Submitted by chopchopped t3_y67tc9 in Futurology
What about all the dirty fule rods from the plant. That's not very clean at all.
It’s a lot easier to encase a few rods in concrete and put them in a concrete bunker for storage until we can develop the teck to get rid of them, than it is to try and capture all the CO2 we produce everyday. Or we can all just make fun and do nothing. From my last few days I think most Americans don’t care at all about trash, waste, and quite literally anything that is healthy. To each their own.
What about wind and solar?? It seems to me, it's not so safe waiting to explore the effect of long term storage (many thousands of years). In hopes we can find a safe way to dispose of very "hot" material.???
It's so much less of a risk than all the externalities of coal that it's not even in the same ballpark. It's not renewables versus nuclear but renewable AND nuclear. They pair well together.
I’m not against solar or wind. But with nuclear power you know how much electricity you will be getting 24/7. Also, with resources you must displace a ton of resources for both wind and solar.
Nuclear waste storage is a non-issue. I am impressed how well the oil and natural gas companies have made people hate nuclear when it is quite literally the best base-load, 0 carbon emission energy we can get.
Seriously, had anyone heard of the ash pits from coal? Way more concerned about that.
>Nuclear waste storage is a non-issue.
This is incredibly ignorant and just straight up wrong.
It is a non-issue. The vaults currently in service have had little to no issue containing the waste, simple as. This is indisputable, no matter how much you drink the BP/Shale kool-aid. Now, when you compare the relative effects of nuclear waste storage and ash pits and CO2 release from fossil fuels, you'd probably not comment on the topic again. Nuclear is the way forward.
>It is a non-issue. The vaults currently in service have had little to no issue containing the waste, simple as.
This is absolutely false, a Holtec cask is only good for about 100 years, which, in the context of super dangerous radioactive waste that will need to be managed and stored for tens of thousands of years is not even close to being a "non-issue".
Do we just keep making bigger and bigger casks like some sort of radioactive russian matyoshka doll to put the failing, now radioactive casks into?
You obviously either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are just straight up lying.
There is no viable plan to deal with this super dangerous waste.
Short answer is no. No we don’t. You can simply submerge the cask in water and put the fuel in a new one.
Not to mention all of the many contaminated sites scattered all over the globe related to the mining, refining, waste storage and fuel fabricating. Far too numerous to list.
It is green though
Hold up though. Let’s use the metric of “which energy source had killed the absolute least amount of people” and see where nuclear sits, oh that’s right.
But it sure is scary amright?
[removed]
There is currently no viable plan to deal with this waste, which will have to be managed and guarded for time scales that are longer than there have been humans, tens of thousands of years, at the taxpayers expense.
This is not true. There are plenty of viable plans. The easiest of which is reprocessing.
Reprocessing is not a solution, it is prohibitively expensive and compounds the waste problem tenfold and creates a whole lot of more very dangerous radioactive waste in ways that make it even more difficult to manage, while being a huge proliferation risk while only recycling a small portion of the waste.
Don't forget about the incredibly dirty business of mining, refining and producing the fuel. Super toxic poison, spread out over many, many sites.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments