hk417a2.bsky.social
16 posts
31 followers
14 following
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
What aspect of a nuclear reactor's operation emits greenhouse gasses?
comment in response to
post
Still better than writing /s
comment in response to
post
Please explain it then
comment in response to
post
France also has more population than any US state, a continuous history of over 1200 years, the same power in the security council as the entire US and is, itself made of very culturally distinct regions, it very much IS fair to compare the US and France directly
comment in response to
post
????
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
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
comment in response to
post
6. Pro-fossil fuel.
comment in response to
post
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
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
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
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
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
comment in response to
post
I'd rather have a couple hundred kilos of waste per year, that can easily be stored in some concrete, than hundreds of tonnes of CO² in the atmosphere having an actual impact on peoples health
comment in response to
post
It really is clean and green, most CO² emissions are just from building the plant, and the actual nuclear waste i.e the used fuel rods can; A. be used again/ recycled or B. put in dry storage, with 1.2 m² per 200 GWhrs produced.