Clean? It might not emit CO2, but there is still the nuclear waste.
And no, there is no solution to deal with all of it. If you disagree, my country hasn’t decided in decades where to put it and would like to offer it to you. No one has offered to take it yet.
Nuclear waste in general is easily stored, which is not true of ANY fossil fuel. Fossil fuels vent emissions directly into the atmosphere to spread through the environment. Coal plants are the single largest source of mercury pollution on the planet, which is neurotoxic and never decays, but I bet you didn’t know that Coal even produces mercury at all, and that doesn’t even get into the uranium that Coal burning plants emit into the atmosphere either. A coal plant releases more radioactivity into the atmosphere daily than a nuclear plant does in it’s entire lifespan.
The vast majority of nuclear waste (95%) is low level waste that is inert within as little as a few months and requires little to no shielding. This is the stuff like clothing, tools, papers, gloves, etc. The intermediate level waste usually decays within a few decades and needs shielding, but isn’t a long term issue and easily can be stored on site at the plant and is part of the decommissioning plan made before the plant is even built.
The actual amount of high level nuclear waste (the stuff that needs to be transferred to the cooling ponds before even being moved to any sort of storage) is very small (<1-3%). ALL of the high level waste ever created by every nuclear plant in the world would fit inside a football field sized space.
The only reason it hasn’t been dealt with well is NIMBYs that actively refuse to learn and protest because what they know is propaganda or cartoons (The Simpsons for instance) with zero factual basis. And politicians paid by fossil fuels to kill legislation to build and operate the storage facilities, with funds usually sourced originally through government subsidies.
“Easily stored” did not really work out in Germany and costs the tax payers billions more. #Gorleben
Your linked video starts with one of largest straw man argumentations I have ever seen in my life… “You have been manipulated!!! You think that [weird shit that is not true at all]!!! You are wrong!!!”…
But I’m glad that you have a “solution”. Our country gladly gives away the nuclear waste to you for free. When can you come take it?
Considering 99% of people go by what they see on shows like The Simpsons, movies, and games, with things like glowing oozing barrels… It’s a really good bet the average viewer is wrong. Of course an extremely small minority will have more education about it, but given the responses here and in other threads across social media, that’s almost never the case.
I also find it strange that the person always compares nuclear with coal, as if it was a “x or y” thing… Were renewables not yet invented when he recorded the video? Am I missing something?
There are more disadvantages like the fact the fuel rods in Europe usually come from Russia, which is technically sanctioned for transforming Ukraine (ironically, that also includes the area of Zaporizhzhia around their nuclear power plant 🙃) into a war zone. But anyway…
IMO, we should build renewables that are cheaper and invest in battery storage. I wish, my country would have done that instead of China, because both technologies currently generate lots of money for them.
IMO, the main argument of the person in the video does not make sense. He tells that “It’s solved, but people don’t accept it”.
Really? There are 195 countries on this planet and you want to tell me that none of them was like “Oh, I could bury other people’s waste and let them pay me. Easy…”.
We have globalization, we have lots of capitalism, there are even dictatorships that don’t care what the population thinks. Why is there no country on earth that has offered to take the nuclear waste of mine for money and deal with it?
Nuclear waste is a non issue, just dumpt it in deep old mines, in seismically stable places and then fill them in, the problem is politicians scared after watching chernobil in hbo.
No, it’s NIMBYs protesting shit they don’t know. And fossil fuel bribes so politicians revoke funding for the multiple facilities that have been proposed or even partially built over the years, like Yucca Mountain.
All high level nuclear waste ever produced worldwide, from all reactors, would fit within a football field. It’s not physically hard to store. It’s just politically hard to get anything done because of propaganda and bribery.
It turns out that the region where this happened does not like that and sues and wins. We put it there and now have to put it somewhere else… Costs billions and guess who is gonna pay it… The same people who also pay in case of a disaster… The tax payers…
Furthermore, it just sounds like the climate change solution… Letting future generations deal with it…
Like we are putting it right were we found it a lot of times.
I’m not from the US, this is a worldwide problem.
But nuclear energy is such a good thing for the world, that letting it fade away from just the plain ignorance of people is Infuriating.
I had the opportunity to be at a (research) nuclear reactor not long ago, and is really an amazing technology lol, truly something that makes the world a better place.
Countries just should pass laws making NIMBYsm harder, and making information campaigns about how much the tech has gotten safer.
Sure, it’s a fascinating technology. I believe that. I only argued against the argument that is was “clean”.
I don’t know whether laws can change anything. We have a democracy here. When people go on the street and threaten to vote for others in the next election, laws don’t matter.
Safety is also a quite relative… When area around the nuclear power plant suddenly becomes a warzone, like in Ukraine, then it’s not that safe anymore for that country and those around it.
It is clean lol, an necessary for the energy transition.
Remember that thermoelectric power plants store their waste in your lungs, and dams have killed way more people.
I have even heard people claim that wind has more deaths due to construction at height risks, but i have not seen believable sources to corroborate that.
Clean? It might not emit CO2, but there is still the nuclear waste.
And no, there is no solution to deal with all of it. If you disagree, my country hasn’t decided in decades where to put it and would like to offer it to you. No one has offered to take it yet.
