I am interested in hearing your opinions about nuclear power, what you know, if you have any fears, or ideas? Do you know if your country has any nuclear power generation?

  • Kwdg@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    How is the waste not an issue? I have never heard the argument of it being stolen to be honest. Here in germany the problem with the waste is, that there is no good place to put it (though this is partly a political problem)

    • AskewLord@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      in the USA they won’t re-process fuel because of fears it will be stolen and turned into weapons. so we have 5x the waste volume than other countries where fuel is re-processed.

      also we won’t use breeder reactors because of this, which are more efficient and produce way less waste than normal reactors.

      yes, it’s all political problems. people are ignorant and angry and fearful and won’t let nuclear power problems be resolved because they don’t understand solutions exist and if you try to educate them they refuse to learn because they want to cling to their fears and emotions about it. a lot of political problems are like this. we have active solutions for many social problems, but people refuse to allow them to be implemented because of fear and delusional belief.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Only ~3% of nuclear waste is really dangerous, that’s the spent fuel rods. The majority of “nuclear waste” is stuff that was in proximity and contains intermediate to low levels of radioactivity. It’s obviously not great to injest or spend all your time around, but it can be safely stored almost anywhere as it’s mostly only emitting alpha and beta particles.

      So what about the dangerous stuff like fuel rods? Well, if you took all the dangerous waste nuclear power ever created and piled it in one place, it would cover a football field and be stacked 3 meters high. That sounds like a lot, but remember, that’s is ALL the dangerous waste nuclear power has EVER produced. Compare that to literally any other form of energy production, including solar and wind, and the footprint from nuclear is laughably, almost unimaginably, small.

      • amelia@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I think you have no clue how dangerous that waste is. There is literally no way to store it in a volume like you described because of all the heat it generates. If it gets distributed for some reason, it could contaminate the entire planet.

        Also, other nuclear waste is not not dangerous. You have to store it in a way that it doesn’t pollute water, for example. That is a much harder problem than you might think. Here is an interesting read for you:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

    • cattywampas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because the amount of waste we’ve created is really quite small. Per the US DoE:

      U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards (or meters).

      There are ways we can repurpose or reuse spent nuclear fuel. I don’t know a lot about this so I won’t get into it, but even if we chose to do nothing with it and just bury it, we know enough about geology that we could stick it into some bedrock that will be stable for the next 500 million years.

        • Addv4@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Just hollow out a mountain, like the US did with Yucca mountain, plenty of storage (if you’re politicians let it be used for its purpose) that is pretty easy to secure for centuries (and after that probably pretty easy as well). Assuming you close it up well when full, even future historians probably will have an idea that it’s dangerous by the level of difficulty to just get into it.

          Not trying to discount the issue, just point out that there generally are solutions to the issues around nuclear waste, just that politicians have mucked it up quite a bit in the past (especially in the US).

          • Kwdg@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            The idea in germany are old mines, we already have some “temporary” solution (an old saltmine) but there are some problems with it. Understandably there is a lot of nimbyism around the permanent storage, which makes finding a good spot a lot harder

          • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Just hollow out a mountain, like the US did with Yucca mountain

            Until Harry Reid does everything in his power to shut it down like an asshole

    • Aniki@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      eh, i’m 50% talking out of my ass here, but the waste is actually not a problem. if we wanted to, we could use it again to extract even more energy out of it … problem is that that’s currently not economical.

      “using it again” would require special reactor designs that can stimulate the material to do extra-decay. which causes the extra cost.