Normally I’m not a “lesser of two evils” type, but nuclear is such an immensely lesser evil compared to coal and oil that it’s insane people are still against it.
Especially when you start counting the number of people that have died either directly or indirectly from coal, oil and every fossil fuel.
If your extrapolate the data into the next hundred years … fossil fuels will have responsible for the deaths of billions.
Compared to nuclear energy … fossil fuels is killing us slowly and will kill us all if we don’t stop using them.
I live less than 2 miles from the last remaining coal power station in England.
I would much rather have nuclear instead of a chimney chucking god knows what into the air (and subsequently into me) for my entire life.
Nuclear energy produces the worst toxic waste guaranteed, and can and has a record of leaking a lot of radioactive material.
When wind and solar are ready alternatives it just makes no sense.
Bullshit. Nuclear waste (more precisely, spent fuel that can be reprocessed for new fuel or other useful radionuclids) is the only waste we have actual good solutions for. It’s not an engineering problem, we know very well how to safely dispose of the small amount of ultimate nuclear waste.
All the other waste, including waste from producing new and retiring old solar panels and wind turbines, basically just gets thrown into the landscape with no containment whatsoever. And some of that stuff is toxic, some will never degrade (plastics used in composite materials the wind turbine blades and towers are made of).
Plus, if you only used nuclear energy throughout you life, the amount of ultimate waste can literally fit into a coke can. That’s how efficient and energy dense it is.
What’s this amazing waste disposal method you’re convinced exists? Last I checked, the waste will still be around for at least a millennia and the only process we have to deal with it is bury it in a hole with a sign that says ‘BAD’ in a way we hope future generations can still interpret.
Can’t you chuck it back into a reactor and reuse it that way, to help reduce the radioactivity, and get more power back out of it?
Last you checked? When was that?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html
“There would still be waste that would have to be disposed, but the amount of long-lived waste can be significantly reduced,” Gehin said.
“Significantly less” is not defined. Is it 80% less? 50? 30? 10? The guy they’re quoting, who has a vested interest in selling us this tech, sure doesn’t say and uses the qualifier ‘can be’. In fact, I can’t seem to find that information anywhere, let alone this article.
Irregardless, there’s still waste that will take hundreds (thousands?) of years to decay. The solution is renewable energy.
You’re obviously not willing to change your mind, so this will be my last response. Googling “breeder reactor” will show you plenty of peer reviewed papers and findings from past experimental reactors that can answer your questions.
Apart from that, the point of the technology is obviously not to replace renewables, it’s to
- Phase out coal and oil as fast as possible.
- Get rid of the nuclear waste we already accumulated (by turning it into energy).
Especially point 2, you are obviously and rightfully worried about nuclear waste - breeder reactors are the solution, the only one we currently know of. What else do you suggest we should do with that waste? Store it for millennia?
It’s not that I’m not willing to change my mind, it’s that I’m hugely suspicious of the recent push for Nuclear. Energy companies dumped massive amounts of money into the technology and want to see a return on those failed investments. So I am skeptical that there’s not some astroturfing and/or disinformation going on.
That said, when I was doing the research, I was looking up Fast Fusion, not Breeder Reactors so I’ll look into it.
Also, your point about using nuclear to phase out of coal and into renewable has merit, but I think there’s a danger that we get stuck on nuclear as it becomes easier/cheaper than coal and so development in green tech, like batteries, languishes for another four decades or whatever.
Anyways, I’ll look into breeder reactors and, who knows, maybe have a change of heart (maybe).
Out of sight out of mind, right? Great solution. Coke can? Ummmmmmmmmmm nope.
Where do you think the discarded blade of wind turbine go? 🤔
Not into underground storage for tens of thousands of years
That’s precisely where they go—landfills. They’re made of non-recyclable glass fiber-plastic composites that won’t degrade for millions of years.
Landfills arent underground, and theyll break down within a millenia. Well the plastic anyway. Then youre left with recyclable glass if it isnt crushed into sand first
Landfills not being underground is even worse (but normally they are buried under soil when they go unused).
While the plastics degrade mechanically, being reduced into small particles, chemically they are not. They just turn into microplastics which I’m sure you’re aware is a huge problem.
With the small amount of ultimate nuclear waste that cannot be reprocessed further, the solution is simple: drill a km deep shaft into the bedrock, place them at the bottom, fill the shaft with rubble and cement. Done. No-one’s going to accidentally dig them up and they pose absolutely no threat to anyone. The finns are doing something like this as we speak.
Not News. Not Reasonable.
Sounds like young activist has something to learn from these who have been fighting for climate for decades
And what would that lesson be? The people who fought nuclear for decades caused as much damage to the climate as the interim coal companies because that is who supplied the power instead.
And what would that lesson be?
If you are interested go to their website and read what they have to say about nuclear. Climate activists do not advocate for coal and most likely live in such a way that they cause less damage to the climate than the average person, including you.
You skipped over my point. I think the activists let perfection get in the way of progress. I know that they’re not advocating for coal, but by fighting nuclear they left no other scalable solution other than coal. Nuclear doesn’t have to be a forever solution, but it’s a perfect stop gap in the meantime.
Surely these activists contributed to progress on some other, smaller sources of renewable energy, but at the cost of decades of record breaking greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear could have put a halt to many if not most coal and natural gas plants until other sources of renewable energy improve and have time to get built out.
A perfect stop gap in the meantime is not a solution. Remember that coal as a piece of rock it’s not a problem, the problem is caused by society relying on burning coal to satisfy its frivolous consumes. The climate crisis is not caused by activists fighting against it. Renewables could have put a halt to polluting energy the same way you claim nuclear would have, with the difference that it would have been even better because nuclear comes with other issues.
The activist argues nuclear power is a crucial tool against climate change and disagrees with Greenpeace’s concerns about its environmental impact. Greenpeace defends its position, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing renewable alternatives like solar and wind for cutting emissions.
