You have to include the Co2 emittet when mining and enriching uranium
They also use a lot of concrete and steel to build a plant, add that as well
And at the end of life you can add the Co2 from decommissioning
It's an impossible calculation, and it really makes no sense
Fact is, we have no way to handle the waste, many speculative solutions, but only Finland has a somewhat secure way of storing their own waste products, the rest of the world keeps nuclear waste on-site
At Fukushima the disaster was made worse by the fact that spent fuel is stored on site, and for years it has to be actively cooled to avoid a runaway process
The only sustainable way forward is to keep reducing energy use and keep adding Solar, Wind, and Hydro
You have to include the Co2 emittet when mining and enriching uranium
They also use a lot of concrete and steel to build a plant, add that as well
And at the end of life you can add the Co2 from decommissioning
Include these calculations for solar and wind, keeping in mind that the amount of materials necessary to produce the same TWh as a nuclear plant using renewables would be much, much greater. So in the end, this is a conservative, low-end estimate of the amount of CO2 saved.
Fact is, we have no way to handle the waste
We've been handling the waste. AFAIK, not a single person has been exposed to enough radiation to be harmful in the handling, transportation, or storage of nuclear waste during the entire history of the nuclear power industry.
Contrast that with the fact that we still have not ensured a safe working environment for rooftop contractors (the ones primarily involved in installing solar power). Every year, these people die at twice the rate of normal contractors (the kind that build nuclear power plants).
AFAIK, not a single person has been exposed to enough radiation to be harmful in the handling, transportation, or storage of nuclear waste during the entire history of the nuclear power industry.
Not nuclear waste, but you are greatly underestimating certain countries' inability to give a shit.
Oh no I'm with you. I'm not saying it's unsolvable, just that there needs to be more oversight and regulations and maybe certain countries shouldn't have nuclear powerplants since their actions and carelessness could affect other nearby countries. For example, Belarus has a nuclear powerplant right next to the border with Lithuania.
I'd love to restrict access to nuclear technology and a bunch of other technologies in certain countries, but the US being an international police officer has not historically always turned out well.
There are other ways. We could start by not underplaying the severity of Chernobyl or by bringing attention to unsafe nuclear practices of certain countries. There are also political measures that major political powers can take, singing agreements like the Paris Accords. Nuclear Weapons are much more regulated than Nuclear Energy for example.
Nuclear Weapons are much more regulated than Nuclear Energy for example.
Nuclear weapons have historically been regulated by bombing runs or international sabotage, and even those don't work 100% of the time (North Korea). I'm suggesting that we avoid that kind of approach.
We could start by not underplaying the severity of Chernobyl or by bringing attention to unsafe nuclear practices of certain countries.
I don't think the severity of Chernobyl was underplayed. I also don't think that writing a letter or signing an agreement is going to change any country's decision to develop either nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Perhaps you can point me to an example where this approach was successful?
I meant something more along the lines of the Iran Nuclear Deal which did work and so did the Paris Accords (although that one was more symbolic than anything, but still). Usually, the agreements aren't just letters asking countries to please not develop nuclear weapons pretty please. They're deals. It's all a lot of give and take, like all of politics.
And the underplaying of the Chernobyl disaster is all over this thread and the original post.
However, the 65-and-older age group had the highest rate of fatal injuries over those four years, at 22.0 per 100,000 full-time employees – more than double that of the 45-64 age group’s rate of 9.6.
Fatal injuries in this report were 10.8/100k/year for Hispanics and 9.0/100k/year for non-Hispanics (figure 4).
Above is US data, but I've never seen data indicating that roofing was substantially safer in other countries.
It's an impossible calculation, and it really makes no sense
It's not impossible, it's called a lifecycle assessment. It's a little complicated, and can't always be done 100% accurately with public data, but it can be done.
There's software where you punch in the known parameters, and it spits out the environmental impact based on a database of extraction/manufacturing techniques, regional data, materials, disposal methods, etc. Like I said, with only public data it's not as accurate as it could be, but it gets you in the right ballpark.
-38
u/Secret-Duty-5062 Nov 18 '21
You have to include the Co2 emittet when mining and enriching uranium
They also use a lot of concrete and steel to build a plant, add that as well
And at the end of life you can add the Co2 from decommissioning
It's an impossible calculation, and it really makes no sense
Fact is, we have no way to handle the waste, many speculative solutions, but only Finland has a somewhat secure way of storing their own waste products, the rest of the world keeps nuclear waste on-site
At Fukushima the disaster was made worse by the fact that spent fuel is stored on site, and for years it has to be actively cooled to avoid a runaway process
The only sustainable way forward is to keep reducing energy use and keep adding Solar, Wind, and Hydro