5 ms·

First of all, of course one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU. That's the whole point of the EU. Secondly, the waste products of nu

First of all, of course one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU. That's the whole point of the EU. Secondly, the waste products of nuclear reactors are much more problematic than CO2. Handling of this waste is often overlooked when looking at the costs or CO2 footprint. And that does not even touch the associated risks.

preisschild 1y ago
> First of all, of course one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU Blocking other countries tends to make member states hate each other, which isn't good for the EU. > Secondly, the waste products of nuclear reactors are much more problematic than CO2 You literally just put them inside steel concrete casks [1] after they were in a pool for a few years. You can even hug those casks safely. Whereas the CO2 is in the air we breathe and in the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. How is this "more problematic"? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
- nottorp 1y ago
  > How is this "more problematic"? Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents in spite of them being much more likely to die in their own car.
  - natmaka 1y ago
    > Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents This doesn't compute: avoiding being a victim of a plane accident is rather simple: don't hop on any plane and your are something along the .99999 covered. Avoiding being threatened (and many generations after you) by a nuclear major accident or erring 'hot' nuclear waste is way (WAY!) more difficult.
    - nottorp 1y ago
      So you are walking to work right? If you avoid airplanes, why not extend this to cars?
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        I don't think it's a slam dunk for banning nuclear, but agree with the parent post that consent to risk is a valid part of the conversation. Car or plane, the people most exposed to the risk have some choice in the matter - to fly, drive, or be around vehicles. New considerations are introduced when those exposed to the risks of your choice maybe hundreds of miles away with no say, or even yet to be born.
        preisschild 1y ago
        Its very similar. Most people "at risk" for a accident in a nuclear power plant are the workers. There are multiple redundancies that make sure dangerous levels of radioactive isotopes are not released to the public. Thats why every western nuclear power plant has required containment buildings basically forever. Chernobyl didn't, which is why it affected the environment / nearby people.
        natmaka 1y ago
        No containment is perfect. In French nuclear plants it has to "contain" most of the stuff for at least 72 hours, but no one sees it as a sealed repository and it sure isn't.
        chickenbig 1y ago
        > No containment is perfect. You set the bar too high. Radiation isn't an all-or-nothing phenomenon; we are exposed to background radiation all the time, so expecting perfection is unjustified. Also a large portion of radioactivity that might escape comes from short-lived isotopes, making short term evacuation a possibility.
        1y ago
    - moi2388 1y ago
      It’s not. Example: I’ve never been in contact with nuclear waste, yet constantly breathe in the co2 from coal plants.
      - natmaka 1y ago
        Scoop: it now is not about "nuclear vs. coal" but "nuclear vs. renewables".
natmaka 1y ago
> one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU. Who pays decide (Germany is the first financial contributor), that's business as usual. > Whereas the CO2 is in the air In the UE the question is how much renewables and how much nuclear will be built, and their (dubious) compatibility. Very few want to see more fossil fuel. The "nuclear waste is a solved challenge" is funny, as experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution (due to risks induced by seismotectonics, intrusions, casks imperfections...). It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again: "there will be no problem" followed by "Ouch! Err...". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#History
- chickenbig 1y ago
  > experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution What is their definition of safe? > It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again It would be good to see the cost/benefit analysis of the proposal to remove everything from the mine https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/march/geckeis.pdf?sfvrsn=6 https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/marc... page 17 has backfilling as the preferred option in 4 out of the 5 assessment categories.
  - natmaka 1y ago
    > definition of safe? Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. > backfilling Yay, such a superb gift to our children, their children, their children...! The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.
    - chickenbig 1y ago
      > Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. Disagreement is natural in science as well as engineering. And absolutes are not. Framing nuclear waste disposal, or in fact any enterprise, in terms of finding total agreement on total safety is not useful. > one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down In what terms are we to assess the waste? By volume, likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste, maximum number killed? Do we count the waste from manufacturing as well?

preisschild 1y ago

> First of all, of course one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU Blocking other countries tends to make member states hate each other, which isn't good for the EU. > Secondly, the waste products of nuclear reactors are much more problematic than CO2 You literally just put them inside steel concrete casks [1] after they were in a pool for a few years. You can even hug those casks safely. Whereas the CO2 is in the air we breathe and in the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. How is this "more problematic"? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage

nottorp 1y ago
> How is this "more problematic"? Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents in spite of them being much more likely to die in their own car.
- natmaka 1y ago
  > Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents This doesn't compute: avoiding being a victim of a plane accident is rather simple: don't hop on any plane and your are something along the .99999 covered. Avoiding being threatened (and many generations after you) by a nuclear major accident or erring 'hot' nuclear waste is way (WAY!) more difficult.
  - nottorp 1y ago
    So you are walking to work right? If you avoid airplanes, why not extend this to cars?
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      I don't think it's a slam dunk for banning nuclear, but agree with the parent post that consent to risk is a valid part of the conversation. Car or plane, the people most exposed to the risk have some choice in the matter - to fly, drive, or be around vehicles. New considerations are introduced when those exposed to the risks of your choice maybe hundreds of miles away with no say, or even yet to be born.
      - preisschild 1y ago
        Its very similar. Most people "at risk" for a accident in a nuclear power plant are the workers. There are multiple redundancies that make sure dangerous levels of radioactive isotopes are not released to the public. Thats why every western nuclear power plant has required containment buildings basically forever. Chernobyl didn't, which is why it affected the environment / nearby people.
        natmaka 1y ago
        No containment is perfect. In French nuclear plants it has to "contain" most of the stuff for at least 72 hours, but no one sees it as a sealed repository and it sure isn't.
        chickenbig 1y ago
        > No containment is perfect. You set the bar too high. Radiation isn't an all-or-nothing phenomenon; we are exposed to background radiation all the time, so expecting perfection is unjustified. Also a large portion of radioactivity that might escape comes from short-lived isotopes, making short term evacuation a possibility.
        1y ago
  - moi2388 1y ago
    It’s not. Example: I’ve never been in contact with nuclear waste, yet constantly breathe in the co2 from coal plants.
    - natmaka 1y ago
      Scoop: it now is not about "nuclear vs. coal" but "nuclear vs. renewables".

natmaka 1y ago

> one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU. Who pays decide (Germany is the first financial contributor), that's business as usual. > Whereas the CO2 is in the air In the UE the question is how much renewables and how much nuclear will be built, and their (dubious) compatibility. Very few want to see more fossil fuel. The "nuclear waste is a solved challenge" is funny, as experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution (due to risks induced by seismotectonics, intrusions, casks imperfections...). It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again: "there will be no problem" followed by "Ouch! Err...". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#History

chickenbig 1y ago
> experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution What is their definition of safe? > It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again It would be good to see the cost/benefit analysis of the proposal to remove everything from the mine https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/march/geckeis.pdf?sfvrsn=6 https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/marc... page 17 has backfilling as the preferred option in 4 out of the 5 assessment categories.
- natmaka 1y ago
  > definition of safe? Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. > backfilling Yay, such a superb gift to our children, their children, their children...! The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.
  - chickenbig 1y ago
    > Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. Disagreement is natural in science as well as engineering. And absolutes are not. Framing nuclear waste disposal, or in fact any enterprise, in terms of finding total agreement on total safety is not useful. > one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down In what terms are we to assess the waste? By volume, likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste, maximum number killed? Do we count the waste from manufacturing as well?