One major issue is long-term storage of the waste products. There’s research into speeding up the decay and make it safe to store anywhere. But as it stands, you need a place that can be safely assumed to be stable for thousands of years. Exiting nuclear energy in Germany was triggered by Fukushima but there have been decades of discussions and protests against nuclear waste because nobody wants it in their backyard.

How biased is this? Doesn't even mention fusion which if we threw some actual money at would be a great clean solution.

I'm still not fully convinced, as nuclear power plants do produce waste, just not the traditional greenhouse gasses, and it's incredibly dangerous waste that we still don't know what to do with aside from storing it indefinitely. The solution for nuclear waste is literally "Figure it out in 2100". Also the mining of uranium or plutonium is very dirty work, does produce harmful waste AND is an limited resource as is coal and oil. Third, maybe nobody died instantly from radiation exposure, but the number of radiation-induced cancers will increase over the next couple of years or decades in the exposed population. Just because radiation doesn't immediately kill you doesn't mean it's not a huge problem for your health. There's also a huge difference between radiation from general objects, as pointed out in #4, and radiation from nuclear disasters, as is the dose to which you can be exposed. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm no nuclear physicist, but the points mentioned here are too bluntly put in my opinion.

All of the nuclear waste, from all of the US plants, from all of years of service would be smaller than the slag from one coal plant in one year! And remember Uranium, before we mine it, is extremely toxic and dangerous.

That "more radiation from a banana" statement sounds like propaganda.

It's the radioactive waste that they always leave out of the equation. They still have never come up with a location for or a method for the safe disposal or storage of the waste For example, 10 years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 10,000 rem/hour – far greater than the fatal whole-body dose for humans of about 500 rem received all at once. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sofialottopersio/2021/11/04/no-one-died-from-radiation-at-fukushima-iaea-boss-statement-met-with-laughter-at-cop26/

Batwench

Batwench

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

Premium

Premium user. Get details.

The picture is showing cooling towers. They emit water vapour. That picture is not, as far as I can tell, (I have 1st hand experience of them) a nuclear power plant.

Clean? We don't have anywhere to put the nuclear waste it creates. And any engineer worth a damn wouldn't sleep on solar

i don't know all about it but i think disposal is a big deal

I agree with almost everything, except for one thing: Nuclear is *not* renewable. It is fueled by material mined from the ground, and there's only so much of it.

Nuclear energy will never be safe as long as the people in charge favour profit over safety. Technology may have changed since Chernobyl but people haven't.

My husband has been in the nuclear field for 35 years. Yes to all of the above!

Not sure how old this is, but the first one is a LIE, first one died in 2018, and I am sure more since: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45423575

What about the waste?

Reafing this while eating a banana and now i'm concerned.

The real problem is the waste. When they develop nuclear energy with no waste then will nuclear power be the solution.

The thing this person never mentions about wind, solar or wave energy (the real renewable energy sources) clearly shows his/her indication. Or Chernobyl. Or nuclear waste. Or how come nuclear plants' costs doubled and efficiency halved during the last 50 years. And please explain how you categorize nuclear as a renewable energy source?

All Energy's have their disadvantages and risks.

I would modify point 3, fission power is not the future, fusion power is

Chernobyl.

Here in California, hundreds of people die in fires from electricity equipment every single year. Thousands of people lose their homes every year. Entire towns have been eliminated by fire caused by faulty electrical lines and equipment. But it's a regular thing here and mismanagement of the problem keeps raising rates too. I'd be interested in seeing statistics of the total deaths from this vs nuclear power plants. Also how many people lose their houses too? No power source is without risk.

When Nuclear Engery stops producing hazardous waste that needs to be stored for 1000+ years, then you can convince me Nuclear is amazing. Until that time I am firmly on the side of alternative energy sources.

in addition to this, thorium-based nuclear reactors dont/cant "meltdown" - as they dont have the "spin down" issue that uranium -based reactors have.... however, nuclear has such a bad name, that it doesnt really matter unfortunately. One of the many articles on this - https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/?sh=62fc01cb1d80 Also, as many other people have correctly pointed out... if you have a less competent/corrupt government, safety requirements are less likely to be adhered too - and given the way the world is going in that regard... clearly a large issue.

I wish I could upvote this twice

Man, someone needs to tell Germany this. A country with zero nuclear accidents collectively freaks out over Fukushima, bans new reactors and starts dismantling operational ones, realizes they can't begin to replace the lost energy with renewables, and becomes reliant on coal and gas (from Russia no less). And electricity bills have gone up by at least 50% since then and will probably double from the time of the Fukushima meltdown soon.

Ever heard of Chernobyl?

Safest, cleanest, renewable energies... After water, solar, air (which obviously should be counted, not discarded cuz it doesn't suit your narrative). Your info is disingenuous at best

It's only clean as long as we don't count the waste it creates because we don't know how to treat it... so let's just bury it all and hope someone finds a solution. And soon.

A huge problem is radioactive waste. This problem could be solved in the near future, however. At the moment, reactors can use only a small percentage of the energy created by nuclear fission. New reactors could use up to 95%, which would mean almost no radioactive waste.