There is no current facility for storing nuclear waste in a safe manner in Germany. Most of the high level waste is stored on the surface near the waste production sites.
Let’s take a look at the dangers of plutonium-239: If inhaled a minute dose will be enough to increase the cancer risk to 100%. If ingested a minute dose is almost as dangerous because of it’s heavy metal toxicity. It’s half life is about 24k years. “It has been estimated that a pound (454 grams) of plutonium inhaled as plutonium oxide dust could give cancer to two million people.” (1)
So IMHO it’s very irresponsible to create more nuclear waste, as long as we as a society have no way to get rid of it in a safe manner.
100% renewable is achievable and I think we should concentrate on this path since it will be safer and also cheaper in the long run. (2)(3)
Ok, so instead digging up coal mines, Germany could’ve spent time making a facility for safely storing processed nuclear fuel like many other countries have done. The amount of fear mongering about nuclear power while it’s being widely used around the world and having been shown as one of the safest sources of energy is mind boggling. I guess in your opinion what we should do is keep destroying the environment by using fossils while ignoring practical alternatives.
No, my opinion is that we can not use nuclear energy as long as we do not have a long term solution for our nuclear waste. There is no such facility in Germany and a large portion of the waste is currently stored on the surface, partly in heavily populated areas like Philippsburg near Karlsruhe, a city with ~300k inhabitants.
Again, such facilities can be built. It’s a choice not to do so. Also, Germany could use alternative fuels like thorium the way China is doing now with their molten salt reactors.
There is no such facility in Germany. As long as there is no facility for storing the radioactive waste, I don’t think we should produce more nuclear waste.
It’s true that liquid salt reactors are more fuel efficient than light water reactors and the waste is more short lived, but still it produces high level waste with even more radioactivity in the short term.
“All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.”
I’m struggling with there not being such a facility in Germany. If we as a society can not agree on such a site, which is the current situation in Germany, we should not produce more radioactive waste.
This has been a process full of setbacks in Germany. There is an article on the German Wikipedia about it.
You’re not okay with creating waste that can be contained but you are okay with creating waste that can’t be contained.
You’re not okay with waste that will harm/kill someone improperly exposed to it, but you are okay with waste that will end civilization and kill billions of people and is currently doing so.
I don’t think I said that. I’m sure I did say that it’s a huge problem. We have to get rid of coal as well as waste producing fission plants. I think we should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
Saying I’m against using nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent.
When you strip mine massive tracts of land for uranium, transport the uranium, refine the uranium, transport it again to the power plant, transport it a 3rd time to the waste management facility, and transport it a 4th time to the storage facility where it WILL invariably leak (they always do), you’re not doing the environment too many favors either.
It’s like why even bother trying to explore solar or wind or hydro power? The nuclear lobby has obviously been very successful in convincing people online that no such power sources exist.
Just wait until you find out where coal comes from, and what they do with the waste.
Uranium is so incredibly energy dense that the issues of mining and transport are absolutely minimal compared to coal. There are also reactors that are capable of burning up the majority of the waste, but we’re scared of them because they happen to also be good at making weapons-grade material.
We need base load power. Here on the Canadian prairies we have tons of renewables. Yet there was a recent power crisis on a cold, dark January night because in that situation, none of the renewables are any use. Nuclear is that solution, and the other is natural gas peaking that is only run in emergency situations. Shooting for true “zero emissions” is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Nobody is arguing against using other sources of energy complimentary to nuclear power. However, the reality is that nuclear is one of the best options available to us.
I didn’t say we didn’t have carbon storing technology, but if you aren’t aware that it’s more difficult to recapture carbon than to put spent fuel in a box, you probably should read past the first paragraph of whatever Wikipedia article you found.
We also don’t know what to do with the waste from coal plants. The difference is that instead of having an easy to store, easy to track, completely harmless form of waste like that produced by nuclear plants, instead we just pump completely impossible to store, track, or mitigate pollutants straight into the atmosphere, ground, and water. Much better!
