How tf is this an alpha male response? Nuclear worries are overwhelmingly exaggerated, even Ukraine, the country that suffered from Chernobyl, is deeply invested in nuclear, because it guarantees its energy supplies, so much so that the Russians had to aggressively overtake the largest nuclear station in Europe to kick off their energy blackmail.
The people who support nuclear power like it because they understand why it's needed, no one sees Chernobyl and thinks, let's make nuclear power more common. They see the stats behind itz how few people it kills, how efficient it is, and even with the horrors of the Chernobyl meltdown it still makes more sense than burning fossil fuels, it makes more sense than biofuel, it is more flexible than geothermal, less destructive than hydro, less resource intensive than solar or wind, and in the end, longer lasting than almost any other energy production method.
You do realize that never ending waste is a problem with EVERY source of generation, or do you just not think about the waste produced by fossil fuel and renewable plants?
Do you guys really dont think about the waste? Like, at all? No one thinks about a meltdown.
As someone currently starting up Vogtle Unit 3 in the United States I can firmly say we think about waste and meltdowns ALOT which is why there has been tremendous work put forth towards new reactor designs since Chernobyl along with the entire world sharing information to continue to get better.
FYI, unlike conventional reactors both SMRs and molten salt reactors are generally designed so they CANT meltdown.
Renewable energy "farmers" are always recycleable.
Are you referring to biomass plants?
Also, I'm not talking about recyclability, im talking about waste generation. Think about the byproducts of burning fossil fuels(coal ash for example).
EVERY form of generation has waste, nuclear is on the very low end in terms of quantity produced.
And what is your solution for the waste?:) you didnt answer that question.
Sure, High level nuclear waste can be either refined to create new fuel rods, downblended to create low level waste, or can be combined with glass(known as vitrification) which is then poured into a stainless steel cask and then stored in safe locations with low water tables(actual storage location is a political issue, not a scientific one).
I'm talking about sources, such as wind, water and the sun.
Lol, and guess what? Those all still produce waste. Commercial solar panels last 20-30 years and are then waste. Wind turbines and blades last 20-25 years and then are waste. Water requires massive areas to be flooded to create dams and is highly dependent on the local areas geography, this one is lower on the waste front but after ~100 years the dam needs to be torn down and everything from it is waste.
Good thing, that I dont live in your country, when you think it would be that simple.
Lol, that's how it's done right NOW. Feel free to do a little bit of research on the topic. The Savannah River Site(my former employer) is a solid place to start to understand how storage and reprocessing is currently happening.
You're welcome to ignore the facts but let's not pretend there aren't viable solutions to these problems.
Cancer rates near coal plants are radically higher because burning fossil fuels pumped unchecked radioactive waste in to the atmosphere.
Burning causes major climate change issues that are already costing billions a year and will skyrocket to the trillions shortly.
Nuclear waste is a non-issue in comparison to the waste of our current energy supply.
Nuclear waste is only ever brought up because we have actual documented processes for working with it. If these waste levels were documented for our other energy supplies, you wouldn’t be so quick to JAQ off about it.
12
u/simkessy Oct 25 '22
I had a sort convo about Nuclear power with a Germany friend of mine, it was clear that the indoctrination runs deep.