Comment on TURKEY POWER

• Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Maybe because we still don’t have a solution for the waste which kills people generations after your death?

  source

  • A7thStone@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    We’ve had multiple solutions for a long time. Name me some people who have been killed by nuclear waste. Other than Chernobyl I bet you can’t. How does it feel repeating decades old fossil fuel propaganda?

    source

    • Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Hahah Tell me one spot on earth where we can put this stuff safely.

      All the ones named “safe” in the past weren’t so safe actually weren’t they?

      Also detecting radiation poisoning as cause of death is super hard, if you die from cancer, it could very well be radiation, but it will not get counted as such, except it is very well documented you got exposed (which it isn’t if its in the Drinkwater supplies as we fear it will happen in a few years here in Germany with the “Endlager asse” because the tons containing the waste are rusting.

      There is still no solution for waste which is litteratly a unseeable, unsmellable, untasteble killer, radiating for longer then fucking civilization exists. We CANT possibly plan good enough to manage those kinds of timescales, and we don’t have a plan by now AT ALL

      source

      • sartalon@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        He said nuclear waste. Most of those are accidents involving radiation exposure (Are you lobbying we stop radiation therapy too?), Russian subs, and Soviet era handling of nuclear sources.

        The rare incident of death cause by nuclear waste was an explosion at a testing facility in Japan that was apparently trying to research a new way to deal with nuclear waste.

        One death attributed to Fukushima is amazing to me. That was a catastrophic event. (The tsunami that caused the incident may have killed some that would have otherwise died from exposure, but without the tsunami, there wouldn’t have been an incident, so I don’t know how to argue that one.)

        A better argument is cost. It is EXPENSIVE to store nuclear waste. We are not allowed to just bury it and we can’t just shoot it into the sun… yet.

        I’ve seen all kinds of novel ideas for modern ways of dealing with nuclear waste but the current rules are tied up in so much bureaucracy, it would practically take an act of God for approval of any change. People fighting nuclear cause more problems than they help.

        Take the San Onofre plant in California. They replaced a system that was aging, then some time later, they shut down for routine maintenance and discovered that the replacement system was wearing out much faster than it should. So the plant said they would stay off until they found the problem and fixed it. At no time was the public in danger. But the anti nuclear whackos took their opportunity to pounce, took advantage of that famous California NIMBYism, and got the plant shut down permanently. Now electricity is provided by natural gas.

        That was a waste of fucking money. Plant was already producing electricity, and now there is more CO2 getting pumped into the air.

        I don’t trust the anti-nuclear power crowd anymore than I trust the oil industry. They both lie their asses off and don’t care about facts. One just has a lot more money than the other.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Can I get some references that compare nuclear waste vs coal, gas, solar, wind waste and emissions?

    source

    • Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      All the ones you mentioned except nuclear don’t create radiation waste at all…

      source

      • ultracritical@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Uranium is present in coal in high enough quantities that a coal plant releases more uranium to the environment then an equivalent nuke plant burns in its reactor, and mining for materials for solar panels creates literal mountains of thorium salts and other thorium contaminated debris.

        Nuclear plants have the unfortunate position that they actually have to manage their nuclear waste due to its concentration. It’s not actually hard to store the waste permanently from a technical perspective, it’s just difficult to have the political will to actually do it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Coal waste (fly ash) releases 100 times more radiation than shielded nuclear waste

        scientificamerican.com/…/coal-ash-is-more-radioac…

        I doubt solar wind and hydro create any radioactive waste though. Again though would like to see a comparison of their waste vs the shielded casks

        source

        • -> View More Comments