My view that we can not produce more nuclear waste as long as we have no long term storage facility does not make me a coal proponent. I oppose coal power production, as do ~80% of Germans. That’s why we decided as a society to transition to climate neutral energy production until 2045. Coal power is scheduled to be phased out in 2038. And the plan is to build 40 green hydrogen power plants to supplement the renewables.
Do you realize how ridiculous you seem bringing up promises to do shit “by 2038” and “until 2045?” We needed to put an end to this shit by the year 2000. Your government won’t even have any of the same people in it in 2038. You think they’re going to give a shit what people said in 2024?
You’re advocating for so little that it may as well be nothing. At least the full “i dont give a shit about the environment, let 'er rip” people are honest. You’re exactly the same, you just like to pretend you’re better.
I do think that these issues need long term viable solutions. You can’t change the energy production infrastructure in five years. This takes time and you need a plan. Germany is currently one of eleven countries that have made the move to zero emission energy production a law. This is in itself quite an achievement. Of course there is no guarantee that it will be implemented exactly as it is planned now. I think it will be a big win if we can achieve climate neutrality in the energy sector by 2045 and phase out coal in fourteen years.
Can you point out what part of my comment you mistook for an ad hominem attack so I can laugh at you even harder? I already know you don’t know what ad hominem is, but seeing the specific example will be particularly funny.
You’re advocating for so little that it may as well be nothing. At least the full “i dont give a shit about the environment, let 'er rip” people are honest. You’re exactly the same, you just like to pretend you’re better.
How is this not attacking my personality but continuing a discussion on a civil manner?
Hers the definition from Britannica:
“ad hominem, (Latin: “against the man”) type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter.”
How is this not attacking my personality but continuing a discussion on a civil manner?
It’s a direct criticism of the argument you made. You are dishonestly bringing up plans to do in 2045 what should be done yesterday. You pretend to care about these issues but if you truly did care about these issues you would be utterly embarrassed by the ineffectiveness of what you’re supporting. You like the image of caring about the environment, but you have no interest in the actual solutions.
appeals to prejudice ❌
or feelings ❌ irrelevantly impugns ❌
instead of addressing the facts or claims ❌
I’m impugning your character for claiming inaccurately and dishonestly that it is acceptable to baby step our way to 2045 when the world is already on fire.
Now you state: “I’m impugning your character for claiming…”, “You pretend to care…”, “You have no interest in the…”. These are all personal attacks without any arguments based on credible sources.
We have problems storing the waste from coal as well, especially given that it is also radioactive [0]. But, instead of nuclear waste which we keep safe in temporary storage, this radioactive material just gets to float free in the atmosphere.
This is true and it’s a huge problem. But still the radiation from coal is ~ 0.001 Sievert (1). The radiation from high level nuclear waste after ten years of storage (!) is still ~ 200 Sievert (2). These are mostly spent fuel rods. This is 40 times the lethal dose for any given instant.
“large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities.”
“the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants”
“For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year” while it “amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants”.
We at least have temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel, we have no such protection with coal plants.
Yes this is true. And again: Me being against nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent. I think we have to get rid of both and aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
For me the most danger lies in storing high level radioactive waste on the surface where it’s prone to accidents and can easily contaminate air and ground water.
I’m no proponent of these massive structures with unimaginable impact on their environment either. Also Germany will probably never have a structure of this size in the foreseeable future. In order to produce enough energy during times when wind and solar energy is scarce, Germany wants to build 40 climate neutral hydrogen power plants until the 2030s in order to phase out coal power production.
As far as I understand it we will therefore not need more batteries.
I think the idea is to produce the green hydrogen by employing renewables during time of high production yields and using this produced hydrogen when the renewables don’t produce enough.
This is what I gathered but I’m not 100% sure.
