As a bit of a “young climate activist” myself (certainly more of a jaded, realistic one) , nuclear is still a bad idea. We don’t need a overabundance of electricity, we need more sustainable energy. The last thing we should be doing as environmentalists is giving governments and capitalists more resources to weaponize- ntm more opportunities to critically fuck up our planet. Yes, nuclear energy CAN be produced totally safely. However, from a logistics standpoint this depends on keeping a number of factors in check and one has to account for the materials involved. Storage of nuclear waste is already a problem on planet earth. The U.S has bunkers full of this sludge that will kill anyone who gets close- Not to mention how unethical industry practices are when it comes to mining on a world wide scale!
The U.S has bunkers full of this sludge that will kill anyone who gets close-
Damn, apparently being a climate activist doesn’t involve actually learning anything about what form nuclear waste takes and how the storage process works.
Is isn’t sludge, that’s reactionary nonsense.
The spent fuel pellets are encased in concrete and metal, and can be moved around via a traditional forklift and basic PPE.
The total volume of all nuclear waste ever produced by the entire globe is one of the smallest and easiest to manage compared to other forms, filling up less than a football field.
We’ve recently started working on alternatives to storing it in bunkers which includes putting it back into the ground where it came from originally, below the water line in the rock strata.
The total volume of all nuclear waste ever produced by the entire globe is one of the smallest and easiest to manage compared to other forms, filling up less than a football field.
I didn’t fact check all of you points, but this at least is utter nonsense. In Germany alone we currently have 130.000 m³ of nuclear waste that are stored in temporary storages. We haven’t found a permanent storage yet. 130.000 m³ is equivalent to a 360 m x 360 m square assuming it’s a meter in height. This is certainly more than a football field and this is Germany only.
We estimate that we have about 300.000 m³ nuclear waste until 2080 because of the ongoing deconstruction of old nuclear power plants… And still we have no idea how to store the waste savely and permanently.
Okay fair, it’s not sludge, concrete pellets. Everyone who isn’t perfectly informed is worse than you, we get it. Literally your best answer is “let’s bury it underground” like that’s some magical, non-caveman-brain solution that couldn’t go wrong in a billion other ways.
Well for starters that’s not “my idea” it’s the idea of the DoE, nuclear engineers, and physicists. All of whom are much better educated than I and definitely you, since you clearly can’t even be bothered to study the things you’re an “activist” about.
Secondly, you think Uranium grows on trees? We dug it up, from the ground.
I don’t care if you’re perfectly informed, but I expect someone who’s “for” or “against” anything to understand what they’re talking about. Sorry for the unrealistic standards.
Your concerns are valid, but there are only so many economically viable ways to produce energy and nuclear is plainly better than burning more fossil fuels despite the downsides.
Yes, we need to transition to 100% renewables(that dont take more energy in producing the equipment than its lifetime output) but until that comes to pass any option that isn’t actively killing us globally, eg, fossil fuels, should be on the table.
As a bit of a “young climate activist” myself (certainly more of a jaded, realistic one) , nuclear is still a bad idea. We don’t need a overabundance of electricity, we need more sustainable energy. The last thing we should be doing as environmentalists is giving governments and capitalists more resources to weaponize- ntm more opportunities to critically fuck up our planet. Yes, nuclear energy CAN be produced totally safely. However, from a logistics standpoint this depends on keeping a number of factors in check and one has to account for the materials involved. Storage of nuclear waste is already a problem on planet earth. The U.S has bunkers full of this sludge that will kill anyone who gets close- Not to mention how unethical industry practices are when it comes to mining on a world wide scale!
Damn, apparently being a climate activist doesn’t involve actually learning anything about what form nuclear waste takes and how the storage process works.
Is isn’t sludge, that’s reactionary nonsense.
The spent fuel pellets are encased in concrete and metal, and can be moved around via a traditional forklift and basic PPE.
The total volume of all nuclear waste ever produced by the entire globe is one of the smallest and easiest to manage compared to other forms, filling up less than a football field.
We’ve recently started working on alternatives to storing it in bunkers which includes putting it back into the ground where it came from originally, below the water line in the rock strata.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste_dumping_by_'Ndrangheta
They were probably mentioning the risk nuclear waste has, and they are not much wrong about it.
I didn’t fact check all of you points, but this at least is utter nonsense. In Germany alone we currently have 130.000 m³ of nuclear waste that are stored in temporary storages. We haven’t found a permanent storage yet. 130.000 m³ is equivalent to a 360 m x 360 m square assuming it’s a meter in height. This is certainly more than a football field and this is Germany only.
We estimate that we have about 300.000 m³ nuclear waste until 2080 because of the ongoing deconstruction of old nuclear power plants… And still we have no idea how to store the waste savely and permanently.
Source in German: https://www.bge.de/de/abfaelle/aktueller-bestand/
Okay fair, it’s not sludge, concrete pellets. Everyone who isn’t perfectly informed is worse than you, we get it. Literally your best answer is “let’s bury it underground” like that’s some magical, non-caveman-brain solution that couldn’t go wrong in a billion other ways.
Well for starters that’s not “my idea” it’s the idea of the DoE, nuclear engineers, and physicists. All of whom are much better educated than I and definitely you, since you clearly can’t even be bothered to study the things you’re an “activist” about.
Secondly, you think Uranium grows on trees? We dug it up, from the ground.
I don’t care if you’re perfectly informed, but I expect someone who’s “for” or “against” anything to understand what they’re talking about. Sorry for the unrealistic standards.
Good should not be the enemy of perfect.
Your concerns are valid, but there are only so many economically viable ways to produce energy and nuclear is plainly better than burning more fossil fuels despite the downsides.
Yes, we need to transition to 100% renewables(that dont take more energy in producing the equipment than its lifetime output) but until that comes to pass any option that isn’t actively killing us globally, eg, fossil fuels, should be on the table.
This is the only point that reads as true and coherent.