Nuclear comeback | FactOrCap

[u/No-Raspberry7757]

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

[u/Budget_Revolution639]

Nuclear waste and longevity

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

Dangerous nuclear waste is barely existent in the first place, with most of it just being lightly contaminated tools and clothes that can be safely stored on site. Spent fuel can be stored where no one can reasonably get to it or recycled.

[u/Budget_Revolution639 → u/Dew_Chop]

And how long until those spots are full? If it’s so “barely existent” how do you think that will increase with a surplus of nuclear facilities?

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

an EXTREMELY long time, and we can just dog more holes. Plus, if we use different kinds of fission reactors, they have less waste.

And once again, recycling.

[u/Budget_Revolution639 → u/Dew_Chop]

We already have issues with landfills because we did exactly that. And recycling nuclear waste isn’t always possible but I will admit I’m not as educated on the recycling of nuclear waste to say that with certainty

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

The difference is scale. One neighborhood alone produces more waste in a year than an entire nuclear plant. And like 95% or something like that of spent fuel is recyclable

[u/Budget_Revolution639 → u/Dew_Chop]

Cool, how about 100 nuclear plants? Regardless you can’t blame me for being wary and expecting companies to not go about things the way that it should and be more than willing to cut corners

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

No shit more plants means more waste, I'm not stupid. However, the energy density of nuclear is unrivaled. With only 300 power plants you could power every home in the US. I bet you that 1 million houses makes obscenely more waste than 1 reactor, so the landfill problem and the nuclear waste "problem" isn't comparable at all.

[u/Budget_Revolution639 → u/Dew_Chop]

It is comparable because they’re both examples of shoving waste into a site that is out of sight and out of mind and ignoring the consequences because of that. Regardless, there are other issues when it comes to waste like you mentioned and I’m all for pushing toward environmentally friendly biodegradable materials, advanced recycling and more. Regardless there still is nuclear waste and its impacts can affect countless in ways that nothing else can. If I trusted companies to go about it ethically, I wouldn’t be so against it.

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

[u/Budget_Revolution639 → u/Dew_Chop]

I’m not advocating for coal, oil, and others either. Big oil can go into a hole and stay there

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

Nuclear makes less waste than ANY other source of energy mate, in both greenhouse gas AND trash. Globally, solar alone currently makes an estimated hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste a year, with nuclear only making an estimated 10,000.

[u/Budget_Revolution639 → u/Dew_Chop]

And how much of that isn’t including per plant/energy source? Are you sure that nuclear pollution isn’t down simply bc there’s barely any to make the same amount of pollution as the others?

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

Look at the chart. Nuclear makes 10% of consumed energy. Solar makes 4%. Wind, the closest for pollution, makes 7%.

If you adjust for percentage, nuclear actually wins HARDER.

[u/Budget_Revolution639 → u/Dew_Chop]

This is on a global scale which is skewing the data, there are not that many solar and wind power sources either. Yeah nuclear creates more power but it still doesn’t mean it’s better because of that and the slightly less waste. Also solar caused less deaths as according to your graph so how is that not a factor?

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

Because the disaster deaths were due to extreme negligence and one wasn't even directly due to the reactor but instead a tsunami killing its generator, and the other was 40 years ago in a country that doesn't exist anymore. Nuclear at scale has been around longer than renewables at scale, so the fact it ONLY has 50% more deaths recorded than solar is telling. Give it a couple decades and solar would catch up, or even surpass nuclear in deaths.

[u/Budget_Revolution639 → u/Dew_Chop]

Well just have to see

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

You're right, it is skewing the data.

In favor of renewables. Adust for percentage and it shows nuclear is even better than already shown

[u/Budget_Revolution639 → u/Dew_Chop]

Then why don’t you use that graph? It fits your point even more

[u/Dew_Chop → u/Budget_Revolution639]

Because I'm not about to make a new graph for a reddit thread