This is an interesting documentary about the topic: Into eternity. The documentary has a depressing and ephemeral feeling, but I find it extremely amusing that we are taking steps to protect people that will live thousands of years from now.
Taking decisions like “nuclear or not nuclear”, “how to dispose the waste”, etc. is hard, but doing so ignoring the people that invest their whole life studying the topics is just dumb.
I do think we should protect coming generations from our nuclear waste and I do not think this is ridiculous at all.
In the same way we should leave our children with a world with a livable climate we should not leave them with a heritage of tons of highly radioactive material stored on the surface because we have no long term storage facility.
We currently have no real way to recycle spent fuel. Only a small percentage of nuclear waste can be recycled and it’s very expensive to do so, that’s why there are only two countries currently recycling fuel: France and Russia. Sellafield in the UK has been closed in the Fukushima aftermath.
In France only 10% of nuclear fuel is recycled material using the purex process, which can also produce weapons-grade plutonium and therefore also raises different concerns.
Completely agree with you on the first part. My point is that:
Long term storage in a non-trivial thing to do, from a technical, social and ecological POV. However, it can be build, as shown in the linked documentary.
Not going nuclear has disadvantages (that IMO out number the advantages).
Going nuclear also has disadvantages. Thus, the view of experts on the field has a big importance of the topic. In this matter, the consensus I most commonly find in the physicists community is that nuclear is a energy source that should replace carbon/coal, but needs to be complemented with solar/wind/water/thermal, not just disregarded.
I would like to add that I did not try to call you dumb, I’m sorry if that’s the way it ended up sounding like. The dumb part was directed to the people in charge of the decisions, not you.
Yes I agree. It is possible to build long term storage facilities and there is one operating in Finland for example. And the finnish people in the region actually welcomed the facility. But the situation is very much different in Germany. Whenever plans for a such a facility became public massive protests ensued and the projects became politically unfeasable.
Of course we should listen to the experts in the field, but even they had no success in convincing the populace of a possible site. I’m convinced that we need such a facility and that it should be a scientific emotionless process. But this is currently not possible in Germany. And as long as there is no such consensus and we don’t have such a facility, I think it’s irresponsible to produce more nuclear waste and leave it on the surface for the coming generations to take care of.
The German plan for the “Energiewende” (Energy Transition) is to phase out coal until 2038 and become 100% climate neutral by 2045. The current plan is to do that using a mix of renewables and hydrogen power plants which will substitute the current coal power plants.
Why would you bury fuel that you’ve only harvested 1% of the energy from? If you’re not gonna build reprocessing facilities, sell it to France or Russia.
I don’t think exporting waste to different countries were only 10% of the fuel is recycled is a responsible way to manage nuclear waste.
Also there are nuclear proliferation concerns when reprocessing nuclear fuel. I for one would not want to supply Russia with possible raw materials for nuclear weapons.
As for reprocessing, storage is in competition with newly mined fuel. As mining becomes more expensive or nuclear demand increases, there’s greater impetus to recycle more fuel. Conversely, if there’s fewer plants consuming the fuel or more mines opening, recycling projects die.
The more plants close, the less waste you’re gonna get reprocessed.
Russia already has 40,000 nukes, they’re not a proliferation risk.
“Russia already has 40,000 nukes, they’re not a proliferation risk.”
That’s true.
In response to your mining argument:
“The known uranium resources represent a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up. There was very little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2005, so the significant increase in exploration effort that we are now seeing could readily double the known economic resources. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from price levels in 2007 could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time.”
So there’s enough cheap enough utanium to go around and no need for the industry to recycle spent fuel.
We currently do not know what to do with the waste from coal and other fossil fuel plants either though. At least nuclear waste is local and manageable. Dumping all the fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere is not working well, and is almost impossible to clean up.
This is true and that’s why Germany decided to phase out fossil fuel and nuclear power production. Fossil fuel based power plants will be phased out 2038 and Germany aims to be climate neutral by 2045 using a mix of renewables and green hydrogen power plants.
