4 ms·
Isn't the number one reason that nuclear gets a bad rep because there is no compelling solution for getting rid of the waste?
by retendo 3y ago
Isn't the number one reason that nuclear gets a bad rep because there is no compelling solution for getting rid of the waste?
- tialaramex 3y agoWe don't have a solution to the waste from fossil fuels either, so... We just ignore that. Coal in particular results in incredible toxic waste. Even if it was inert (which it very much is not) you get enormous heaps of rock you dug the coal out of and those have to be stored forever. Typically people just leave it in a big pile as somebody else's problem until one day the wind blows and it collapses and kills a bunch of people. Oops. But even for natural gas in the best case your waste is excess carbon dioxide, which renders your planet inhospitable so that's not great either.
- fsflover 3y agohttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- master-lincoln 3y ago> As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage. What a comparison... The worry with nuclear waste is of course that the shielding doesn't last long enough and waste then contaminates surroundings with much much higher radiation than in coal ash
- fsflover 3y agoAFAIK it's pretty well know how long the shielding works, so you can always renew it. Also, with coal the shielding is impossible at all.
- smegger001 3y agoWe know how to store it safely though melt the radioactive material into glass ingots and store them in stainless steel barrels at the bottom of old mineshaft in geologicly stable dry areas like yukca mountain. But NIMBYs wont let us. The fear of leaking containment vessels goes back to early days of nuclear such as the Hanford site. Yes thats a horrible mess and a Superfund site. It also dates back to the Manhattan project and waste from the first nuclear pile. We have learned a bit more since the 1940's.
- AlexandrB 3y agoThere are compelling solutions, they just run into the same opposition as the plants themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
- saywhanow 3y agoThe waste problem is solved. As with the rest of the nuclear discussion, it’s mostly hysteria. Here’s a guy kissing nuclear waste. It’s a bit tongue in cheek on the surface, but he’s PhD and there is quality information in the video. https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU?si=wE0FvscMgBpLUZ0g https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU?si=wE0FvscMgBpLUZ0g
- raxxorraxor 3y agoThe waste problem is pretty much not solved. Neither on the technical, nor the political front. That doesn't mean nuclear isn't an option. Try to list the countries with a permanent nuclear storage site. Pretty short list.
- ben_w 3y agoThe political front, sure. The technical front, however, really is fine. All the high-level nuclear waste on Earth would fit in a 21m cube. The lower level stuff is substantially greater in volume, but overall this is one of the (IMO few) cases where nuclear proponent's arguments about energy density do actually matter. And that means it's fine for the list of countries with a permanent nuclear storage site to be pretty short.
- thiht 3y agoAt least the waste is not dumped in the atmosphere. We have better waste management for nuclear than coal or oil.