• smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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’.”

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • evranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.