Putting it in the ground is a viable solution. And it doesn’t damage the environment for it to be in there and it’s not like it’s going to escape.
At some point in time will develop the technology to do something else with it but for now putting it in big concrete containers underground is a viable solution.
There’s also no such facility in France yet they have nuclear power stations. You see we have these things called trucks that can move things from one country to another so we have one facility in Denmark which is perfectly suitable for everyone’s needs it’s geologically stable and in an old salt mine. You don’t want lots of distributed locations you want one convenient location.
I’ve literally explained the argument in my comment. Germans CHOOSE NOT TO BUILD such facilities. The fact that you feel attacked when people state basic facts about your people is frankly hilarious.
Basic facts like all Germans are imbeciles? These are opinions, not facts.
Yes we chose not to build such facilities and that’s why we should not produce more nuclear waste. This is exactly my argument you failed to respond to.
IMHO this is not a fact but an opinion of yours. I for one think it’s not intelligent to produce more radioactive waste without having a facility to store it safely for a long time.
Being in opposition to nuclear power does not mean we are coal energy proponents. We should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
We can not use nuclear energy as long as we do not know what to do with the waste. IMHO it’s as easy as that.
We’ve known what to do with the waste for a long time now. Also, when you use fossil fuels you’re just directly polluting the environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDUvCLAp0uU
There is no current facility for storing nuclear waste in a safe manner in Germany. Most of the high level waste is stored on the surface near the waste production sites. Let’s take a look at the dangers of plutonium-239: If inhaled a minute dose will be enough to increase the cancer risk to 100%. If ingested a minute dose is almost as dangerous because of it’s heavy metal toxicity. It’s half life is about 24k years. “It has been estimated that a pound (454 grams) of plutonium inhaled as plutonium oxide dust could give cancer to two million people.” (1) So IMHO it’s very irresponsible to create more nuclear waste, as long as we as a society have no way to get rid of it in a safe manner. 100% renewable is achievable and I think we should concentrate on this path since it will be safer and also cheaper in the long run. (2)(3)
Sources:
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239
2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Ok, so instead digging up coal mines, Germany could’ve spent time making a facility for safely storing processed nuclear fuel like many other countries have done. The amount of fear mongering about nuclear power while it’s being widely used around the world and having been shown as one of the safest sources of energy is mind boggling. I guess in your opinion what we should do is keep destroying the environment by using fossils while ignoring practical alternatives.
No, my opinion is that we can not use nuclear energy as long as we do not have a long term solution for our nuclear waste. There is no such facility in Germany and a large portion of the waste is currently stored on the surface, partly in heavily populated areas like Philippsburg near Karlsruhe, a city with ~300k inhabitants.
https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/ne/zwischenlager/standorte/standorte_node.html
Again, such facilities can be built. It’s a choice not to do so. Also, Germany could use alternative fuels like thorium the way China is doing now with their molten salt reactors.
There is no such facility in Germany. As long as there is no facility for storing the radioactive waste, I don’t think we should produce more nuclear waste.
It’s true that liquid salt reactors are more fuel efficient than light water reactors and the waste is more short lived, but still it produces high level waste with even more radioactivity in the short term.
“All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.”
What part of such a facility could be built are you still struggling with?
I’m struggling with there not being such a facility in Germany. If we as a society can not agree on such a site, which is the current situation in Germany, we should not produce more radioactive waste.
This has been a process full of setbacks in Germany. There is an article on the German Wikipedia about it.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland
Google translation: https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
You’re not okay with creating waste that can be contained but you are okay with creating waste that can’t be contained.
You’re not okay with waste that will harm/kill someone improperly exposed to it, but you are okay with waste that will end civilization and kill billions of people and is currently doing so.
I don’t think I said that. I’m sure I did say that it’s a huge problem. We have to get rid of coal as well as waste producing fission plants. I think we should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies. Saying I’m against using nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent.
