- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/50718425
You must log in or # to comment.
Not much CO2, just mountains of dangerous waste for future generations to take care of. Besides the mountain of debt of course.
Would you like to source that? ALL of the High Level nuclear Waste from the planet can be fit into a 21m cube
https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-all-the-nuclear-waste-in-the-world/
Medium level waste and low level waste can be deposited in normal surface landfills. LLW is normaly considered non radioactive in 50 years MLW 200. Fun fact there are entire cities that are more naturally radioactive than what we consider MLW. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6709356/
I’d like to make an edit here later on and specify the reason that we do not put it into a 21 m cube is because it would go super critical.
This is rather disengenous given I have seen actual waste storage and it takes up way more space. All of it is not shoved in a perfect cube. It tends to be containers withing container withing containers that all are in a facitlity.
JFC I made a pre-emptive edit an hour before you spawned and explained exactly why that is that we dont jam it all into a super cube. It would fit in that cube though. However we like our waste non supercritical so we chop that big cube into many thousand smaller cubes then tipple wrap them in glass concrete and steel.
Another great way to look at this is all gold ever mined could be put into a 22m cube, however it is spread through the planet in billions of individual pieces of jewelry, coins, computers, etc.
yeah maybe something with federation but I just see a part saying you are hoping to edit in future.
I think it failed to save tldr you can avoid criticality by using safe geomety, and distance.
Truckloads of dangerous waste (a few lorries’ worth a year per plant), which is only dangerous if you stand close to it in the next 10,000 years or so, something that can be mitigated by how one stores it. (Keeping it under water attenuates much of the radiation, for example.) Or, alternatively, it can be reprocessed to make more reactor fuel.
So it’s less than ideal, though one has to measure the quantity of waste and the risks against the certainty of health costs of fossil fuels (which are visible in cancer statistics even when everything is working perfectly).
mountains?
mountains of disinformation
People get very silly about nuclear, even aside from legitimate cons to nuclear vs *, and this causes them to exaggerate, misrepresent, and invent drawbacks.
Not much local(!) CO₂.
Since when is a group of stationary power plants called a “fleet”?
Almost any group of things is sometimes called a fleet.
But yeah, “nuclear fleet” almost always means something else.
Collective nouns be super random.
My guess is that each piece of generating equipment can be called into action like a ship at sea.
I wonder whether the CO₂ emissions generated during mining and processing, as well as during the delivery and removal of the fuel rods, and of course the construction of the power stations, are included in these figures.
Don’t forget the disposal of the nuclear waste.
deleted by creator
Well, I was a bit surprised by the carbon footprint of nuclear after I went and did some research on this. The emissions from nuclear fuel mining and preparation are about 34g CO2e/kWh.[1](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652613007981) So less than what the article estimates for Frances grid, but not by much. I wonder if they only estimate the fuel or if the building costs are not significant over the plants lifetime.
Maybe that’s because their power stations don’t work in the heat and Germany is providing them with electricity generated by renewables, I dunno.
If only i could re-coal why Germany has such a high carbon intensity for its electricity production…