Yes there is, the fact you are trying to claim there isn’t proves you have done zero actual research on this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
Nuclear waste in general is easily stored, which is not true of ANY fossil fuel. Fossil fuels vent emissions directly into the atmosphere to spread through the environment. Coal plants are the single largest source of mercury pollution on the planet, which is neurotoxic and never decays, but I bet you didn’t know that Coal even produces mercury at all, and that doesn’t even get into the uranium that Coal burning plants emit into the atmosphere either. A coal plant releases more radioactivity into the atmosphere daily than a nuclear plant does in it’s entire lifespan.
The vast majority of nuclear waste (95%) is low level waste that is inert within as little as a few months and requires little to no shielding. This is the stuff like clothing, tools, papers, gloves, etc. The intermediate level waste usually decays within a few decades and needs shielding, but isn’t a long term issue and easily can be stored on site at the plant and is part of the decommissioning plan made before the plant is even built.
The actual amount of high level nuclear waste (the stuff that needs to be transferred to the cooling ponds before even being moved to any sort of storage) is very small (<1-3%). ALL of the high level waste ever created by every nuclear plant in the world would fit inside a football field sized space.
The only reason it hasn’t been dealt with well is NIMBYs that actively refuse to learn and protest because what they know is propaganda or cartoons (The Simpsons for instance) with zero factual basis. And politicians paid by fossil fuels to kill legislation to build and operate the storage facilities, with funds usually sourced originally through government subsidies.
“Easily stored” did not really work out in Germany and costs the tax payers billions more. #Gorleben
Your linked video starts with one of largest straw man argumentations I have ever seen in my life… “You have been manipulated!!! You think that [weird shit that is not true at all]!!! You are wrong!!!”…
But I’m glad that you have a “solution”. Our country gladly gives away the nuclear waste to you for free. When can you come take it?
Considering 99% of people go by what they see on shows like The Simpsons, movies, and games, with things like glowing oozing barrels… It’s a really good bet the average viewer is wrong. Of course an extremely small minority will have more education about it, but given the responses here and in other threads across social media, that’s almost never the case.
I also find it strange that the person always compares nuclear with coal, as if it was a “x or y” thing… Were renewables not yet invented when he recorded the video? Am I missing something?
There are more disadvantages like the fact the fuel rods in Europe usually come from Russia, which is technically sanctioned for transforming Ukraine (ironically, that also includes the area of Zaporizhzhia around their nuclear power plant 🙃) into a war zone. But anyway…
IMO, we should build renewables that are cheaper and invest in battery storage. I wish, my country would have done that instead of China, because both technologies currently generate lots of money for them.
IMO, the main argument of the person in the video does not make sense. He tells that “It’s solved, but people don’t accept it”.
Really? There are 195 countries on this planet and you want to tell me that none of them was like “Oh, I could bury other people’s waste and let them pay me. Easy…”.
We have globalization, we have lots of capitalism, there are even dictatorships that don’t care what the population thinks. Why is there no country on earth that has offered to take the nuclear waste of mine for money and deal with it?
Nuclear waste is a non issue, just dumpt it in deep old mines, in seismically stable places and then fill them in, the problem is politicians scared after watching chernobil in hbo.
No, it’s NIMBYs protesting shit they don’t know. And fossil fuel bribes so politicians revoke funding for the multiple facilities that have been proposed or even partially built over the years, like Yucca Mountain.
All high level nuclear waste ever produced worldwide, from all reactors, would fit within a football field. It’s not physically hard to store. It’s just politically hard to get anything done because of propaganda and bribery.
It turns out that the region where this happened does not like that and sues and wins. We put it there and now have to put it somewhere else… Costs billions and guess who is gonna pay it… The same people who also pay in case of a disaster… The tax payers…
Furthermore, it just sounds like the climate change solution… Letting future generations deal with it…
Like we are putting it right were we found it a lot of times.
I’m not from the US, this is a worldwide problem.
But nuclear energy is such a good thing for the world, that letting it fade away from just the plain ignorance of people is Infuriating.
I had the opportunity to be at a (research) nuclear reactor not long ago, and is really an amazing technology lol, truly something that makes the world a better place.
Countries just should pass laws making NIMBYsm harder, and making information campaigns about how much the tech has gotten safer.
Sure, it’s a fascinating technology. I believe that. I only argued against the argument that is was “clean”.
I don’t know whether laws can change anything. We have a democracy here. When people go on the street and threaten to vote for others in the next election, laws don’t matter.
Safety is also a quite relative… When area around the nuclear power plant suddenly becomes a warzone, like in Ukraine, then it’s not that safe anymore for that country and those around it.
It is clean lol, an necessary for the energy transition.
Remember that thermoelectric power plants store their waste in your lungs, and dams have killed way more people.
I have even heard people claim that wind has more deaths due to construction at height risks, but i have not seen believable sources to corroborate that.
I think, we need to agree to disagree on whether it is clean or not.
I wish, my country had invested in renewables and battery technology, because right now, that’s a money printing machine.
Fair enough, kinda what my country is investing into, but batteries are very polluting honestly.