When you strip mine massive tracts of land for uranium, transport the uranium, refine the uranium, transport it again to the power plant, transport it a 3rd time to the waste management facility, and transport it a 4th time to the storage facility where it WILL invariably leak (they always do), you’re not doing the environment too many favors either.
It’s like why even bother trying to explore solar or wind or hydro power? The nuclear lobby has obviously been very successful in convincing people online that no such power sources exist.
Just wait until you find out where coal comes from, and what they do with the waste.
Uranium is so incredibly energy dense that the issues of mining and transport are absolutely minimal compared to coal. There are also reactors that are capable of burning up the majority of the waste, but we’re scared of them because they happen to also be good at making weapons-grade material.
We need base load power. Here on the Canadian prairies we have tons of renewables. Yet there was a recent power crisis on a cold, dark January night because in that situation, none of the renewables are any use. Nuclear is that solution, and the other is natural gas peaking that is only run in emergency situations. Shooting for true “zero emissions” is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Nobody is arguing against using other sources of energy complimentary to nuclear power. However, the reality is that nuclear is one of the best options available to us.
You can put nuclear waste in a box and decide what to do with it later. CO² is less helpful that way.
And unlike my bills, it becomes less dangerous the longer you ignore them.
We already have carbon storing technology. Also, you wanted subscript for the 2.
I didn’t say we didn’t have carbon storing technology, but if you aren’t aware that it’s more difficult to recapture carbon than to put spent fuel in a box, you probably should read past the first paragraph of whatever Wikipedia article you found.
No no no, they definitely meant “carbon monoxide squared”.
We also don’t know what to do with the waste from coal plants. The difference is that instead of having an easy to store, easy to track, completely harmless form of waste like that produced by nuclear plants, instead we just pump completely impossible to store, track, or mitigate pollutants straight into the atmosphere, ground, and water. Much better!
My view that we can not produce more nuclear waste as long as we have no long term storage facility does not make me a coal proponent. I oppose coal power production, as do ~80% of Germans. That’s why we decided as a society to transition to climate neutral energy production until 2045. Coal power is scheduled to be phased out in 2038. And the plan is to build 40 green hydrogen power plants to supplement the renewables.
https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html
Google translate: https://www-bmwk-de.translate.goog/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html
Google translate: https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Do you realize how ridiculous you seem bringing up promises to do shit “by 2038” and “until 2045?” We needed to put an end to this shit by the year 2000. Your government won’t even have any of the same people in it in 2038. You think they’re going to give a shit what people said in 2024?
You’re advocating for so little that it may as well be nothing. At least the full “i dont give a shit about the environment, let 'er rip” people are honest. You’re exactly the same, you just like to pretend you’re better.
I do think that these issues need long term viable solutions. You can’t change the energy production infrastructure in five years. This takes time and you need a plan. Germany is currently one of eleven countries that have made the move to zero emission energy production a law. This is in itself quite an achievement. Of course there is no guarantee that it will be implemented exactly as it is planned now. I think it will be a big win if we can achieve climate neutrality in the energy sector by 2045 and phase out coal in fourteen years.
https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-net-zero-target-evaluations/
Please refrain from using ad hominem attacks and support your views with arguments rather than personal insults.
Can you point out what part of my comment you mistook for an ad hominem attack so I can laugh at you even harder? I already know you don’t know what ad hominem is, but seeing the specific example will be particularly funny.
How is this not attacking my personality but continuing a discussion on a civil manner?
Hers the definition from Britannica: “ad hominem, (Latin: “against the man”) type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ad-hominem
It’s a direct criticism of the argument you made. You are dishonestly bringing up plans to do in 2045 what should be done yesterday. You pretend to care about these issues but if you truly did care about these issues you would be utterly embarrassed by the ineffectiveness of what you’re supporting. You like the image of caring about the environment, but you have no interest in the actual solutions.
