New technology could reduce radioactivity in nuclear waste by up to 80%
New technology could reduce radioactivity in nuclear waste by up to 80%/Nueva tecnología podría reducir la radiactividad de los desechos nucleares en hasta un 80% (@mauromar)
Nice try, nuclear lobby. We still dont want your dirty tech instead of 100% renewables.
It has the least amount of deaths of ANY energy source we have per amount of power generated. That is if we assume the maximum amount of deaths from the nuclear accidents etc., if we assume more reasonable numbers there is no debate at all. And that comes on top of the extremely low CO2 emissions.
I always wondered if it wasn't the Kremlin who pushed those anti nuclear agendas (I grew up in Sweden and eventually the "greens" wanted to dismantle nit only the nuclear power plants but also the army). They are never based in facts, only fear, and they helped Russia a lot with not only gas&oil exports but a lot of soft power coming with them.
/Thank you for coming to my conspiracy talk!
It is the opposite. Nuclear shills don't base their opinion on facts, they would rather hope for a miracle solution that is, when viewed rationally, complete nonsense. Apart from the extremely toxic waste for which we have not found geological structures stable enough to prevent it from leaking, building nuclear power plants is a really CO2-intensive process, especially with regard to all the concrete involved. The most pressing issue, however, is the fuel. What do you think nuclear reactors generate power with? Lots of air and goodwill? Entire regions have to be dug up for Uranium, of which useful isotopes then have to be enriched before they can be used economically in reactors. Furthermore, uranium is even less abundant in the Earth than oil and natural gas. If we would adopt nuclear power generation at large scale world-wide, we would deplete our scarce uranium probably in a few decades, long before oil. So we're just substituting one problem for another with nuclear energy. It isn't sustainable and renewable because at some point shortly after adoption, the fuel would run out.
If we would adopt nuclear power generation at large scale world-wide, we would deplete our scarce uranium probably in a few decades, long before oil
Tell me you don't understand the energy density of nuclear fuel without telling me...
We also have centuries worth of uranium if it's used for power generation, even if it was the main fuel.
Lol found the gas&oil shill!
What a trainwreck your post is, you're saying CO2 costs for building a nuclear plant outweighs the CO2 fossil fuels would generate for the same amount if energy created, it's like thinking you can bicycle to the moon.
Thats total and utter bs. The cost of nuclear is insanely high, especially for storing. On top comes the "not in my backyard" situation which makes the most vulnerable people be the ones most affected. We are seeing days on 100% renewables. Its not that hard to understand.
What is BS? I never said anything about monetary cost. CO2 will cost SO absurdly much more than anything nuclear combined, I find it hard to care about it.
Pushing nuclear is bs. The nuclear lobby wants to make it look like there is only coal or nuclear. Reality is renewables are the only solution. Dont believe shit like this.
You’re saying nuclear power is responsible for less deaths and sicknesses than for example… wind?
Yes. Wind turbines maintenance is a dangerous job that sometimes results in injury or death. Nuclear power is safer, per kWh.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
It’s not, a person has already provided a study proving you wrong.
Edit: You’ve changed your comment completely with that edit.
I provided a source, you said "it's not". Forgive me if I ignore your comment unless you also provide a source.
You said "it’s much safer" in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.
The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.
It's 25% safer, which is closer to "much" safer than "marginally" safer in my mind, but yes I decided it's better to let the data speak for itself and avoid such subjective qualifiers.
It is more expensive, which is why I prefer wind and solar to nuclear, but we were talking about safety specifically, not which tech is "better overall".
How many cubic feet of nuclear waste do you think there is? I'm curious. Cause currently, all of the waste America has EVER created, would fill 1 football field about 30 feet high.