3 ms·
Nuclear waste is dangerous. Coal ash, tailings, hydrocarbon extraction byproducts; those are also dangerous. Look at cancer rates near refinery areas in Louisi
by mlsu 3y ago
Nuclear waste is dangerous.
Coal ash, tailings, hydrocarbon extraction byproducts; those are also dangerous. Look at cancer rates near refinery areas in Louisiana or Houston -- you might imagine a nuclear bomb went off in those areas based on the cancer rates.
Nuclear waste has the unique property that it is very easily detected. This is actually a good thing! It means we can isolate it, test for isolation, and stay away. The other upside is that there is less of it. Contrast that with something like the Kingston fly ash spill. There is not enough U-235 on earth to spill that much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly.... That is a single event (with a death toll similar to Chernobyl!) The picture for semiconductor manufacturing or battery manufacturing is not perfect either.
Short sighted? Removing a zero carbon clean energy source from the table when decarbonization is urgently needed -- that is short sighted.
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago"Clean" is the short sighted part, because waste does not only revolve around carbon. "Sustainable" is the only long term solution. Your points seem to be correct, NE waste is less and better detectable but its also as long living like PFAS but much more dangerous compared to them. As is said "i dont like the trend", not NE per se. This upcoming NE trend fosters an illusion, that competes with the with wind/solar power transition, which might not be the final but certainly is the better solution in terms of cost/waste/risk.
- LargeTomato 3y agoWe have urgent problems and theoretical, future problems. CO2 levels are an urgent problem. NE can help here. Nuclear waste is not an urgent problem today and likely will never be as urgent as climate change.