I’m impugning your character for claiming inaccurately and dishonestly that it is acceptable to baby step our way to 2045 when the world is already on fire.
You called me a liar. That’s clearly ad hominem.
Now you state: “I’m impugning your character for claiming…”, “You pretend to care…”, “You have no interest in the…”. These are all personal attacks without any arguments based on credible sources.
We have problems storing the waste from coal as well, especially given that it is also radioactive [0]. But, instead of nuclear waste which we keep safe in temporary storage, this radioactive material just gets to float free in the atmosphere.
[0] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants
This is true and it’s a huge problem. But still the radiation from coal is ~ 0.001 Sievert (1). The radiation from high level nuclear waste after ten years of storage (!) is still ~ 200 Sievert (2). These are mostly spent fuel rods. This is 40 times the lethal dose for any given instant.
1:https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1002/ML100280691.pdf
2:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel
From your source 1:
“large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities.”
“the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants”
“For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year” while it “amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants”.
We at least have temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel, we have no such protection with coal plants.
Yes this is true. And again: Me being against nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent. I think we have to get rid of both and aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
For me the most danger lies in storing high level radioactive waste on the surface where it’s prone to accidents and can easily contaminate air and ground water.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m no proponent of these massive structures with unimaginable impact on their environment either. Also Germany will probably never have a structure of this size in the foreseeable future. In order to produce enough energy during times when wind and solar energy is scarce, Germany wants to build 40 climate neutral hydrogen power plants until the 2030s in order to phase out coal power production. As far as I understand it we will therefore not need more batteries.
deleted by creator
I think the idea is to produce the green hydrogen by employing renewables during time of high production yields and using this produced hydrogen when the renewables don’t produce enough. This is what I gathered but I’m not 100% sure.
Okay? What you’re describing is a lesser problem. Even if we couldn’t fuel more modern reactors with it, which we can.
neat! didn’t think there was such a discrepancy. are these sievert numbers normalized for energy yield?
No, these are absolute numbers
France and Japan just fire more reactors with the waste. Been doing it since at least the 70s
https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/463624/france-radioactive-waste-nuclear-industry-by-type/
deleted by creator
This is an interesting documentary about the topic: Into eternity. The documentary has a depressing and ephemeral feeling, but I find it extremely amusing that we are taking steps to protect people that will live thousands of years from now.
Taking decisions like “nuclear or not nuclear”, “how to dispose the waste”, etc. is hard, but doing so ignoring the people that invest their whole life studying the topics is just dumb.
I do think we should protect coming generations from our nuclear waste and I do not think this is ridiculous at all. In the same way we should leave our children with a world with a livable climate we should not leave them with a heritage of tons of highly radioactive material stored on the surface because we have no long term storage facility.
deleted by creator
Sorry but I do not understand what you are trying to say there. Can you elaborate please?
deleted by creator
We currently have no real way to recycle spent fuel. Only a small percentage of nuclear waste can be recycled and it’s very expensive to do so, that’s why there are only two countries currently recycling fuel: France and Russia. Sellafield in the UK has been closed in the Fukushima aftermath. In France only 10% of nuclear fuel is recycled material using the purex process, which can also produce weapons-grade plutonium and therefore also raises different concerns.
https://www.goodenergycollective.org/policy/faq-recycling-nuclear-waste
deleted by creator
No but during nuclear waste recycling weapons-grade material can be produced, that’s why it’s a nuclear proliferation concern.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
Completely agree with you on the first part. My point is that:
I would like to add that I did not try to call you dumb, I’m sorry if that’s the way it ended up sounding like. The dumb part was directed to the people in charge of the decisions, not you.
Yes I agree. It is possible to build long term storage facilities and there is one operating in Finland for example. And the finnish people in the region actually welcomed the facility. But the situation is very much different in Germany. Whenever plans for a such a facility became public massive protests ensued and the projects became politically unfeasable.
