• Xavienth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s literally safer than wind

      • Xavienth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The above data include accidents. You are literally killing people by not going nuclear. Nuclear accidents are highly publicized but if (hypothetically) one person dies for every wind installation but they never make the news, it’s a death by a thousand cuts, and nuclear comes out ahead. That is hyperbolic but it’s emblematic of the situation, look at the fucking numbers. Nuclear is safer.

        • smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          It’s not a choice of either nuclear or coal power. We have to and we as a society decided to phase both of them out. Because of the concerns regarding nuclear energy production and the waste being produced, Germany opted for phasing out nuclear power production in 2023 and aims to phase out coal power production in 2038 in order to get climate neutral by 2045 by using renewables energy in conjunction with green hydrogen power plants, of which forty are planned to be build in the foreseeable future.

          Nuclear power production is not risk free, and there have been massive contamination of ground water in Germany in the old storage facility “Asse”. The situation in there is so horrific, that it has been decided to get all the nuclear waste out again and store it on the surface again.

          https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html

          Google translate: https://www-ndr-de.translate.goog/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

          I don’t think the effects of mistakes like these in handling nuclear waste are included in the before mentioned data. As are the possible horrific scenarios with high level nuclear waste stored on the surface.

          • Xavienth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            9 months ago

            “Massive contamination”, “horrific”, and yet the article points out most of the seepage is radiologically harmless. It is important to clear out the mine and it will be really expensive, I won’t deny that, but let’s not scaremonger and act like it’s Chernobyl 2. As well, let’s not pretend that new nuclear projects would suffer the same problems. A functioning country would see this mistake, regulate how waste can be stored, and that would be the end of it. As many other countries have done.

            Let’s be clear: nuclear waste is a solved issue. We know how to store it safely, we know how to reprocess fuel to make it safe within hundreds instead of thousands of years. Whether or not we do that is an entirely political question.

            Regarding the safety of surface level waste: https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU

            And what then is the alternative? Wind doesn’t always blow, the sun doesn’t always shine. Battery storage would be prohibitively expensive and the amount of lithium required to be mined to supply an entire country’s electricity storage needs would be horrendous for the environment. Hydroelectric storage is ecologically devastating to a scale the public is largely unaware of and geography-dependent.

            I am very skeptical about green hydrogen because it is far too politically easy to sweep the source of your hydrogen under the rug under bureaucratic obfuscation and the most economically viable method to produce hydrogen is to use fossil fuels and emit CO2 in the process, making it not really green.

            • smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              “Every day, 13,000 liters of water flow into the Asse II nuclear waste storage facility in Lower Saxony, which is in danger of collapsing”

              “There are quite a few quantities. If you just think about it: these 102 tons of uranium, 87 tons of thorium, then these 28 kilograms of plutonium. And then we have a mix of many different chemotoxic agents and pesticides. We have about 500 kilograms of arsenic. And plutonium is not only radioactive, it is deadly even at the size of a grain of dust. You shouldn’t even think about what would happen if this shaft were to flood, that would still be possible. And the mountain really pushes upwards due to its pressure. Into the groundwater. That’s a catastrophe.”

              “These are waters that have direct contact with the radioactive waste, they run through a storage chamber and there we obviously have different pollution than with this water, which we collect up here…”

              “We have pictures from the chamber where we see, among other things, a yellow metal barrel that was squeezed between a concrete barrel and a chamber wall, meaning it was completely destroyed by the rock mechanical pressure. And we have also seen damaged lost concrete shields.”

              Source: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/marodes-atommuelllager-die-wachsende-gefahr-von-asse-ii-100.html

              There is no long term storage site for high level nuclear waste in Germany. So the issue of nuclear waste is clearly not solved.

              Intermediate storage facilities for high level nuclear waste are a security concern:

              https://www.bund.net/themen/atomkraft/atommuell/zwischenlager/

              Google translation: https://www-bund-net.translate.goog/themen/atomkraft/atommuell/zwischenlager/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

              As stated before the idea is to employ renewable energy to produce green hydrogen for use in gas power plants. If you have no more coal power plants which is the target for 2038, you can not use it for hydrogen production. Germany wants to be self sufficient with regard to energy production, so we will have no other way to produce the hydrogen.

              You are right in being sceptical, but IMHO the strategy is viable and can be implemented. And producing zero nuclear waste and be climate neutral at the same time is something we will have to achieve in the near future.

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s an american vision. Let’s see what you’d say if half of your relatives were victims of the Chernobyl