Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal—and why it won’t go back - eviltoast
  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m not especially anti-nuclear power overall, but temporary storage sounds like a terrible idea. Transporting nuclear waste twice means twice the possibility of something catastrophic happening.

    • thbb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      You wildly overestimate the danger nuclear waste represents.

      First, transportation is done in small amounts at a time, completely encased in concrete and steel, and is of no risk of exploding: the only danger would be spillovers, which would call for expensive cleaning operations.

      Next, storage. The whole waste produced by 60 years of nuclear waste in France amounts to only a few swimming pools of dangerous material. If this material was actually fully useless, we could ditch it in geological layers underground where it would become soon unreachable and dispersed, posing no discernable danger for the upcoming few billion years.

      Furthermore, the only reason we don’t ditch this nuclear waste right now is that this material can still be useful for plenty of uses that are not yet economically viable, but could be in the long term, such as energy generation with low-yield reactors.

        • thbb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          Note that they present the issue only as a financial problem rather than an actual threat to the environment or people.

        • Forester@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Since your articles behind a paywall, I cannot read it. However, I can guarantee you as what you’re describing was in a barrel. It was low level waste. So likely a mixture of propellants or other chemicals that had been exposed to a reactor environment and then disposed of in a sealed barrel. High-Level nuclear waste is solid metallic-like substances that are encased in glass, steel and concrete. There’s nothing to explode.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Not paywalled for me, but here you go-

            The dump, officially known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, was designed to place waste from nuclear weapons production since World War II into ancient salt beds, which engineers say will collapse around the waste and permanently seal it. The equivalent of 277,000 drums of radioactive waste is headed to the dump, according to federal documents.

            • Forester@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              The information you provided was not sufficient so I googled

              The suspect drums contain nitrates and cellulose, which are thought to have reacted to cause the explosion in February

              It was low level waste mostly americanum dissolved into the mixture of nitrates and cellulose. The barrel did not explode as much as the lid popped off.

            • IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              WIPP is for low level transuranic waste from DOE projects, just FYI. Not super toxic stuff. They ship it in these super tough containers that they test by dropping on a spike and putting in a furnace. Wild to watch.

    • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Redd… err Lemmy believes in the doctrine of safe, clean, wasteless nuclear. Even if there was waste it is completely harmless, not a big deal, please look the other way. They can be no other God… I mean viable alternative for generating energy. Also, did you know this straw man … I mean coal spreads nuclear isotopes too?