Of course we should listen to the experts in the field, but even they had no success in convincing the populace of a possible site. I’m convinced that we need such a facility and that it should be a scientific emotionless process. But this is currently not possible in Germany. And as long as there is no such consensus and we don’t have such a facility, I think it’s irresponsible to produce more nuclear waste and leave it on the surface for the coming generations to take care of.
The German plan for the “Energiewende” (Energy Transition) is to phase out coal until 2038 and become 100% climate neutral by 2045. The current plan is to do that using a mix of renewables and hydrogen power plants which will substitute the current coal power plants.
https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html
Google translate: https://www-bmwk-de.translate.goog/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Why would you bury fuel that you’ve only harvested 1% of the energy from? If you’re not gonna build reprocessing facilities, sell it to France or Russia.
I don’t think exporting waste to different countries were only 10% of the fuel is recycled is a responsible way to manage nuclear waste.
Also there are nuclear proliferation concerns when reprocessing nuclear fuel. I for one would not want to supply Russia with possible raw materials for nuclear weapons.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
As for reprocessing, storage is in competition with newly mined fuel. As mining becomes more expensive or nuclear demand increases, there’s greater impetus to recycle more fuel. Conversely, if there’s fewer plants consuming the fuel or more mines opening, recycling projects die.
The more plants close, the less waste you’re gonna get reprocessed.
Russia already has 40,000 nukes, they’re not a proliferation risk.
That’s true.
In response to your mining argument:
“The known uranium resources represent a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up. There was very little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2005, so the significant increase in exploration effort that we are now seeing could readily double the known economic resources. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from price levels in 2007 could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time.”
So there’s enough cheap enough utanium to go around and no need for the industry to recycle spent fuel.
We currently do not know what to do with the waste from coal and other fossil fuel plants either though. At least nuclear waste is local and manageable. Dumping all the fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere is not working well, and is almost impossible to clean up.
This is true and that’s why Germany decided to phase out fossil fuel and nuclear power production. Fossil fuel based power plants will be phased out 2038 and Germany aims to be climate neutral by 2045 using a mix of renewables and green hydrogen power plants.
Putting it in the ground is a viable solution. And it doesn’t damage the environment for it to be in there and it’s not like it’s going to escape.
At some point in time will develop the technology to do something else with it but for now putting it in big concrete containers underground is a viable solution.
Yes, but there is no such facility in Germany.
There’s also no such facility in France yet they have nuclear power stations. You see we have these things called trucks that can move things from one country to another so we have one facility in Denmark which is perfectly suitable for everyone’s needs it’s geologically stable and in an old salt mine. You don’t want lots of distributed locations you want one convenient location.
This happens when you move CASTOR containers which carry spent nuclear fuel in Germany, that’s why it is most of the time stored next to the production sites. https://www.google.com/search?q=castor+transporte+deutschland+proteste&client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=cd5515df3b07dc25&sca_upv=1&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_xNWd1LWEAxUGgf0HHSk7DekQ_AUIBygC&biw=414&bih=790
Because Germans choose not to built it being ideologically driven imbeciles that they are.
So now you’re attacking a whole people, without offering arguments.
I’ve literally explained the argument in my comment. Germans CHOOSE NOT TO BUILD such facilities. The fact that you feel attacked when people state basic facts about your people is frankly hilarious.
Basic facts like all Germans are imbeciles? These are opinions, not facts.
Yes we chose not to build such facilities and that’s why we should not produce more nuclear waste. This is exactly my argument you failed to respond to.
It’s a fact that investing in coal while dismantling nuclear power infrastructure is not a sign of intelligent behavior.
IMHO this is not a fact but an opinion of yours. I for one think it’s not intelligent to produce more radioactive waste without having a facility to store it safely for a long time.
Being in opposition to nuclear power does not mean we are coal energy proponents. We should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.