If it was true that there is only a couple hundred kilos of waste per year from the nuclear industry, and that it was easy to store in "some concrete" I wouldn't be worried, so If you believe that, I can understand you. But please look here: www.nirs.org/radioactive-... - ThreadSky

kantelestani.bsky.social • 180 days ago

If it was true that there is only a couple hundred kilos of waste per year from the nuclear industry, and that it was easy to store in "some concrete" I wouldn't be worried, so If you believe that, I can understand you.
But please look here:
https://www.nirs.org/radioactive-waste/cis/

Comments

hk417a2.bsky.social•179 days ago

Also the article is entirely about the dangers of not shielding the spent fuel, and of relocating it to some central location. There is no need for this, it's not like the dry caskets take up the surrounding square kilometres around the reactors. It takes literally 1.2 m²x the number of fuel

kantelestani.bsky.social•179 days ago

Stop it! You hurt your throat!

hk417a2.bsky.social•179 days ago

2. assemblies per year. A gigawatt reactor uses about 7 per year so 8.4m². smaller than an average room in a house. In these caskets they can then sit for eternity, with no additional safety considerations.

kantelestani.bsky.social•169 days ago

I've seen lots of bovine manure on the internet but this takes the prize! Sorry to be impolite but my impression is that hk417a2 isn't even a person but some kind of a propaganda machine. This answer is not for hk417a2 but for others who may see its replies.

hk417a2.bsky.social•169 days ago

What part of what I wrote is wrong, in what way and what is the correct statement then? You always say that what I say is wrong, but don't provide any details.

kantelestani.bsky.social•179 days ago

Haha! Gotcha!

hk417a2.bsky.social•179 days ago

????

hk417a2.bsky.social•179 days ago

1. Obviously it's not a couple hundred kilos for the entirety of nuclear reactors, just as it isn't a couple hundred tons for all fossil fuel powerplants. But a 1 GW plant cycles about 7 fuel assemblies in and out per year, which, after a maximum of 10 years in the pool of the plant itself

hk417a2.bsky.social•179 days ago

2. Can go into dry casket storage, literally just some steel and concrete, where it sits in a little yards on site. I would agree, nuclear is not AS clean as real renewables, but in a comparison of A. Oil, Gas, Coal and B. Wind, Hydro, Solar it's emissions and pollution is closer to the latter.

hk417a2.bsky.social•179 days ago

3. And within that group, it is 1. The only one that's location agnostic 2. Doesn't change in output over time, along with hydro, which is preferable, but extremely limited in locations 3. Resilient to natural disasters (again along with hydro) 4. Most importantly; the biggest example of

hk417a2.bsky.social•179 days ago

4. anti-nuclear policy, Germany exchanged zero emission, nuclear reactors against a Lot of coal powerplants, using brown coal, the type with the most CO² of all the fossil fuels. The mining of this coal incidentally uses way more area than storing the spent fuel would have in decades.

kantelestani.bsky.social•169 days ago

To claim nuclear reactors are "Zero emission" is to tell a lie.

hk417a2.bsky.social•169 days ago

What aspect of a nuclear reactor's operation emits greenhouse gasses?

hk417a2.bsky.social•179 days ago

5. The US, while not directly comparable, because they didn't make any real effort to go green with their energy production, also slowed the building of new nuclear reactors in favour of more oil powerplants. Therefore, anti-nuclear, even if presented from a environmentalist background, is always

hk417a2.bsky.social•179 days ago

6. Pro-fossil fuel.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply