clean by the criteria that is applied to energy these days [...] Sure, it generates nuclear waste that must be stored, but it doesn't uncontrollably emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Whether nuclear is clean or not depends on whether you're looking inside or outside of the can. From the outside it's clean, because the "non-clean" part is very well contained inside the reactor and/or fuel pools and/or dry storage casks. But if that barrier is ever breached (and a lot of the cost and complexity of nuclear is because of all the work necessary to keep it intact at all times), you mix the inside with the outside, and nuclear is no longer clean. Sure, it would still not produce greenhouse gases (other than all the concrete necessary to build the plant, but that applies to other kinds of power plants too), but it's hard to argue that uncontained toxic radioactive heavy metals are "clean".

belorn 3y ago
It is defined as clean because they don't just put up a big chimney and let all the waste go into the air where it is someone else problem to fix. The closes comparison to nuclear power in term of environmental impact is underground mining, except that nuclear generally do not impact ground water. Both produce a lot of toxic waste products, and both store it where it hopefully won't get into contact with any human being.