> most long lasting

...which also applies to nuclear waste unfortunately, and that answers part of your question - e.g. as irrational as it may be, but at least in Germany nobody wants to have a nuclear waste storage in their backyard (the other part of the answer is Chornobyl - and for the same 'not in my backyard' reason).

Also when looking at recent years, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have a few large nuclear power stations in the middle of Europe, see the 'hostage situation' around the Zaporizhzhia NPP.

▲

m101 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

When I referenced long lasting I mean that some nuclear power stations are no forecast to keep going for 120 years.

CO2 in the atmosphere is also long lasting, do you have a problem with that type of storage?

Spent nuclear fuel is dangerous to stand near for 500 years (without centimetres of concrete), and then dangerous to consume for an further many thousand. It is within our technology to look after the quantities we are talking about indefinitely.

Also, with current plants we could reduce the size of the waste by 30x if we recycled it. Other plant types would burn all the fuel and leave us with very low volumes of radioactive elements.

Wrt Ukraine you choose to focus on the potential for release around Zaporozhzhia Vs the actual destruction occuring from the circumstances of war in the rest of the country?

▲

oneshtein 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> CO2 in the atmosphere is also long lasting, do you have a problem with that type of storage?

Yes, we have problem with CO2. The solution is to use Solar + Wind + Hydro + Batteries + long lasting storage. Nuclear causes more problems than it solves unless it used to make nukes also.

▲

flohofwoe 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

See that's the thing, you're trying to argue rationally ;)

But the discussion around nuclear energy stopped being rational decades ago. On one side you have the old guard of the environmentalist movement which got started with anti-nuclear protests in the first place and then had their "I told you so" moment in 1986, and on the other side you have that new "nuclear grassroots movement" which tells me that nuclear power is akshually completely safe, and even if an incident happens it's not doing any harm and btw those Chornobyl death numbers are completely overblown, the radiation was actually good for the environment or whatever.

Then I'm seeing that the latest European NPP in Finland was about 15 years late and 3x more expensive than planned (from 3.5 to 11 billion Eu) while wind and solar farms are just popping up everywhere around me without much fanfare, built by whoever has some money and a bit of unused farmland or roof space to spare. And I really can't imagine those same people pooling their money and starting to build nuclear power plants instead ;)

▲

Aachen 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> and on the other side you have that new "nuclear grassroots movement" which tells me that nuclear power is akshually completely safe, and even if an incident happens it's not doing any harm and btw those Chornobyl death numbers are completely overblown

You're making it sound like anyone who's not against nuclear, thinks Chernobyl is overblown

I've never heard that sentiment anywhere. (I'm sure you can find examples when looking for it; after all, there's also people who believe vaccines cause bill gates mind control.) Why the strawman argument?

	▲	Krasnol 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It is actually a very common trope. The "grassroots"-Jesus, Michael Shellenberger, who dominates the arguments being spread by this movement, doesn't get tired to repeat it. He even had to comment on the TV Show Chernobyl: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11... https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06... There are many more. Just google Shellenbeger and Chernobyl.

▲

pjmlp 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Great overview! :)

▲

Paradigma11 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If we already have to take care of a hole in some mountain for the next few hundred years, why not put 100 times the waste in it?

Nobody would notice the difference.

	▲	pfdietz 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Storage capacity of high level nuclear waste repositories is limited by heat buildup. I think people would notice when radioactive volcanoes start erupting.
	▲	pjmlp 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think Hollywood will remember of something.

▲

dvtkrlbs 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The annoying thing is recycling nuclear waste is kind of a solved problem. I've watched this video a while ago but iirc it is just more expensive to build a reactor that can also recycle its own waste. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc

	▲	natmaka 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		After decades of R&D and numerous lab and prototypes reactors able to do so (mainly fast breeders)... there is not a single industrial model ready to be deployed.

▲

Aachen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> at least in Germany nobody wants to have a nuclear waste storage in their backyard

Hello, I live in Germany. You can use my backyard free of charge so long as I get a free Geiger counter, thank you!

I'd genuinely be honored to play such an important role in decarbonising Germany's energy supply. Watching the carbon intensity per kWh on electricitymap.com as we creep towards winter is frankly depressing. (I didn't know this site yet last year, so this is the first time I see the dynamics in action.) The coal plant also never turns off, even during negative prices. I presume it takes too long to fire back up and so there's always >100 grams CO2e for every little kWh that 82 million Germans use. The wind turbines / solar panels need to turn off to make space on the grid for the coal plant when there's oversupply. That's what the Germans were made to vote for in fear when electing to shut their nuclear plants earlier than coal. It's like banning airplanes and having everyone drive cars instead due to a national fear of flying, not having considered the safety records of each method. It's so crazy to me as a Dutch immigrant who's new to these people's politics. Anyway, back to storage

I don't see the problem with inert waste under the ground and a good detection system, at least for a few centuries. There's challenges in how to explain the danger to a generation that doesn't speak any of our languages anymore (in 500 years, someone's gonna need to replace the sign), or who lost any translators we've built (imagining some apocalypse, say in 5000 years), but there's research on that as well and it's not an argument why we couldn't find a good storage site for the next century while we deal with this energy transition

> the other part of the answer is Chornobyl - and for the same 'not in my backyard' reason

And yet there are nuclear plants all over Europe! People who mind can already choose not to live near them. Expand capacity at those sites and let's go